English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-02-15 22:35:40 · 1 answers · asked by deepa k 1 in Education & Reference Other - Education

1 answers

Some more modern versions of Utilitarianism hold that there is a distinction between what is called “act utilitarianism” and “rule utilitarianism”. The difference, at this point very generally, is this:


An act utilitarian makes “direct calculations” in a situation to determine what is morally required. Think of the “fat man in the cave” example. The act utilitarian would think “if we do not kill the fat man, then 10 people die. If we kill him, then 1 dies and 9 live.” So they choose the alternative that causes the least pain and the most happiness, and kill the fat man. Note here that what is important (as Ross later point out in another article) is that an Act U thinker carries no presuppositions into the situation other than the duty to promote utility or happiness. So it is not the case that “murder is wrong” or “lying is wrong” beforehand but here gets overruled by the circumstances. Rather, it seems that whether murder or lying is right or wrong gets determined entirely by the situation itself. In other words, if the greatest utility is served by lying, then lying is right (in this situation). If it does not, then lying is wrong (in this situation).



A rule utilitarian makes no real direct calculations (in theory). Instead, what a Rule U does is look back on prior history to determine what rules have already been shown (in general) to lead to the greatest utility. So, for instance, it has served the general utility (it seems) over history that people generally do not lie to one another. As such, a Rule U is committed to not lying (lying is wrong). Note that they are committed to following these rules even if it means that the immediate happiness is not served by doing so.



For example, a Rule U might not kill the fat man in the cave. Why not – 10 people will die! Well, because the Rule U assumes that if everyone broke the rule “do not kill an innocent person” the consequences would turn out far worse than if the 10 people lived.



This reveals that the Rule U asks him/herself “what would happen if everyone did X?” If the consequences are bad, then X is not morally correct.



Ex: let’s say I don’t feel like voting. I figure “if I don’t vote, no harm is done. 270 million others will vote, and my vote will not be missed. Since I will be happier staying home and not voting, and I’m not doing any harm to the general whole by not voting, then staying home is morally correct from a utilitarian point of view.”

The Rule U would disagree. What this person should ask is “what if everyone decided not to vote?” If they did, the consequences would be terrible. So to the Rule U, “not voting” is not a moral option.

2007-02-15 23:09:28 · answer #1 · answered by ♥!BabyDoLL!♥ 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers