Rule utilitarianism refers to the theory that an action can be morally right if it conforms to the rules that lead to the greatest good or happiness. Therefore, the greatest good or happiness can be achieved by following and following the right rules that apply equally to all. To overcome the obvious flaws of using egoism as a moral guide, utilitarianism approaches the question of GOOD from an opposite perspective. Instead of being the GOOD that serves its own interest and provides its own pleasure, utilitarians take as GUTE what produces the most pleasure (hedonism) (physically and emotionally) for the greatest number of people. This is the principle of UTILITY. Extend beyond the idea of pleasure to the satisfaction of people`s interests, and you have the fuller development of the idea of the consequences of human action that will determine the moral rectitude of that action. In this article, the term “well-being” is generally used to identify what utilitarians consider good or valuable in itself. All utilitarians agree that things have value because they tend to produce well-being or reduce discomfort, but this idea is understood differently by hedonists, objective list theorists, and wishful thinking theorists. This debate is not discussed in more detail in this article. Act utilitarians say they recognize that rules can have value. For example, rules can provide a basis for action when there is no time to think.
In addition, rules can set a default position, a justification for performing (or omising) a certain type of action, as long as there is no reason not to. But if people know that more good can be done by breaking the rule, then the default position should be overridden. In addition, utilitarianism aims to increase the overall amount of satisfaction or happiness for the greatest number of people. Therefore, the moral good that can be done under utilitarianism is what promotes the greatest benefit for the majority of people, even if the individual who acts will not prosper or be satisfied at all times. This concept therefore takes into account both the well-being of others and one`s own well-being. The utilitarianism of rules seems paradoxical. He says that we can achieve more useful results if we follow rules than if we always perform individual actions whose results are as beneficial as possible. This suggests that we shouldn`t always perform individual actions that maximize benefits.
How could this be something a utility would support? As a result of these problems, some utilitarians, notably the Oxford moral philosopher R. M. Hare, turned to a two-step theory called rule utilitarianism. While happiness is the ultimate moral value, the path ahead can be indirect. A two-step theory would evaluate the types of actions in general—such as murder, telling the truth, breaking promises, staying faithful in a marriage, caring for children, respecting parents, punishing the innocent—to determine whether these types of actions bring the most happiness. Since the types of actions and not individual actions are valued, many people need to be factored into such calculations: should everyone in a company be allowed to cheat? If a general moral prohibition of fraud produces more happiness, then rule utilitarians support the moral rule “don`t cheat.” Otherwise, the rule would be rejected. Rule utilitarianism is a quasi-rules-oriented system: rules play a crucial role, but the system is based on a principle. The basic utilitarian principle is used, along with facts about social interaction, to derive rules. Once the rules are in place, no direct calculation of the benefit is required. The rule must be followed even if individual actions produce more pain than pleasure. Top Another problem is that the best rules would not be easy.
The best rule for keeping promises would be form: “Always keep your promises, except…” (where the list of exceptions would be very long). This led the American philosopher David Lyons to argue in Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism (1965) that a plausible formulation of rule utilitarianism would lead him to recommend the same actions as act utilitarianism, so that the two types are “equivalent by extension” and there is no practical difference between the two. Currently, utilitarian formulations of rules seem to be beneficial, but there are attempts to rehabilitate them. Note that this pressure affects resource allocation. There is also the question of how well-being itself should be distributed equitably. Many recent authors have viewed utilitarianism as indifferent to the distribution of well-being. Imagine a choice between an outcome where overall well-being is important but unevenly distributed, and an outcome where overall well-being is smaller but evenly distributed. Utilitarians are supposed to favor outcomes with greater overall wealth, even if it is also less evenly distributed. The most common argument against actutilitarianism is that it gives the wrong answers to moral questions.
Critics say it allows various actions that everyone knows are morally reprehensible. The following cases are among the frequently cited examples: Since consequentialists generally accept the falsehood criterion of this decision-making procedure, the consequences of the action are in fact consequentialists of partial rules. Often what authors call indirect consequentialism is this combination of act-consequentialism about lying and consequentialism about proper decision-making. When consequentialists endorse the consequentialist decision-making process of the above rules, they recognize that following this decision-making process does not guarantee that we will take action with the best consequences. Sometimes, for example, a decision-making procedure that excludes harming an innocent person will prevent us from taking the actions that would have the best consequences. Similarly, there will be circumstances where theft, failure to keep our promises, etc. would have the best consequences. Nevertheless, our decision-making process, which generally excludes such actions, is likely to have far better long-term and overall consequences than our attempt to perform consequentialist calculations act by act. In his defense of rule utilitarianism, Brad Hooker distinguishes two distinct contexts in which partisanship and impartiality play a role.
One concerns the justification of moral rules and the other the application of moral rules. Justifications for moral rules, he argues, must be strictly impartial. When we ask whether a rule should be adopted, it is important to consider the impact of the rule on all people and to weigh the interests of all equally. In responding, domination utilitarians may begin by believing that they do not reject concepts such as justice, rights, and the desert. Instead, they accept and use these concepts, but interpret them from the perspective of maximizing utility. To speak of justice, rights and the desert means to speak of rules of individual treatment, which are very important, and what makes them important is their contribution to the promotion of the general well-being. Moreover, even people who accept these concepts as fundamental have yet to determine whether it is still wrong to treat someone unfairly, violate their rights, or treat them in a way they don`t deserve.
