Rule Utilitarianism : A More Refined Version Of Act Utilitarianism Essay

Immanuel Kant was a renowned philosopher known for his theories and his deontological way of thinking. Deontology was also known as kantianism

Utilitarianism: “The idea that an action is right, as long as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct (Oxford Dictionaries).” This theory was thought up as far back as the 17th century, but didn’t become well known until late into the 18th century when Jeremy Bentham a legal and social reformer gave a powerful presentation of the idea. “Create all the happiness you are able to create; remove all the misery you are able to remove. Every day will allow you, will invite you to add something to the pleasure of others, or to diminish something of their pains (Jeremey Bentham).” Deontology: “An ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether

In today 's society, we face many obstacles in our attempt to achieve the feeling of happiness. As intelligent beings, we try to solve these problems by taking the path that best benefits us. The theory of utilitarianism provides a solution to this but at what cost? What are the benefits and disadvantages of utilitarianism? Is utilitarianism an idea one should live by? What is utilitarianism? I plan on answering these questions within this paper and understand how they relate to everyday life. I will also look at arguments for and against utilitarianism. Then analyze the appealing and unappealing features to determine if utilitarianism should be followed as an absolute rule.

In this paper I will explain how Act Utilitarianism, pure Rule Utilitarianism, and pseudo-Rule Utilitarianism would differ in their reasoning regarding the case of Al and Betty. With each method of reasoning, I evaluate the situation without background or moral assumptions of each character, and then separately with the assumption that while Al was away Betty became chronically ill and has one day left to live.

There are several theories that try to explain the morality of the actions; however, two stand out. the first is deontology, and the other one is utilitarianism. The former follow the idea that the consequences of you action hold no importance in what we ought to do. But rather, some actions are morally wrong or good by itself. The latter follows an opposite view in which the consequences of an action are what it makes an action moral. Specially, if that action produce the greatest happiness over unhappiness. In this essay I will focus on two Utilitarianism ramifications, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. They both agree that consequences must be the greatest factor in deciding what we ought to do. Nonetheless they have one big difference. Rule Utilitarianism generalize acts and recreate the consequences of a rule. If the consequences are ultimately favoring, then it is morally right. By way of contrast, Act Utilitarianism evaluate each action individually, and similar situation would have different outcomes depending on the situation. There is no universal rule unlike rule utilitarianism.

Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same

There are two main forms of this theory; rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism judges the rightness of an action by following a set of rules. These rules are set so that they provide the best possible outcome for everyone. For example, a rule utilitarian would say it’s always wrong to lie because, in general, telling the truth brings about the optimal consequences. A utilitarian applies these rules universally and without exception.

Opponents of Act Utilitarianism attempt to argue that Act Utilitarianism (henceforth AU) does not account for justice when applied to ethical dilemmas. It is the authors opinion that these claims are factually incorrect and this essay shall attempt to prove this through analysis of common arguments against AU, and modifying AU to allow for justice to be more readily accounted for.

In the passage about why act utilitarianism is better than rule based moralities, the author claims that act utilitarianism is better than following strict rule based moralities because sometimes people are put into situations where they have to disobey rules in order to prevent a bad result from happening. Earlier in the article, the author stated that act utilitarians focus on the effects that are produced from an individual’s action. Furthermore, act utilitarians believe that if absolute rules produce negative effects then people shouldn’t follow those rules. They believe rightness or wrongness shouldn’t be strictly based on absolute rules. Instead, it should be based on the effects that are produced. I agree with the utilitarians on this

My friend came to me asking for help with his computer code. He works for a competing company against my company. My employer has given me a coding project that is the same as my friends coding project for his company. When helping him edit his code, I realize that his code is much better than the code I have already written. When presented with this predicament, I decide to use a rule utilitarianism viewpoint.

Using Rule Utilitarianism, it applies the Principle of Utility to moral rules. To analysis Linda situation we have to come with an appropriate moral rule. Linda has two alternatives either hire Mary or don’t hire Mary. If she hires Mary, then a moral rule could be “If I can hire someone who knows the current Medicare regulations, has the skills and knowledge I need, and can fill the vacant position, then I should do so”. This will benefit the workers who have to pitch in and cover the workload. Linda can have someone that has the qualifications she needs and doesn’t need to look for more people. The harm that this rule will cause is that Peter might end up leaving because he rarely speaks and Mary wants a lot of social involvement. Linda doesn’t

Rule utilitarianism principle in a general sense states that certain actions that decrease the utility of the society as a whole can be deemed unethical. In the case where a company actively markets and sells spyware to government agencies and those spyware application are used by such agencies to catch and deter criminals and terrorist; the company’s actions in such a scenario can therefore be deemed ethical within the bounds of rule utilitarianism principle as their actions are helping deter criminal and terrorist acts. When criminals and terrorists intent to harm the society through means of violence their actions are unethical and thus bring harm the natural rights innocent civilians. Their act of violence therefore has a negative impact

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that has long been the subject of philosophical debate. This theory, when practiced, appears to set a very basic guideline to follow when one is faced with a moral dilemma. Fundamental Utilitarianism states that when a moral dilemma arises, one should take action that causes favorable results or reduces less favorable results. If these less favorable results, or pain, occur from this action, it can be justified if it is produced to prevent more pain or produce happiness. Stating the Utilitarian view can summarize these basic principles: "the greatest good for the greatest number". Utilitarians are to believe that if they follow this philosophy, that no matter what action they take, it

To a rule Utilitarian the right thing to do is to obey those laws or rules which maximizes happiness overall. For a rule utilitarian they would critique the decision that was put into place by Dan Pirce. Since Dan raised all his employees salaries to a minimum of $70,000, the rule utilitarian would think this was the right decision. They would say this because it benefits everybody at the company, family members of the employees, stock holders, and the customers. Since Dan decided to put his employees first and give them a raise, it will then in return benefit the customers of Gravity Payments. The employees are happier with there jobs so they will be more proficient, get more sales and, server their customers to the best of their abilities.

Numerous moral theories have surfaced in the past years. They have been widely debated by philosophers and social reformers. It is important to understand what these theories are because of their influential tendencies in the way people act, especially in making morally right or wrong decisions. Utilitarianism is one of these many moral theories. Upon further analysis, problems with utilitarian thoughts are revealed. It has been widely debated by many philosophers, including G.E. Moore and Immanuel Kant. Like these two philosophers, I argue that utilitarianism is inadequate because of its contradictory nature as a moral theory. It highlights the principle of utility in seeking the greatest pleasure, allowing egotistic and hedonistic actions to be considered moral.