Rule Util vs Act Util: Explaining the Differences

[mikey516]

Hi this is my first time posting. Can someone please explain to me how rule-utilitarianism appears to solve some of the problems with act utilitarianism. Also, what are the problems related to act-util? I am writing an essay and this question really has me stumped. Thanks for the help.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Adding a link from Wiki, just for reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_utilitarianism

 

[apeiron]

Not my field, but it seems obvious that this is an issue of hierarchy or local~global scale.

If you act out of an individual or local judgement about consequences, then on the plus side, that allows creativity of response, but equally, you are making guesses it will work out.

If you follow rules, then these will be global habits that have developed over time (as the result perhaps of many local guesses) and will have proven their general worth.

So an ideal system would have the two kinds of utilitarianism in balance. You want some degree of local creative freedom of action - act u - so that society can experiment and learn. What happens for example if you come across novel situations for which no global or general rule is available? Individual trial and error is how a new rule would eventually arise.

On the other hand, societies would represent the long-run knowledge of what works out best. The accumulated and distilled wisdom. So rule u should be the general approach, the global context of personal action.

As usual in philosophy, you are being asked to chose a side. Option a or option b. And as usual, the answer is that when two options both seem strongly reasonable, it is because they form the necessarily complementary aspects of the one greater system.

Oh, Wiki says...

A problem with act utilitarianism is that people never know what acts to expect from those who practise act utilitarianism. Arguably a greater number of people are happier a greater part of the time if they can trust others to follow standard moral rules most of the time and know what to expect.

That is probably so, but hardly a major issue. It of course also seems to apply that living in a society where everyone sticks to the rules and never shows any creative latitude is just as bad. Ever dealt with one of life's bureaucrats?

 

[Willowz]

Well it's hard to say because in most cases rule utilitarianism regresses back into act utilitarianism. As noted in wiki;

A specific criticism of rule utilitarianism states that it collapses into act utilitarianism. David Lyons argued that collapse occurs because for any given rule, in the case where breaking the rule produces more utility, the rule can be sophisticated by the addition of a sub-rule that handles cases like the exception. This process holds for all cases of exceptions, and so the ‘rules’ will have as many ‘sub-rules’ as there are exceptional cases, which, in the end, makes an agent seek out whatever outcome produces the maximum utility.

I don't see how you can refute that criticism.

In other words the only rule is the first most important principle of utilitarianism, utility. Although more realistically there is no 100% consensus on what counts as the greatest utility, thus rule utilitarianism may come handy here.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The biggest problems with utilitarianism are how we determine happiness and how we know whether or not an act will result in happiness.

If we applied rule utilitarianism strictly then trying to decide on an action would take an inordinate amount of time to discover the ramifications, especially if people do not agree on what happiness.

 

[ideasrule]

The biggest problems with utilitarianism are how we determine happiness and how we know whether or not an act will result in happiness.

If we applied rule utilitarianism strictly then trying to decide on an action would take an inordinate amount of time to discover the ramifications, especially if people do not agree on what happiness.

Did you mean act utilitarianism? Rule utilitarianism specifically says that you shouldn't have to discover the ramifications of every case; you just come up with a general rule that usually leads to the greatest happiness.

I don't think your last argument applies because for any reasonable system of moral guidelines, you're not going to get agreement on what the best course of action should be. You could get perfect agreement by using "always respect the authority" as your one and only moral obligation, but I don't consider that a reasonable system of guidelines.

 

[Willowz]

The Western form of utilitarianism seems strongly biased towards associating utility, with money.

Does money give happiness?

 

[ideasrule]

The Western form of utilitarianism seems strongly biased towards associating utility, with money.

What's your basis for saying that? I've always seen utility associated with happiness, which may or may not be related to money. Perhaps you're getting confused with the use of "utility" in economics, which has a different meaning?

Does money give happiness?

I don't know; does it? If you think so, then it does for you; if I think it doesn't, then it doesn't for me. I don't see anything wrong with pursuing money, nor do I see anything wrong with pursuing an interest or relationship at the expense of money.

 

[Willowz]

What's your basis for saying that? I've always seen utility associated with happiness, which may or may not be related to money.

I don't understand.

Perhaps you're getting confused with the use of "utility" in economics, which has a different meaning?

I think "utility" in economics has become synonymous with the utility meant by the utilitarians.

I don't know; does it? If you think so, then it does for you; if I think it doesn't, then it doesn't for me. I don't see anything wrong with pursuing money, nor do I see anything wrong with pursuing an interest or relationship at the expense of money.

I don't want to change the topic to some form of personal preference. I just want to know if money should be classified as the greatest good under utilitarianism.?

On second thought I mistaken about any form of western utilitarianism. Forget it.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Did you mean act utilitarianism?

I did yes, pardon me I was quite tired when I wrote that!