Which Of The Following Is A Justifiable Moral 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).

According to Shafer-Landau, act utilitarianism holds “that an action is morally required just because it does more to improve overall well-being than any other action you could have done in the circumstances” (122). Doing anything that does not provide well-being is not inherently moral, thus utilitarianism requires one to act with well-being in mind at all times. Furthermore, one has to be impartial, meaning no bias can be involved regarding the group of people one affects. Some find this to be a desirable aspect of utilitarianism, while others use this as a premise to object utilitarianism.

Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism are the two different forms of utilitarianism that Shaw and Barry distinguish. Utilitarianism refers to the greatest happiness principle for the most amounts of people. 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. If its consequences bring more net good than those of any alternative course of action, then this action is the right one and the one we should perform” (Shaw and Barry, pg.60). I look at this

Let’s start by gaining an understanding of what utilitarianism means. The definition given to us earlier in our textbook, Exploring Ethics, in the article, Strengths and Weaknesses of Utilitarianism, it defines act utilities as an act that, “is right if and only if it results in as much good as any available alternative”. This goes back to the tedious task of trying to analyze countless number of alternatives and figure out which one brings about the most

Utilitarianism is the most appropriate use in everyday life. Actions done by an individual are done with the well being of all involved. Even if the act is considered immoral the act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism justifies certain actions as morally right. It ultimately focuses on the maximization of everyone’s

Pojman provides many reasons as to why rule-utilitarianism is better than act-utilitarianism and in this chapter, while there are criticisms against both act and rule utilitarianism, he defends rule utilitarianism. According to Pojman, unlike act-utilitarianism, rule-utilitarianism satisfies the purposes of ethics, gives a clear decision procedure for moral conduct, focuses on helping people in reducing suffering in the world and offers a solution to the problem of posterity. In all of the examples that Pojman provides, act-utilitarianism makes a quick decision without thinking about any rules, just about the greatest result, while rule-utilitarianism makes a thoughtful

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

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

Act utilitarianism says that an action is considered morally right when its outcome is the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. It directly produces the greatest overall good. While rule utilitarianism describes how the action which is considered morally right is the one which is covered by a rule. This rule should result in a “favorable balance of good over evil, everyone considered.” Rule utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of generally following a rule, while act utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of individual actions. “Act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism do not use the same methods to make moral evalutations.”

Act utilitarianism, on the other hand, judges each action individually and decides on its rightness by the resulting consequences. This approach can give situational leniency when needed as long as the action brings about the optimal results. As opposed to a rule utilitarian, an act utilitarian would say that lying is the right thing to do if it brings the best total outcome for those

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

For example, there is a hunter who wonders if it is morally acceptable to kill a deer. Act Utilitarianism analyzes the effects of this one action to decide if it is moral by assigning a value to the amount of pleasure and pain each individual involved will experience. In this case the hunter and his family will experience the pleasure of having food from eating the deer, many of the neighbors of the hunter will experience pleasure by having the deer off their property, and the deer’s family will experience the pain of the loss of a family member. If the outcome is that the net value of pleasure is greater than the pain caused by the killing of the deer, it is morally right for the hunter to kill it.

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.

Utilitarianism is also divided into two sub-categories called Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism. While these both agree with the core principle of Utilitarianism, they differ in their ideas of the utility of individual actions. Act Utilitarian theorists agree that every action we do should create the greatest utility, and the principle of utility should be used depending on individual cases. Rule Utilitarian theorists focus on the possibility of moral rules, and using these rules to judge the morality of actions.