Difference Between Act And Rule Utilatarianism

1321 Words6 Pages
Explain the difference between Act and Rule Utilitarianism. Why is Rule utilitarianism proposed as an alternative to act-based forms of the theory? Clearly describe each version of utilitarianism and explain which form you think is to be preferred, and why. Utilitarianism was described by Jeremy Bentham as "the greatest happiness principle" [1] Wikipedia defines Utilitarianism as an ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "happiness" [2]. From these 2 definitions it is apparent that it is a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome, and that one can only weigh the morality of an action after knowing all its consequences. Bentham summarises this theory [3] by saying that we should consider the pleasure and pain (pros & cons) of all the consequences of an action and from the resulting ‘net’ score, make decisions based on which course of action will produce the ‘most’ pleasure (happiness). This view has been widely criticised as being ‘hedonistic’, which is an ethical doctrine to wit ‘only that which produces pleasure is intrinsically good.’ However, or maybe in response to this criticism, utilitarianism has been refined into subgroups. I will be talking about the two subsets known as Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism, what they each represent and how they differ, then give my own opinion about which of these I prefer and why. Act Utilitarianism states that, when faced with a choice, we must first consider the likely consequences of potential actions and, from that, choose to do what we believe generates the most happiness[2] . At this point, I think it is worth mentioning Epicures’ definition of pleasure,[4] which is ‘that which is left after all pain has been removed’, because I believe Bentham’s theory is more or

More about Difference Between Act And Rule Utilatarianism

Open Document