Rule utilitarianism is a form of utilitarianism that says actions are moral when they conform to the rules that lead to the greatest good, or that "the rightness or wrongness of a particular action is a function of the correctness of the rule of which it is an instance." For rule utilitarians, the correctness of a rule is determined by the amount of good it brings about when followed.
Rule utilitarianism measures the amount of 'good' an individual action does in reference to a rule or law.
In contrast, act utalitarian judge actions in terms of the goodness of their consequences without reference to rules of action. Another variation of rule utilitarianism stresses the greater utility of following a given rule in general, arguing that the practice of following some rule in all instances (always stopping at red lights, for example) will have better consequences overall than allowing exceptions to be made in individual instances, even if better consequences can be demonstrated in those instances. Rule utilitarianism can also be seen as practice rule, which states that—even though in some or most cases the rule wouldn't cause the greatest good—never following it would not cause the greatest good for the greatest number of people. For example the fifth amendment states, "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Even though that rule protects many criminals from conviction, in its absence people could be tortured or threatened into confessing crimes they didn't commit. So, if there were no fifth amendment, it would not cause the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Act Utilitarianism doesn't judge the value of an action in terms of laws. Rather it states that actions are moral when they benefit the most people. Whether or not there is a law or rule associated with the action in question is irrelevant to an AU.
A quick way to remember the difference is to think of mob rule: RU sees justice as a state function, because the law says it is a state function. AU sees justice as everyone's responsibility, individual and states'.
Rule utilitarianism measures the amount of 'good' an individual action does in reference to a rule or law.
In contrast, act utalitarian judge actions in terms of the goodness of their consequences without reference to rules of action. Another variation of rule utilitarianism stresses the greater utility of following a given rule in general, arguing that the practice of following some rule in all instances (always stopping at red lights, for example) will have better consequences overall than allowing exceptions to be made in individual instances, even if better consequences can be demonstrated in those instances. Rule utilitarianism can also be seen as practice rule, which states that—even though in some or most cases the rule wouldn't cause the greatest good—never following it would not cause the greatest good for the greatest number of people. For example the fifth amendment states, "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Even though that rule protects many criminals from conviction, in its absence people could be tortured or threatened into confessing crimes they didn't commit. So, if there were no fifth amendment, it would not cause the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Act Utilitarianism doesn't judge the value of an action in terms of laws. Rather it states that actions are moral when they benefit the most people. Whether or not there is a law or rule associated with the action in question is irrelevant to an AU.
A quick way to remember the difference is to think of mob rule: RU sees justice as a state function, because the law says it is a state function. AU sees justice as everyone's responsibility, individual and states'.
No comments:
Post a Comment