Act and rule utilitarianism - Essay Example

inserts his/her full Act and Rule utilitarianism The theory of Utilitarianism is based on the premise that individual’s course of action should be evaluated in terms of the costs and benefits that will be imposed on the society as a result of those actions. Thus, according to this view, the correct course of action is one that maximizes the net benefit to the society. This is done when the costs are minimized and the benefits are maximized. As Rachel sums it up, the Utilitarianism view inherently judges whether an action of morally good or bad by its consequences, and then, assesses these consequences solely by the amount of utility or happiness derived (Rachels).

When accounting for happiness, no individual or entity is given precedence over the other. The “Rule Utilitarianism” theory states that the acts of individuals will be judged as morally right or wrong with reference to the rules that are developed keeping in mind the principle (Rachels). Therefore, the principle is used to select a set of rules which then determine whether an action is right or wrong under a given situation. This theory has been criticized as attaching more significance to “rules” than they deserve.

As opposed to this, “Act Utilitarianism” states that the principle is directly used to determine whether an action is right or wrong under a given situation without first applying that principle to select a set of rules (Rachels). Hence, this approach is referred to as “direct” utilitarianism, whereas the former is referred to as “indirect” utilitarianism. Furthermore, act utilitarianism is also referred to as the classic or original utilitarianism. For instance, in a society whereby killing someone is prohibited by law, a rule utilitarian would argue that killing is morally incorrect because if the law is followed, everyone shall be free from the fear of being killed.

Act utilitarians, on the other hand, would not accept legal considerations. This view would state that the killing is morally correct if it benefits most people in the society. Hence, it would be justified to kill a criminal, for example, as he/she would pose a threat to the society.The act utilitarianism approach propagates a hedonistic view of finding the best alternative course of action. The best action is therefore, one which produces the highest pleasure. However, rule utilitarianism counters this by claiming that actions that produce the highest utility for an individual may not be morally correct.

For instance, human rights violation is not justified even if it results in net welfare for the society (as discussed in the example earlier). Even though both forms of utilitarianism denote that utility or happiness determines whether an action is morally correct or incorrect; rule utilitarianism considers this happiness as instrumental (valued as a “means” and not an end) whereas act utilitarianism considers this as intrinsic (good in itself). Rachel rejects the notion the intrinsic worth of happiness (hedonism) and, therefore, proposes that factors other than happiness may be worthy of consideration (such as social belonging) (Rachels).

According to him, happiness is subjective and, therefore, is not sufficient on its own. Viewed from another perspective, however, there seems little difference between the two. Ultimately, both these forms deal insufficiently the notion of rights and justice. The theory inherently assumes that the costs and benefits can be measured (Rachels). This is not always the case. For instance, how could one assign a value to one’s life? Thus, according to Utilitarians, individuals could be deprived of their right to liberty simply because the net benefit isn’t maximized.

Both of these negate giving preference to minorities based on racist, sexist and nationalist grounds since there is strict impartiality. Ultimately, both forms of utilitarianism consider that happiness is the only thing that matters. They also discourage learning from prior experiences and solely rely on what lies in the future. Hence, if an action has been proven to be morally correct or incorrect, it has no relevance to its moral impact in the future.Work CitedRachels, James. The Elements of Moral philosophy.

New York: Mc Graw-Hill, 2012. Print.