Week 7: Utilitarian ethics (Rule Utilitarianism)

Announcement – next week, Week 8, is review week. That means that review
points or questions for the Midterm exam will be posted, and there is no
live session in that week.

Previously,
The basic idea of utilitarian ethics

For this week, Week 6,

.Act and Rule utilitarianism

A. Two Kinds of Utilitarianism: Act and Rule

Actual-consequence utilitarianism and foreseeable-consequence
utilitarianism are also kinds of utilitarianism. Here, we focus on Act and Rule.

We find the two types discussed in Rachels' textbook, in the section on

three general defenses of utilitarianism. It is in the second defense: the principle of
utility is a guide for choosing rules, not individual acts.

... the classical version of utilitarianism is inconsistent with moral common sense
and proposes to save the theory by giving it a new formulation that will be in line
with our common-sense evaluations.

The troublesome aspect of classical utilitarianism is its assumption that

each individual action is to be evaluated by reference to the Principle of Utility.
...it is what leads to the conclusion that you can do any sort of questionable thing if
it has the best consequences.

Instead, we first ask what set of rules is optimal, from a utilitarian viewpoint. In
other words, what rules should we follow if happiness is to be maximized?
Individual acts are then judged according to whether they are acceptable or
unacceptable by these rules.

[The basic idea here is that since there is a problem with act utilitarianism,
utilitarians have tried to save the principle of utility by having rule
utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism is supposed to make sure that justice is upheld.
Moral common sense has justice as important.]

Faced with the situation described by H. J. McCloskey, the rule-utilitarian would

first ask, What general rules of conduct tend to promote the greatest happiness?
Suppose we imagine two societies, one in which the rule “Don't bear false witness
against the innocent” is faithfully adhered to and one in which the rule is not
followed. In which society are people likely to be better off? From the point of
view of utility, the first society is preferable. Therefore, the rule against
1
incriminating the innocent should be accepted, and by appealing to this rule, we
conclude that the person in McCloskey's example should not testify against the
innocent man.

... We should accept such rules because following them, as a regular practice,
promotes the general welfare. (p. 111)

Individual actions are justified simply by appeal to the already-established rules.

Thus, rule-utilitarianism cannot be convicted of violating our moral common
sense. In shifting emphasis from justification of acts to the justification of rules,
utilitarianism has been brought into line with our intuitive judgments to a
remarkable degree.

Problems: Do its rules have exceptions?

If yes, then it looks like she has fallen back into act-utilitarianism.
If no, then the utilitarians original concern of promoting welfare has
been replaced by an irrational “rule worship”. (p. 115)

[The basic ideas:

the utilitarian would fall back to act-utilitarianism (if yes is the answer to the
question), because in such cases the act's consequences are the consideration;
the concern for promoting general welfare is “replaced by an irrational 'rule
worship'” (if the answer to the question is negative), because of the point raised in
the question, Isn't it not that rules have exceptions?]

A. Discussion question:
Do you think utilitarians have responded successfully to the objection?
Discuss.