Rule Utilitarianism

Rule utilitarianism creates rules that would lead to the general overall happiness of individuals involved and an act is said to be moral when it conforms to those rule. This would mean that an act can be moral in accordance with rule utilitarianism even if the action does not bring about overall happiness, but just because it conformed to a rule that, if the circumstances were different, would have brought about overall happiness.

Two different forms of utilitarianism are described in our text. The first is called act utilitarianism. According to Shaw and Barry, act utilitarianism states that we must ask ourselves what the consequences of a particular act in a particular situation will be for all those affected (p.60).

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.

1. Shaw and Barry distinguish two different forms of utilitarianism. What are these two forms. Briefly describe each and use examples.

In order to determine how different, the act and rule utilitarianism are, I will analyze it by applying them in the following scenario. Let’s imagine, you are a doctor in an oncology ward in a major city that is strapped for financial and material resources. One evening, two patients are admitted to the hospital. One patient is suffering from a seemingly incurable form of

Inevitably, the opposing side to this argument (deontologists) refute this way of thinking by arguing that it could very easily lead us to “repugnant conclusions;” which in theory could be used to justify almost any action if the consequences of the situation worked out just right. This idea could be applied effectively to both act utilitarianism (an act is right if it results in as much good as any available alternative) and rule utilitarianism (an act is right if it is required by a rule that is itself a member of a set of

Rule utilitarians look at classes of actions, such as lying, giving to charity, and murder, in a two step process. First, a majority of people must accept the action as morally correct. Then, morality can be determined by the results of the action. For example, if a majority of people were to accept murder as good, many people would be hurt. Therefore, murder is morally wrong. Unlike Kantian ethics, where intent is important and consequences are irrelevant, rule utilitarianism solely analyzes the results of a class of actions, regardless of the intent behind them.

1A. The first false statement states “Rule-utilitarianism is just about following the rules that are in place. If society has a rule against doing something, then a rule-utilitarian will always agree that you should not do that.” I find this to be false because rule utilitarianism is not just about following the rules or about simply looking at the consequences. Utilitarianism itself is about doing the morally right action, this should be the action which produces the most positive balance of goodwill over corruption, while keeping everyone in mind. Rule utilitarianism is about determining whether or not an action is right based on whether or not it is related to a rule which results in the greatest good. Speaking generally, a rule in

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.

     Furthermore, an act-utilitarian may still make great use of moral rules to help make right actions. It may be that moral rules provide a generally reliable guideline for how to act without determining that it is always the right way to act and that they indicate completely wrong action in some cases. This is supported by a passage from the text.

First, looking from a rule utilitarian point, the question must be asked what does a rule utilitarian consider ethical and what might they consider unethical? The best way to define what a rule utilitarian might think is ethical would be “obey those laws, rules, and principles that tend to cause the most happiness.” Although this is the way a rule utilitarian would think, what really matters in the end is if it did or did not end up causing the most happiness, so the thinking may be ethical, but if in the end more people are unhappy when the law tends to make more people happy, people are still unhappy in the end so the choice was unethical. Whatever in the end causes the most happiness is the most ethical thing to do according to a rule utilitarian.

The utilitarian faces many problems because he loses any ability to live a personal life. By this is meant that in making decisions the utilitarian must consider the steps which lead to the highest level of goodness in society. The utilitarian reaches for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Two main aspects dominate the light of utilitarian beliefs. The consequentialist principle explains that in determining the rightness or wrongness of an act one must examine the results that will follow. The utility principle is that you can only deem something to be good if it in itself will bring upon a specific desired state, such as happiness or fulfillment. There are two types of utilitarians: Act utilitarians and Rule

A utilitarian wants the greatest good as possible to effect to the largest number. There are also two specific types of utilitarianism, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. An act utilitarian would say a lie is morally good as long as the consequences from that lie are better for the majority of people than if the truth is told. A rule utilitarian would always say that telling a lie is morally wrong because they abide by the rule that telling lies do not lead to the greatest good. The biggest difference between act and rule utilitarianism is that an act utilitarian allows exceptions to rules as long as they lead to what they believe the greatest good is, while a rule utilitarian never allows exceptions because the rules are in place to lead to a greater good.

I agree with the main components of Rule Utilitarianism. I find it natural for it to be plausible, and it is well designed to that very fact. I also find favor with the element of fairness, that a decision is for the benefit of a group rather than partial to only the individual himself. The system of itself is very clear, you greatest quality of happiness, or pleasure. It also isn’t as arbitrary as Act Utilitarianism, but still allows for modifications and adaptations.

Before I discuss the theory of utilitarianism, it is imperative to explain and understand what it is. Utilitarianism is a moral theory, or a doctrine explaining why certain actions are right or wrong. It is the idea that moral