Act Utilitarianism Versus Rule Utilitarianism
Act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism are two utilitarian moral theories which determine the moral status of actions based on consequences. I will begin by explaining what act utilitarianism is and its appeal. Then I will argue that although act utilitarianism is appealing, it is flawed because it conflicts with intuitive moral verdicts concerning individual rights, and that it is an impractical theory to implement. Afterwards, I will describe what rule utilitarianism is, how it compares and differs from act utilitarianism, and how it avoids the problems act utilitarianism faces. An opponent to rule utilitarianism can argue that it conflicts with intuitive moral verdicts, but I will illustrate …show more content…
For example, imagine I decide to kidnap the family mentioned above and enslave them to work in a clothing manufacturing company. Although, the family would suffer, they would produce products that could bring joy to many more people, thereby maximizing overall pleasure. Therefore, according to act utilitarianism, my actions would be morally right if they had the highest utility. Although, the theory would support my actions, the actions themselves do not seem morally right based on intuitive moral verdicts (Carritt, 501). A plausible reason for this is because act utilitarianism does not account for individual rights when determining whether an action is morally permissible, instead it only accounts for the net pleasure an action will …show more content…
It states that the correct moral rules are those which would maximize utility if they were widely accepted. Therefore morally correct actions are those that abide by moral rules (Smart, 503). For example, telling the truth is one example of a moral rule because the consequences of lying are generally worse than the consequences of telling the truth. Therefore, according to rule utilitarianism, lying is a morally impermissible act. Rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism are similar in the sense that they both calculate the utilities of actions, but act utilitarianism requires individuals to calculate the utility of each individual action to determine its permissibility, whereas rule utilitarianism requires people to act according to rules which, if widely accepted, would maximize utility. Additionally, according to rule utilitarianism, rules are morally binding and should not be broken under any circumstance because they maximize utility if followed. However, any rules one could follow in rule utilitarianism can be broken by act utilitarianism. Act utilitarianists often have rules of thumb when they can’t make decisions quickly, but these rules can be broken if it results in a higher utility. The incorporation of morally binding rules exempts rule utilitarianism from some of the objections act utilitarianism faces, but it
Act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism are two utilitarian moral theories which determine the moral status of actions based on consequences. I will begin by explaining what act utilitarianism is and its appeal. Then I will argue that although act utilitarianism is appealing, it is flawed because it conflicts with intuitive moral verdicts concerning individual rights, and that it is an impractical theory to implement. Afterwards, I will describe what rule utilitarianism is, how it compares and differs from act utilitarianism, and how it avoids the problems act utilitarianism faces. An opponent to rule utilitarianism can argue that it conflicts with intuitive moral verdicts, but I will illustrate …show more content…
For example, imagine I decide to kidnap the family mentioned above and enslave them to work in a clothing manufacturing company. Although, the family would suffer, they would produce products that could bring joy to many more people, thereby maximizing overall pleasure. Therefore, according to act utilitarianism, my actions would be morally right if they had the highest utility. Although, the theory would support my actions, the actions themselves do not seem morally right based on intuitive moral verdicts (Carritt, 501). A plausible reason for this is because act utilitarianism does not account for individual rights when determining whether an action is morally permissible, instead it only accounts for the net pleasure an action will …show more content…
It states that the correct moral rules are those which would maximize utility if they were widely accepted. Therefore morally correct actions are those that abide by moral rules (Smart, 503). For example, telling the truth is one example of a moral rule because the consequences of lying are generally worse than the consequences of telling the truth. Therefore, according to rule utilitarianism, lying is a morally impermissible act. Rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism are similar in the sense that they both calculate the utilities of actions, but act utilitarianism requires individuals to calculate the utility of each individual action to determine its permissibility, whereas rule utilitarianism requires people to act according to rules which, if widely accepted, would maximize utility. Additionally, according to rule utilitarianism, rules are morally binding and should not be broken under any circumstance because they maximize utility if followed. However, any rules one could follow in rule utilitarianism can be broken by act utilitarianism. Act utilitarianists often have rules of thumb when they can’t make decisions quickly, but these rules can be broken if it results in a higher utility. The incorporation of morally binding rules exempts rule utilitarianism from some of the objections act utilitarianism faces, but it