Topic > Act vs. Rule Utilitarian: Comparing the Positions Adopted by Mill

It is widely accepted that utilitarianism, as a discipline, is not as unifying or as simple a moral theory as it might seem at first glance; as Crisp points out, there are in fact «many variations, some subtle, others quite radical, between the different forms of utilitarianism[1]»; representing two of these various forms are “Act” and “Rule” utilitarianism. In this essay, I will aim to discuss the effectiveness of the Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism positions respectively, ultimately concluding that Act Utilitarianism, the position I believe Mill himself adopts, is the better of the two and promotes the more coherent and valuable approach to Act Utilitarianism. Utilitarian principle. Before engaging in an exploration of the relative success of law-and-rule utilitarianism, it is perhaps worth delineating the distinction between them. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay At a basic level, act utilitarianism (sometimes called “direct”) can be defined as the moral theory that holds that “an act is right to the extent that its consequences for overall happiness are good at least as much as any alternative available to the agent[2]'. The Act Utilitarian, as Crisp puts it more succinctly, "the right action is that which maximizes happiness[3]". indirect), the rightness or wrongness of an act is determined not necessarily by whether it promotes the greatest happiness, but by whether it conforms to certain rules which, if everyone followed them, would result in the greatest amount of happiness "Un act is right to the extent that it conforms to a rule whose acceptance value for general happiness is at least as great as any alternative rule available to the agent[4]. Undeniably, if one were to adopt the act utilitarian position, one would encounter numerous points of controversy that would require careful reflection if one were to consistently defend the chosen point of view. Perhaps one of the most obvious problems is that of wasting time. Action utilitarianism requires that an agent consider, when faced with a dilemma, which, among a set of potential actions, would result in the greatest happiness and the least amount of pain. For anyone, this would be a long and complex process and would not lend itself to making decisions at a pace that would then allow time for actual action. A moral dilemma, for example, involving saving lives in a burning house would not be best addressed using such a long-winded decision-making process; it "places an impossible burden of calculation on the moral agent[5]". Second, I think the problem of spontaneity is one that should be taken seriously as far as act utilitarianism is concerned; many would recognize spontaneity as one of life's great pleasures; if we analyzed to this extent, every action, life would become over-planned and over-examined and, in turn, would decrease overall happiness. This is obviously not what any utilitarian would be inclined to encourage. Additionally, we might consider what is sometimes called the “prior effect”; if an act utilitarian believes that an action is correct in a given set of circumstances (theft, for example), he might set a precedent for himself or others around him by encouraging similar behavior in a set of circumstances that are not exactly the same ones. Due to the unawareness of the utilitarian principle of the Act with respect to moral laws, it is quite probable that in certain situations themethodology leads a person to commit actions that he or she would deem morally repugnant by normal standards. Crisp alludes to this idea when he argues that if we were to live in a world of what he calls “single-level Act Utilitarians,”[6] “even though presumably you could, being human, not help but enjoy certain experiences , as since by eating tasty food, you and everyone else would be adopting no other purpose than to maximize well-being Crisp is important; “Single level” act utilitarianism is probably the type from which these numerous problems would arise. It certainly expresses my opinion in arguing that a society centered on this moral theory would be highly dysfunctional see that there are numerous points at which the effectiveness of the act utilitarian principle on a one-dimensional, simplistic level could be called into question. However, I am not convinced of the ability of the rule utilitarian position to resolve any of the issues explored above. As for the time-wasting objection, it does not appear that adopting rule utilitarianism can save a significant amount of time in making moral decisions; there cannot be a list of rules so long as to cover every possible dilemma (if there were, this would be a problem in itself since time would be wasted trying to remember such an extraordinary number of rules) and if the list of rules were only in a limited limit, time would be wasted trying to choose the appropriate rule for the situation in question. The objection about spontaneity still remains; adding a set of rules to life would definitely suppress impulsiveness. Rule utilitarianism could probably free someone from the burden of the previous effect but, in my opinion, it would replace it with a problem of greater proportions, namely the cult of rules, potentially to an extent that is simply no longer utilitarian. For example, if breaking a rule undoubtedly leads to the most happiness and the least pain, then surely it is a utilitarian duty to ignore the rule? In the case of a rule, the precedent is already permanently established and may be the wrong one in a given situation. Not only does rule utilitarianism not solve many of the problems presented by act utilitarianism, but it also brings with it numerous other problems. For example, the range of potential moral dilemmas is entirely too broad for one set of rules to cover all the bases, so to speak; numerous questions would remain unanswered. Furthermore, rules often provide guidance on what not to do, but may not shed light on what to do instead. Theories of action should answer the question “what should I do?” and it does not appear that these rules are extensive enough to answer this question. It seems, therefore, that neither “single-level” act utilitarianism nor rule utilitarianism are really sufficient. However, what I would consider Mill's interpretation of act utilitarianism, which Crisp calls a "multilevel" view, seems like a more moderate and workable position. Mill argues that society should continue to respect the “customary morality[8]” that it has cultivated because such rules have historically been shown to contribute to general happiness. As Crisp argues: 'Mill thinks that customary morality... emerged 'through the tacit influence of an unacknowledged norm' (1.4). Human beings are by nature concerned with their own happiness, and this concern, extended to others, has led, without us realizing it,take full account of the development of a customary morality based largely on the principle of utility[9]". These general principles of morality according to Mill should be put into practice until a situation arises in which these principles conflict; at this point the principle of utility should come into play. Some have seen this adherence to supposed "rules" or generally accepted moral principles as a sign of Mill's adoption of a rule utilitarian position. But this appears not to be the case, as Mill simply argues that we should follow these rules because, historically, they have been shown to promote the greatest happiness after examining them through act utilitarian methodology. Adhering to these general principles simply means skipping an already completed step. throughout history. Mill uses a sailing analogy to illustrate his relationship to the rules of morality; they are guidelines for achieving the ultimate utilitarian goal: «It is a strange notion that the recognition of a first principle is inconsistent with the admission of secondary ones. Informing a traveler about the location of his final destination does not mean prohibiting the use of landmarks and directions on the route. The statement that happiness is the end and purpose of morality does not mean that no path should be laid out to achieve that goal, or that people heading toward that goal should not be advised to take one direction rather than one. other[10]. it definitely seems to be a less extreme "either or" approach to utilitarianism than single-level act or rule utilitarianism and seems to avoid many of the pitfalls. This position does not bind an agent to a particular set of rules that might ultimately lead to committing a non-utilitarian act, but also saves time through the acceptance of generally accepted happiness-inducing principles. The evidence with utilitarianism seems to be consistent with the act utilitarian view. Some, however, seem to identify Mill's position more with that of rule utilitarianism; Urmson is of this opinion. It is beyond the scope of this investigation to examine Urmson's views in depth, but I will try to mention a couple of his main arguments. He argues that the correct interpretation of what Mill is saying in Utilitarianism is that: "A particular action is justified as right by showing that it agrees with some moral rule. It is shown to be wrong by showing that it transgresses some moral rule." [11]' Claims substantial textual support for this claim; for example: «But considering the rules of morality as improvable is one thing; to entirely overlook intermediate generalizations and attempt to directly test each individual action is another[12]'. This, however, does not marry Mill with the utilitarian vision of the rule. Indeed, it recognizes moral rules that should be generally accepted, but the fact is that these moral laws were previously worked out through the methods of act utilitarianism; only by discovering which moral rules tend to produce the greatest happiness were these laws adopted. Mill does not blindly follow a set of rules, but simply recognizes that these rules allow one to skip a step that has already been completed; since it has already been decided which actions would benefit society as a whole if society, as a whole, adopted them, the act utilitarian can rest easy in the knowledge that he has acted in the most moral way. According to Urmson, the use of the term “trend” seems to recognize an adherence to rule utilitarianism. Quinton summarizes why this might.104