What is the difference between rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism?

just to help thought I would upload an essay which isn't perfect but offers a comparative over rule and act utilitarianism and evaluative for those who are stuck, if anyone can suggests some improvements please say so .... The two types of theory: rule utilitarianism(mill) and act utilitarianism (Bentham)come under the same ethical theory of utilitarianism which questions the rights of individuals or a minority to a majority, using the justification of ‘the greater good’ or ‘greatest happiness for the greatest number’. It is strictly a teleogical theory concerned with the outcome as the deciding factor over an actions’ ‘goodness’ or ‘badness’. It seeks to create the greatest well being produced. It opposes all deontological theories that concentrate on moral rules like natural moral law or Kantian ethics, it aligns quite similarly to Fletcher’s situation ethics. Bentham’s act utilitarianism also referred to as hedonic utilitarianism, can ne seen through important parts. Motivation (for Bentham it was either pleasure or pain), principle of utility (the usefulness of the right/wrong action). Whilst mills rule utilitarianism, came after Bentham’s as a backlash from the problems within the theory. It rejects the hedonic calculus, creates a new understanding of happiness (state of mind from the application of principles: liberty and freedom). States that humans must constantly be progressing to be truly happy, but not all pleasures are of equal value and that happiness is not just based hedonistic desires. Mills theory also questioned the intrinsic part of utilitarian with the concept being purely quantative, he asked what would stop one a single person being destroyed by the majority. Overall, I agree that rule utilitarianism is an improvement on act utilitarianism as it is far more progressive to a more equal society. Act utilitarianism judges every situation individually and in isolation from the community, Bentham and others applying it would ask: what action would bring about the greatest good. Looks at the consequences of each individual act and calculates utility each time the act is performed. rule utilitarianism attempted to re-define utilitarianism in a way that made it practical to use when creating rules for society. Mill argued there needed to be generally agreed rules in order for a happy society to function. Looks at the consequences of having everyone follow a particular rule and calculates the overall utility of accepting or rejecting the rule.

The individual theories have their own problems as highlighted by either side, act utilitarianism doesn’t accommodate to real life problems with the inconvenient time-consuming hedonic calculus. Also in particular cases, act utilitarianism can justify disobeying important moral rules and violating individual rights. When referring to levels of higher and lower pleasures rule utilitarianism becomes socially exclusive to those who cannot experience higher pleasures. It is argued that rule utilitarianism becomes rule-worship when they refuse to break a rule : If the consequences demand it, we should violate the rule. One of the reasons I find rule utilitarianism an improvement to act utilitarianism is because I believe it has higher social benefit to moral decision making, mill aimed to Mill’s offer more protection towards minorities passed over by the masses, and less subject to abuse. Whilst Bentham’s seems to only enable unethical behaviour and allow society to be complacent with the discrimination over minorities. Although the idea over higher and lower pleasures can be elitist as the higher pleases are only available to a select, but it could be argued that mill here was advocating cultural reform to make them available to others. Mill made his point of higher and lower pleasures in the quote “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question.” , higher pleasures being :literature, theatre, reading and lower :sleeping, eating. For this point I find Bentham’s level ground over pleasure levels being non-existent and any happiness is valid I find a strength in act utilitarianism. The problem with act utilitarianism in terms of social benefit in moral decision making is that, Bentham’s hedonic approach clearly is overly more self-serving. For him it is about the individual’s search for pleasure, not the greatest good for the advancement of society and all members of society. It can easily be twisted to serve whatever desire the person making the decision decides. For example a serial killer could use this to argue that is alright for him to kill specific people who bring pain into the world (like a thief). The action and out come of death is wrong but the happiness of the killer and the happiness of potential future victims of theft overcomes the pain from his death.

Rule utilitarianism is an improvement with its practicality in application. act utilitarianisms’ hedonic calculus (the system used for calculating the amount of pain or pleasure created) is overly cumbersome and make rule utilitarianism’s generalised rules far superior and easy to apply. The Hedonic Calculus takes all available options in a scenario then weighs up the pain and pleasure generated by each in order to decide which option to follow. These are purity, remoteness, extent, duration, intensity, certainty. This drawn out process becomes frivolous the extent it goes to doesn’t make it realistic for everyday use in situations In conclusion although rule Utilitarian appears to be rather discriminatory in relation to the level of pleasures I see it more as mill highlighting this so that a better more free society could sustain itself making the higher pleasures available to all. And similar to Mill himself I see Bentham’s approach to be too rigid for everyday life, and too self-serving with its hedonistic.

What is the difference between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism example?

A key point in this article concerns the distinction between individual actions and types of actions. Act utilitarians focus on the effects of individual actions (such as John Wilkes Booth's assassination of Abraham Lincoln) while rule utilitarians focus on the effects of types of actions (such as killing or stealing).

What is the difference between act and rule utilitarianism quizlet?

Rule utilitarianism is a form of utilitarianism that believes an action is right if it conforms to a rule that is justified on utilitarian grounds. Act utilitarianism analyses the utilitarian principle on each and every act that someone undertakes.

What is act utilitarianism?

Act utilitarianism: An act is right if and only if it results in at least as much overall well-being as any act the agent could have performed. In other words, in any situation, an agent acts rightly if she maximizes overall well-being, and wrongly if she does not.

Is rule utilitarianism better than act utilitarianism?

In conclusion, Both act and Rule Utilitarianism have their flaws but overall, Rule Utilitarianism is more plausible than Act Utilitarianism because through Rule Utilitarianism it is easier to apply rules and moral laws and one focuses on the quality of happiness rather than the quantity, which can often lead to ...