Utilitarianism is one of the most well-known moral theories. It is based on the idea of utility which denotes the overall net benefits created by an action (Grama & Spinello, 2015). According to the theory the action that creates the greatest benefit is the correct and moral action. When considering society as whole, utilitarianism seems like one of the best moral theories. Since it focuses on the net good of actions, overall society will benefit, even if specific individuals do not.
Due to the many ways utility can be calculated, a number of sub-theories of utilitarianism have emerged, two of these are act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism bases morality on the utility of individual action, while rule utilitarianism …show more content…
Pros of act utilitarianism are that it can maximize utility since every action would have a net benefit, there is no conflict of which moral rules supersede others, and it is not as subject to differing morals of different people because it only focuses on the net benefits (Nathanson, n.d.). The main con is that a specific action can have a net benefit, but go against what is generally considered moral. For example, with the frequently used moral question of killing one person to save five, act utilitarianism would say that killing the one person would have a net benefit, however killing people is generally considered to be …show more content…
The problem with rule utilitarianism is that it is too rigid and unless it reverts to act utilitarianism, there are no exceptions to the rules. Consider the scenario of lying to save a life, with rule utilitarianism telling the truth would be the ethical option unless there are exceptions to the rules, in which case utility would be determined more on a case to case basis as in act utilitarianism. This scenario also brings up the question of which rules are the most important and supersede others; is it more ethical to tell the truth and have someone die as a consequence or to lie and save a
Due to the many ways utility can be calculated, a number of sub-theories of utilitarianism have emerged, two of these are act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism bases morality on the utility of individual action, while rule utilitarianism …show more content…
Pros of act utilitarianism are that it can maximize utility since every action would have a net benefit, there is no conflict of which moral rules supersede others, and it is not as subject to differing morals of different people because it only focuses on the net benefits (Nathanson, n.d.). The main con is that a specific action can have a net benefit, but go against what is generally considered moral. For example, with the frequently used moral question of killing one person to save five, act utilitarianism would say that killing the one person would have a net benefit, however killing people is generally considered to be …show more content…
The problem with rule utilitarianism is that it is too rigid and unless it reverts to act utilitarianism, there are no exceptions to the rules. Consider the scenario of lying to save a life, with rule utilitarianism telling the truth would be the ethical option unless there are exceptions to the rules, in which case utility would be determined more on a case to case basis as in act utilitarianism. This scenario also brings up the question of which rules are the most important and supersede others; is it more ethical to tell the truth and have someone die as a consequence or to lie and save a