Act_vs_Rule_Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that judges whether an action is right or wrong based on the consequences of that action. In this essay I will discuss the Act and Rule forms of utilitarianism. Specifically, the definitions of Act and Rule, what I believe to be the main point of contention between them, and why Rule is proposed as an alternative to Act based theory. I intend to illustrate my opinion that neither moral theory is to be preferred over the other, but rather certain parts of each could be used to reach an acceptable ethical judgement. Utilitarianism is based on the theory that all of mankind is driven by pleasure and pain; pleasure being good or right, pain being bad or wrong. As a consequentialist theory, it makes the statement that we can calculate whether an action is right or wrong by judging the effects of that action. To take the concept further, it also states that using the principle of utility requires measuring the effect of an action on all people involved, or likely to be affected. The right action will be that which will bring happiness, or pleasure, to the greatest number of people. (Singer, 1994, p. 307) The difference between Act and Rule Utilitarianism, as I will show next, lies in the calculations of deciphering right and wrong through action. Act and Rule are both based on the idea, as mentioned previously, that the moral disposition of any action can be determined by its end result. However, that is where the two part company. Act utilitarianism is the study of a specific situation and its immediate consequences. The action that is deemed as being right will amount to being the action that achieves the greatest good for the greatest number. Each circumstance is judged singularly, and it is possible to have a different action for similar circumstances. On the other hand, Rule utilitarianism, as the name suggests, relies on rules to define what the right action will be. It can be calculated thus: If the action by a person in a given situation is right, then that action can therefore be made the rule and used each time that same (or similar) circumstance arises. While both ethical theories are based on the well-being of the greater population, Act is thought to be contrary to the greater good in some situations, leading to a decline in morals and judgement; which is why Rule is considered to be an alternative to the Act theory. I will now detail what I believe to be the main issue that arises from Act utilitarianism, and how it is to some degree rectified by the Rule theory. One of the main dilemmas regarding Act is that it doesn’t take into consideration what the effect of an individual action becoming the norm for the majority would be. There are circumstances where the actions of one person can be beneficial for the majority, but would have the opposite effect if more people were to employ that same action. For example, let us say that a woman (we’ll call her Maude) who works in a bank is approached by a group of scientists working on a cure for cancer that desperately need donations in order to continue their study. She hands over the $20 that she has in her purse, and expresses the desire to help more but lacks the funds to do so. She thinks about it all that night. The following morning when she goes to work, she skims small amounts of from the higher bank balances to the value of $10,000 and loans it to the scientists on the condition that they will pay the money back. The money is welcomed and the scientists are now able to continue with their work. After a period of three months the scientists are able to repay the money, and Maude returns it to the accounts without anyone knowing what she’s done. During this period the scientists made a breakthrough in the treatment of cancer that may have been a decade away had they not received the extra funding Maude provided. If this were an action that was performed only the once and only in this circumstance, it would be considered to be beneficial to the majority. However, if this were to be repeated by more than the one person over time, and become a normal action, it would be disadvantageous to everyone involved. Over time, it’s conceivable that the theft of money from people’s bank accounts without their knowledge would be done for more trivial purposes each time it happened. Rule utilitarians would argue that bending the rules to take the money in the first place could have the undesirable consequence of the deterioration of motivations and inhibitions over time. For this reason, Act utilitarianism is only useful if not everyone follows the principle. (Hunter, 1975, p. 11) Rule utilitarianism effectively eliminates the question of, “what if everyone...” by applying standard rules, which in this case would be that it is wrong to steal.