ACT AND RULE UTILITARAINISM

ACT AND RULE UTILITARAINISM
INTRODUCTION

Utilitarianism is a teleological theory of ethics which revolved around the idea of ‘the end justifies the means’. It was first defined in around 1779 by philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who claimed that an action was deemed ‘good’ if it is intended to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people. As an ethical theory, Hedonistic Utilitarianism is divided into several subcategories.
Act Utilitarianism, which is thought of as Utilitarianism in its ‘pure form’, involves the study of a specific situation and the immediate consequences. The correct action is therefore determined according to each individual circumstance in order achieve the greatest good for the greatest number.
The second subcategory, Rule Utilitarianism, is a more dogmatic form of the philosophy. According to Rule Utilitarianism, to act morally one is expected to abide by rules which generally promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people. It is universal and absolutist. There are in fact other subcategories including Negative Utilitarianism (which aims to alleviate suffering rather than create happiness); Positive Utilitarianism (which aims to attain maximum pleasure with no consideration of pain and considers long term consequences); Preference Utilitarianism (which judges an action by its ability to fulfil personal priorities); and Ideal Utilitarianism (which revolved not just around happiness, but other things of value suck as personal liberty, love and knowledge). However, it is the first two, Act and Rule
The first is called act utilitarianism and the second is called rule utilitarianism. These two forms of utilitarianism oppose each other. The former leans more on consequentialism. What is believed to be right or wrong is based on the effect or consequence. The greatest good is depending on whomever or whatever will be benefited the most from the act. It is a more results-oriented theory.
Conversely, the other type of utilitarianism is based on rules. These rules can include rules of conduct and similar principles. It is a more idealistic and rigid theory wherein an act is interpreted to be either right or wrong depending on the result of the agreed rule. Believers of this form of utilitarianism don’t want to break the rules that are agreed upon by the majority.
Think about this situation – you are a doctor who have seen and examined a patient who did not know yet that he is having an incurable terminal illness. The dilemma you’ll face is if you’re going to inform this person that he is dying or not. If you observe the principles of the act utilitarian theory, you are going to lie and not tell your patient about his sickness. This is the right thing to do because telling the truth will immediately cause more pain and depression, not only to the patient but also to his family. Lying will give him more time to enjoy life until the symptoms become more and more noticeable.
However, if you are a believer of rule utilitarianism then you will not have any reservations in telling the patient immediately about his sickness. Rule utilitarianism thinks more of the long term and that it is your obligation to tell the truth to your patient no matter what the circumstance because it is your duty and it is a rule for you to be honest at all times.
Act utilitarianism sees the consequence of an action in itself (as one act) whereas rule utilitarianism sees the consequences as if it will be repeated all over again for the long term).Act utilitarianism first looks into the consequences of an act. The one with the better consequence is most likely the good choice. Rule utilitarianism looks first into the consequences of choosing what rule to follow. Following a rule that generates the greatest utility or happiness is the more correct choice.

ACT UTILITARIANISM

Act utilitarianism is one of the versions of utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism’s goal is to maximize the overall happiness of the universe. Act utilitarianism uses the Greatest Happiness Principle which says in every situation; choose the option that you believe to be most likely to produce the greatest possible happiness or least possible unhappiness for the all people who will be affected. An act utilitarian would determine if robbing a bank is a right action or not by determining how much happiness the robbery would create. To do this he would have to use the hedonistic calculus, which is a way of adding up all the happiness that everyone affected by an action would receive.
If the results of this calculation show that the bank managers, the hundreds of investors, and the police would all be unhappy with this action and only the robber and maybe his family would be happy, then robbing the bank is a wrong action. If the bank managers did not care about the customer’s money, the FDIC insured all the stolen money, the police were not unhappy because of the robbery, and the robber was extremely happy because he could move to the Caribbean and never work again, then robbing the bank would be a right action.
There are many good points to act utilitarianism. It is very appealing because most people want to increase their happiness and reduce their pain. Act utilitarianism says that people could do that and they would not only make everyone happier but they would also be doing what is morally right. Act utilitarian does will not have conflicts over any action being right or wrong because the hedonistic calculus is an objective test that proves the amount of please or pain that will result. It is a standard that all actions can be evaluated by. Another point or act utilitarianism that can be seen as an advantage over rule utilitarianism is that each individual situation can have a different action be right. This means that in every situation the right action will provide more happiness or less pain as opposed to rule utilitarianism where the individual situations do not matter.

Act utilitarianism also has some disadvantages. One major fault of act utilitarianism is that some actions would produce a greater amount of happiness if they were done in secret. The same action, however, would produce less happiness if it were done in public. That means that the exact same action and situation would be right if no one knew about it but wrong if enough people were aware of it. If people know about an action and believe it is wrong, then wouldn’t it be just as wrong if no one knew about it? The action would still have the same affect on the same amount of people, they just would not know about, so they could not be unhappy about it.
Act utilitarianism can also seem unjust because the hedonistic calculus may say that it is right to take away the rights of a person because it will contribute to the overall happiness in the universe. Act utilitarianism would say an action producing pain for a small number of innocent people is right as long as the rest of the world is happy about it. Another problem is the feelings of a person are disregarded; only the consequences are important. Some other problems with act utilitarianism are if a person has never experienced a similar situation, then they will be unable to perform the hedonistic calculus because they will not know if people will be happy or not. It also may not be possible to compare the different people’s happiness.
Act Utilitarianism has many problems. If everyone acted according to act utilitarianism, then the majority or people would probably be happier. But morally correct actions do not necessarily have to make people happy, so act utilitarianism might not be a good way to determine if an action is really right or wrong.

RULE UTILITARIANISM

According to rule utilitarianism our action should follow appropriate moral rules which generally promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Rule utilitarianism maintains that the utilitarian standard should not be applied to individual actions, but should instead be used to determine the appropriate moral rules to follow.
Those guiding thought behind rule utilitarianism is the now familiar one that overall utility will be greater if people follow rules instead of attempting directly to maximize utility through their actions.
Rule utilitarianism is, essentially, the view that an action is morally right if and only if it accords with that set of rules, the general acceptance of which would result in more happiness than any alternative set of rules.
In rule utilitarianism involves two steps. We assess moral rules in terms of utility, selecting those rules, the acceptance of which would maximize utility; we then judge individual actions in terms of those rules. If an action complies with the rules, it is right, and if it conflicts with them, it is wrong. The rules are not secondary rules but, rather, define what is right and wrong. There is no direct appeal to utility.
The rules in question cannot be too detailed or complex. If the rules were detailed and specific enough to anticipate every possible exception, so that in every situation any action that accorded with the rules would maximize utility, then in practice there would be no difference between the rule utilitarian approach and using the act utilitarian standard as one’s direct guide to action.
More important in rule utilitarianism is that the rules need to be simple enough that people can learn them and guide their conduct by them for otherwise the rules will not maximize happiness. It is also important that the rules be appraised in context and as a set, not one by one. For example, one cannot assess the benefits of a rule assigning adult children responsibility for the care of their elderly parents without knowing what other norms, rules, and institutions provide its backdrop.

CONCLUSION
The act and rule utilitarianism is a important version of utilitarianism. In act utilitarianism if the consequence of our action will give more happiness to greatest number of people, it is right and it will give pain turn to be wrong. And we should maximize happiness as much you can, and avoid pain. According to rule utilitarianism our action should follow appropriate moral rules which generally promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people. These two types of utilitarianism say one and the same things that we should maximize the happiness and avoid pain.

BIBILIOGRAPHY
Shaw, William H. Contemporary Ethics; Taking Account of Utilitarianism. USA; Black
Well Publishers, 1999.


JINTO ERINJERY
0924604