Rule-Utilitarianism and Act-Utilitarianism

Paper Summary:

The paper first defines act- and rule-utilitarianism before discussing their relative merits. It moves through the debate using a series of famous examples and counter-examples designed to highlight the faults of each method. For example, the accusation of "rule-worshiping" is contrasted with the idea that act-utilitarianism allows people to break promises, or is too demanding. The paper ultimately finds that rule-utilitarianism is all too likely to slip into act-utilitarianism if it is to avoid potentially dangerous rule-worship.

From the Paper:

"The first principle of utilitarianism is acceptable enough, partly because Mill specifically spends much time discussing its proof in Utilitarianism, and partly because happiness as an ultimate end in life seems to the vast majority of people to be reasonable enough. However, there is great controversy between the opposing schools of utilitarianism about how exactly the individual utilitarian should make their moral decisions. The choice is between the principles of act-utilitarianism, which dictates that the rightness or wrongness of a single action is to be judged by the action's consequences, and those of rule-utilitarianism, which dictates that the action should be judged by a set of established rules, which are designed to produce the best consequences. It should also be noted that writers in both sides have cited passages in Mill's text which appear to support their point of view."

More papers on Rule-Utilitarianism and Act-Utilitarianism:

• Essay # 6194 : "Natural Rights, Rule and Act Utilitarianism"
• Term Paper # 97723 : "Hedonistic Act-Utilitarianism"
• Analytical Essay # 149541 : "Kant, Utilitarianism and Nestle"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: