As mentioned earlier, critics of actutilitarianism raise three strong objections to this. According to these critics, actutilitarianism approves of (a) actions that are clearly wrong; b) undermines trust between people and c) is too demanding because it requires excessive sacrifices from people. Rule utilitarians tend to agree with this critique of actutilitarianism and explain why rule utilitarianism is not open to any of these objections. Unlike action utilitarians, who try to maximize overall utility by applying the utilitarian principle to individual actions, rule utilitarians believe that we can only maximize utility by establishing a moral code that contains rules. Good moral rules are those whose inclusion in our moral code brings better results (more well-being) than other possible rules. Once we have determined what those rules are, we can judge individual actions by seeing if they comply with those rules. Thus, the utility principle is used to evaluate rules and is not directly applied to individual actions. Once the rules are established, compliance with these rules is the norm for evaluating individual measures. How can utilitarianism in power do this? How can this be an unbiased moral theory and, at the same time, allow partisanship in people`s relationships with their friends, family and others with whom they have a special connection? But Mill also argues that it is sometimes right to violate general ethical rules: there is a difference between utilitarianism of rules and utilitarianism of action.

The utilitarian act considers only the results or consequences of the individual act, while the utility of the rule considers the consequences of complying with a rule of conduct. In each of these cases, rule utilitarians may then agree with critics of actutilitarianism that it is wrong for doctors, judges, and slips of the tongue to judge on a case-by-case basis whether to harm their patients, convict and punish innocent people, and break their promises. The utilitarian approach to rules emphasizes the value of general rules and practices and shows why compliance with rules often maximizes overall benefits, even if, in some individual cases, something must be done that brings fewer benefits. Although R. M. Hare argues for a two-tier system, he does not believe that it should impose a set of moral rules, because in every application a rule could not be properly followed. He recognizes that due to lack of time, ignorance of circumstances, or inability to make proper moral calculations, people may need to follow the right rules, rules that tend to produce more happiness than pain. But ideally, one would make all the moral choices by putting oneself in the shoes of all the people involved and then making moral choices in such a way as to optimize everyone`s happiness by taking into account the strength of everyone`s preferences. Putting oneself in everyone`s shoes, Hare believes, is required according to the logic of moral statements; If something is mandatory, it is mandatory for everyone in similar circumstances. Thus, he introduces a Kantian note into an otherwise utilitarian theory.

If we do not consider everyone, we do not use moral terms correctly; We are not concerned with moral thought, but perhaps with wise or selfish thinking. Hare believes that by valuing the perspective of each person involved, it fulfills the universality required by moral theory, and by optimizing the satisfaction of preferences by taking into account the weight of each individual, it meets utilitarian requirements. Direct calculation, without using moral rules, is particularly appropriate when the rules are in conflict. For example, I may find that I have good reasons for not keeping a promise to my children – for example, to take them to the zoo. Keeping my promise may mean that I cannot fulfill any other moral obligations, such as visiting a sick relative. According to Hare, in order to decide what to do, I put myself in the shoes of everyone involved and choose to do what best suits preferences. Normally, without conflict, I simply keep the promise and stay at the lower level of moral reasoning, although ideally I would calculate the satisfaction associated with all moral choices. Hare`s position is a compromise; He recognizes that we cannot always make the right moral calculations. But it is not trying to impose a system of rules that allows you to always violate the rules. Hare`s position, which leaves the possibility of directly calculating happiness in each action, can avoid many problems of utilitarianism of rule and action. Although Hare insists that we take into account each person`s preferences, his point of view depends on the strength of the general preferences. This preference could end up causing some people to be used for the undue gain of others.

This leads to counterexamples. Indeed, Hare`s position may not allow the rules to remain firm. A more important role for rules is more of a trade-off. Compromises often seem unsatisfactory in all respects. Many utilitarians find a fundamentally flawed strict rule perspective and present the following dilemma to show why. Suppose we knew that a lie would cause more joy than pain. We cannot pretend that an exception does not bring more luck. The utilitarian rule must claim that by generally following the rules without exception, more happiness is produced, all things considered. But through assumptions, we now ask ourselves what to do when we know that, overall, an action that violates a rule will produce more happiness.

The utility of the act cannot understand how a utility of the rule can insist on following the rule in such a case. After all, Act and Rule utilitarians want more luck. Allowing clear exceptions, contrary to the view of the utilitarian rule, seems to allow more luck. In fact, this criticism claims that a system without exception is simply too rigid. There are exceptions and, morally speaking, we should be allowed to deal with them. On the other hand, rule theorists such as Bernard Gert (a direct link to Gert`s system of rules is found below) reject the evaluation of moral rules on the basis of luck. Moral rules do not serve the interests of the sum of happiness; They are supposed to control part of how we act, even if we act in the name of happiness. Back to top The thesis first summarizes the moral behavior model of the author`s decision theory in order to compare the moral implications of utilitarian and utilitarian versions of the rules of utilitarian theory. This template is then applied to three voting examples. It is argued that the moral behavior of naked utilitarian individuals will have the nature of an uncooperative game played in extensive mode and involves maximizing the social benefits of each action player in action.

On the other hand, the moral behavior of utilitarian individuals will have the character of a cooperative game played in normal mode and involving a firm commitment of each player to a particular moral strategy (i.e., the strategy chosen by the utilitarian selection criterion of the rule) – even if certain individual actions prescribed by this strategy Considered in isolation, it should not be able to maximize benefits. Critics argue that the argument of using our money to help poor strangers instead of benefiting ourselves and our loved ones proves only one thing – that utilitarianism is wrong. There are two reasons why this is wrong. First, it does not recognize the moral legitimacy of giving special preferences to ourselves and the people we know and care about. Second, since almost everyone is highly motivated to act for themselves and their loved ones, a morality that forbids it and demands the same consideration for strangers is far too demanding. It demands more than can reasonably be expected of people. Utilitarianism is one of the best-known and most influential moral theories. Like other forms of consequentialism, its basic idea is that whether actions are morally good or bad depends on their effects. More precisely, the only effects of measures that are relevant are the good and bad results they produce.

An important point of this article concerns the distinction between individual actions and types of actions. Act utilitarians focus on the effects of individual actions (such as the assassination of Abraham Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth), while rule utilitarians focus on the effects of types of actions (such as killing or stealing). If rule utilitarianism is to be distinguished from actutilitarianism, its proponents must find a way to formulate rules that allow exceptions to a general requirement or prohibition without falling into actutilitarianism. One way to achieve this is to identify the specific conditions under which the violation of a general moral requirement would be justified. Instead of saying that we can violate a general rule every time it maximizes benefits, the rule`s utilitarian code could say things like, «Don`t lie, except to prevent serious harm to people that doesn`t unjustifiably threaten others with serious harm.» This type of rule would completely prohibit lying, but it would allow lying to a murderer to avoid harming the intended victims, even if the lie caused harm to the murderer. In the event of lesser harm or fraudulent acts that benefit the liar, lying would still be prohibited, even though lying could maximize the overall benefit.