As we know consequentialism is the focus of an action that does more intrinsically good than bad, one kind of consequentialist theory is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is an action that produces consequences that are more good over bad for everyone involved. In order to produce an action that is the best one a utilitarianist would consider both long and short term effects. Two sub categories of utilitarianism include act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. act utilitarianism bases an action on the overall well being produced by an individual.
Rule utilitarianism uses a two-step process when determining if an action is right. When faced with a choice, rule utilitarians will list a set of potential rules, and after finalizing on a general rule, will ask themselves “would this rule, if uniformly followed, maximize overall happiness?”. For a rule utilitarian, they assess their rules on utilitarian grounds and then after assessing their actions, appeal to the rules. To them, an action is right if it conforms to a rule that when adopted, produces more overall happiness than any other alternative rule. The rule utilitarian in the example mentioned above, however, would disagree with me in that stealing the bread was the right thing to do because the general rule is “do not steal”.
It is a teleological ethical system in that its focuses on consequences of actions (Barry, 1985: 65; p. 35). Utilitarianism is categorized in the forms of act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism determines the greatest good by studying the utility of a specific act without paying attention to future actions. Rule utilitarianism determines the greatest good by studying the utility of an action as a rule for behavior (Barry, 1985: 65; p. 36). Utilitarianism is the most appropriate ethical system to use for solving the central dilemma of allowing hair follicle analysis as reliable evidence in court
Rule utilitarianism attempts to fix the flaws of act utilitarianism by being stricter on how we should make our decisions. However, rule utilitarianism has the dilemma that sometimes rules can come into conflict with one another. Suppose someone told you a secret and you promised not to tell anyone, but you later find out that secret will harm someone else. Rule utilitarianism holds that people should keep their promises, but also that they should work to not harm anyone. This exposes the main dilemma to rule utilitarianism, and if the rule utilitarian were to say that depending on the situation some rules can be broken, then that just leads right back to act utilitarianism and how it depends on each situation.
Bernard Williams’ essay, A Critique of Utilitarianism, launches a rather scathing criticism of J. J. C. Smart’s, An Outline of a System of Utilitarian ethics. Even though Williams claims his essay is not a direct response to Smart’s paper, the manner in which he constantly refers to Smart’s work indicates that Smart’s version of Utilitarianism, referred to as act-Utilitarianism, is the main focus of Williams’ critique. Smart illustrates the distinction between act-Utilitarianism and rule-Utilitarianism early on in his work. He says that act-Utilitarianism is the idea that the rightness of an action depends on the total goodness of an action’s consequences.
Somebody ought not obviously neglect to allude to the qualifications of the Utilitarian approach in Act and Rule Utilitarianism. Lead utilitarianism is a plan utilitarianism, which keeps up that a behavioral code or control is ethically right if the outcomes of embracing that govern are more positive than negative to everybody. The above is appeared differently in relation to act utilitarianism, which keeps up that the ethical quality of each activity is to be resolved in connection to the great or horrible outcomes that rise up out of that activity. The standard of control utilitarianism is a test just for the profound quality of good guidelines, for example, "taking isn't right" and not a test for specific activities.
When discussing both act and rule utilitarianism, it is important to understand that both of them agree in terms of the overall consequence of an action, because they emphasize on creating the most beneficial pleasure and happiness in the outcome of an act. Despite this fact, they both have different principles and rules that make them different from each other. Act utilitarianism concentrates on the acts of individuals. Meaning that if a person commits an action, he/she must at least have a positive utility. The founders of utilitarianism define positive utility as happiness and pleasure and consider it to be a driving force of all positive and morally right acts.
To use preference utilitarianism to make ethical decisions, would require us to look at and weigh the preferences of all of these beings involved in the situation, not just our own personal interests. However,
Hence, a rule utilitarian applies the Principle of Utility to moral rules, while an act utilitarian applies the Principle of Utility to individual moral actions[11]. The good point of Rule Utilitarianism is it follows “moral rules” in which there are exceptions. In case of debate on the right to remain silent in Vietnam, like Act Utilitarianism, it will support the measure because we cannot sacrifice the right of some people to protect the interests of another group, but in case of that sacrifice is necessary for the whole society, we can do it as
The Act Utilitarianism is Judges an act in terms of the consequences
The variation between the two is that act utilitarianism states that an action is correct only when it brings good to the situation verses any other choice you could have made. Rule utilitarianism states that an action is correct if we followed the given rules that were made in order to have the greatest chance of achieving the most amount of
The three different versions of Utilitarianism are, Act, Rule, and Preference Utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism states that a person’s act is right if and only if it produces as many
Rule utilitarianism is more concerned with fairness and the law. The ultimate goal is to still satisfy and benefit the most people, but only through the most just and fairest means possible. A rule utilitarian seeks to benefit the most people but through the fairest and most just means available. The Deontiological ethical theory is that of duty, coming from the Greek word 'deon '.
Commonly, ethical systems are categorized into two major systems. The deontological approaches or normative ethical position which judges an action based on the adherence of the action to certain rules and the teleological approaches which judges primarily based on the consequences of an action (Hare, 1964). The Utilitarianism is assigned to the teleological approaches, as it does not evaluate an action by itself but by it’s
Utilitarianism is a teleological ethical theory based on the idea that an action is moral if it causes the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. The theory is concerned with predicted consequences or outcomes of a situation rather than focusing on what is done to get to the outcome. There are many forms of utilitarianism, having been introduced by Jeremy Bentham (act utilitarianism), and later being updated by scholars such as J.S. Mill (rule utilitarianism) and Peter Singer (preference utilitarianism). When referring to issues of business ethics, utilitarianism can allow companies to decide what to do in a given situation based on a simple calculation. Many people would agree that this idea of promoting goodness
