Pros And Cons Of Act Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a form of consequential theory and has two central branches that I will define and apply to this engineering and environmental disaster. This theory depends only on the consequences of decisions, through consequentialist theories pleasure is seen as the most important outcome. It tests which of the available options would create the most happiness and the least unhappiness. The morally responsible choices are the ones that create the most net pleasure meaning that as long as the positives and pleasures outweigh the negatives and displeasures. One of the key tenants of measuring the positives is to determine the amount of people who will experience pleasure and the depth or intensity of said pleasure. The same goes for measuring

Act Utilitarianism requires moral entities to determine the consequences of every individual choice they make, which can seem general. Rule Utilitarianism tries to expand consequentialist theories to see if they are universal or effective in practice. Rule utilitarianism is different because it treats consequences as rules and then determines if these rules would actually make for a more morally responsible world. The way I try to model these to types of utilitarianism is to compare it to automotive law. Act Utilitarianism would be to tell every single person to make driving decisions that would create the most net good on the road meaning safety. Rule Utilitarianism would require drivers to uphold the law by stopping at stop signs or red lights even if it would be safe and create no negative impact. Act would be the equivalent of yield sign on the road telling drivers to check on coming traffic and make their safety decisions based on the situation. Whereas Rule Utilitarianism would be the equivalent of a stop sign asking drivers to make the safest choice of following the rules that all others drivers