Question 4: What is the difference between act and rule utilitarianism? Is either preferable to the other?
Utilitarianism has been defined by many philosophers in two forms, including act and rule utilitarianism. These philosophers, like Brad Hooker and Richard Brandt, define rule utilitarianism as a form of utilitarianism in which a rule’s correctness gets defined by the good it brings when it gets followed by the people subject to it. Rule utilitarianism presents the argument that an action’s rightness or wrongness gets determined by the rule that has been out in place to govern certain behavior. Act utilitarianism, on the other hand, gets defined by act utilitarians who judge an action in terms of the consequences that arise from that particular act (Abumere, 2019). Act utilitarians do not judge an act in accordance with the rules stipulated about a particular action. They focus on the consequences of the action. Act utilitarianism establishes that the act of a person gets considered to be morally right if it results in at least as much happiness as any other action that could be performed by the individual at that time. This paper provides the differences between the two forms of utilitarianism and determines which is preferable to the other.
Differences
Rule utilitarianists take time to think about the consequences that could arise from a particular act by considering the rule that has been put in place about the consequences of particular actions. If the consequences, like the punishment of a particular act, is negative, a rule utilitarianist can consider not carrying out the particular action. When the outcome of a particular act as set out in the rules is positive, then he carries out the action knowing there are no negative consequences (Mandal et al., 2016). On the other hand, an act utilitarian considers an action with the consequence at that particular time and ignores any rules regarding the action and the consequences in the future.
Rule utilitarianism gets considered to be more practicable and counters the rule that entails weighing every possible outcome that may arise from a particular action. The rule utilitarian counters the argument that considers that they cannot do things just the way they want to do them as there is a rule they have to abide by, and going against the rule comes with serious consequences. Act utilitarians argue that they can be able to make decisions regarding what to do in particular situations without having to apply rule every time. Thus, they criticize rule utilitarians on the basis that they blindly follow the rules to situations that may amount to negative consequences in situations that cannot be foreseen as they could possibly be averted by someone that paid more attention to the situation. Act utilitarians also get criticized for giving themselves the right to make decisions in situations regarding whether or not to follow the rules that have been put in place to guide certain acts.
Rule utilitarianism considers the individual actions and the consequences they have for every member of the society rather than the people that are directly affected by the particular act. It argues that once the action gets committed by one individual within a small group of people, the consequences affect the entire society within which the individual that committed the act belongs to. Therefore, rather than letting people decide on their own regarding what is right and what is wrong, rule utilitarianism provides a set of rules that are common to everyone so that they all know what is right for society as a whole. Rule utilitarianism provides rules that explicitly state that they must be followed by the people in that particular society. Act utilitarianism, on the other hand, does not stop people from following the rules set, but it does not provide that they must follow the rules. It gives people the freedom to categorize certain acts as good actions that rule utilitarianism categorizes as actions that are bad. The difference gets brought out in the fact that while some actions get considered by rule utilitarianists as bad, the act utilitarianists consider them as good on the basis of the happiness amount they bring. The acts get justified by the fact that they ensure that happiness has been maximized. Act utilitarianism entails action justified if they bring happiness to other people.
The two forms of utilitarianism have their own individual problems, as highlighted by the critics on each side. Act utilitarianism fails to accommodate the problems that get experienced in real life with the inconvenient elements of time-consuming, which makes then make decisions regarding certain actions at that specific time. Act utilitarians justify the disobedience of moral rules that are important and the violation of the rights of individuals. When referring to lower and higher levels of pleasures, rule utilitarianism turns into the worship of the rules that have been put in place when they refuse to go against them even if it is for the good of the people in a particular situation. Act utilitarianists argue that if the consequences of particular acts demand that a rule should be violated for the sake of goodness, then it should be violated. Act utilitarians argue that they can also consider the consequences to the entire society when they try to establish the total good in their actions. In this case, their actions become similar to the acts of those that follow the rules of the rule utilitarians. The problem with act utilitarianism is that it is more self-serving in that the individual only considers how the consequences affect then and what they think is right without putting into consideration the consequences to the entire society.
Most preferred
In most societies, rule utilitarianism gets preferred over act utilitarianism because it is a significant improvement to act utilitarianism as it has a social benefit that is much higher when it comes to the making of moral decisions (Mokriski, 2020). It is less subject to abuse and provides more protection over the groups of minorities as the rules get agreed upon by the masses. Rule utilitarianism focuses on advancing society and all the members in it as people are not allowed to make individual decisions. It entails a set of rules that are generalized and easy to apply because of their superiority. Despite the fact that rule utilitarianism appears to be discriminatory in its application in that one considers the consequences of failure to follow the rule despite the outcome in that particular situation, and one is not allowed to create their own rules, it is more effective and gets used by most societies because it creates a free and better society that is able to sustain itself and make the higher pleasures available to all members of the society equally. Rule utilitarianism re-defines utilitarianism, making it practical enough to use in the creation of rules to govern a society that is functional. As seen from the arguments that have been presented above regarding the two forms of utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism seems to be preferred by most societies, and it is the most effective based on the fact that it is not self-serving.
References
Abumere, F. A. (2019). Utilitarianism. Introduction to Philosophy: Ethics.
Mandal, J., Ponnambath, D. K., & Parija, S. C. (2016). Utilitarian and deontological ethics in medicine. Tropical Parasitology, 6(1), 5.
Mokriski, D. (2020). The Eligibility of Rule Utilitarianism. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, 17(3).