It is widely accepted that utilitarianism, as a discipline, is not as unifying or as simple a moral theory as it might at first appear; as Crisp points out, there are in fact "many variations, some subtle, others quite radical, between different forms of utilitarianism[1]"; Representing two of these different forms are “act” and “rule” utilitarianism. In this essay I will aim to discuss the effectiveness of the act and rule utilitarian positions respectively, ultimately concluding that act utilitarianism, the position that Mill himself takes, I believe, is the better of the two and promotes the most coherent and valuable interpretation of act utilitarianism. Utility principle. Before embarking on an exploration of the relative success of Act and Rule utilitarianism, it is perhaps worth highlighting the distinction between them. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why violent video games should not be banned"? Get an original essay At a basic level, utilitarianism acts (sometimes called "direct") as the moral theory that advocates that "an act is right to the extent that its consequences for general happiness are at least as good as any alternative available to the agent[2].' For Act Utilitarian, as Crisp puts it more concisely, “the right action is that which maximizes happiness[3]”. For the utilitarian (or indirect) rule, the right or wrong of an act is not necessarily determined by the fact that it promotes the greatest happiness, but by the fact that it conforms to certain rules which, if everyone followed them, would cause the greatest number of problems. happiness; “An act is just to the extent that it conforms to a rule whose acceptance value for general happiness is at least as great as any alternative rule available to the agent[4]. » Undeniably, if one were to adopt the Act Utilitarian position, one would encounter many points of contention which would require in-depth reflection if one wanted to defend the chosen point of view coherently. Perhaps one of the most apparent problems is wasted time. Act utilitarianism requires that an agent consider, when faced with a dilemma, which of a series of potential actions would result in the greatest happiness and the least pain. For anyone, this would be a long and complex process that would not allow decisions to be made at a pace that would then allow time for real action. For example, a moral dilemma involving saving lives in a burning house would not be best addressed using such a lengthy decision-making process; this “imposes an impossible computational burden on the moral agent.”[5] Second, I think the problem of spontaneity should be taken seriously with regard to act utilitarianism; many would recognize spontaneity as one of life's great pleasures; if we were to analyze every action to this extent, life would become over-planned and over-examined and, in turn, would diminish overall happiness. This is obviously not what a utilitarian would be inclined to encourage. Additionally, we might consider what is sometimes called the “precedent effect”; If an Act Utilitarian considers an action to be correct in a given set of circumstances (stealing, for example), he might set a precedent for himself or others around him by encouraging similar behavior in a given set of circumstances which are not exactly the same. Due to ignorance of the Act Utilitarian principle of moral laws, it is entirely likely that in some situations the methodology would lead to aperson to commit actions that they would consider morally repugnant by normal standards. Crisp alludes to this idea when he asserts that if we were to live in a world of what he calls "single-level" act utilitarians[6], "although one might suppose, in As a human being, not stopping yourself from enjoying certain experiences, such as eating tasty food, you and everyone else would adopt no other goal than to maximize well-being. You would have no qualms about committing acts such as killing, harming or lying to others.[7]' I think, however, that Crisp's distinction is important; “Single-level” act utilitarianism is arguably the type at the origin of many of these problems. He certainly expresses my own opinion in stating that a society centered around this moral theory would be very dysfunctional. So far we can see that there are many points at which the effectiveness of the act utilitarian principle on a one-dimensional level, this simplistic level could be questioned. However, I am not convinced by the ability of the rule utilitarian position to solve any of the problems explored above. Regarding the time-wasting objection, it does not appear that adopting rule utilitarianism can save significant time when making moral decisions; there cannot be a list of rules so long that it covers every possible dilemma (if there were, that would be a problem in itself because one would waste time trying to remember a number such an extraordinary number of rules) and if the list of rules was only a limited one, then we would waste time trying to choose the appropriate rule for the situation in question. The objection of spontaneity still remains; adding a series of life rules would certainly eliminate impulsivity. Rule utilitarianism could arguably rid us of the burden of precedent, but in my view it would replace it with a larger problem, namely rule worship, potentially to an extent that does not is simply more utilitarian. For example, if breaking a rule would undoubtedly lead to the greatest happiness and least pain, then surely it is the utilitarian duty to ignore the rule? In the case of a rule, the precedent is already permanently established and it may not be the right one in a given situation. Not only does rule utilitarianism not solve many of the problems posed by act utilitarianism, it also leads to many other problems. For example, the range of potential moral dilemmas is far too broad for one set of rules to cover all bases, so to speak; a number of questions would remain unanswered. Furthermore, rules often give guidance on what not to do, but may not enlighten us on what to do instead. Theories of action should answer the question “what should I do?” and it does not appear that these rules are extensive enough to answer this question. It therefore seems that neither “one-level” act utilitarianism nor rule utilitarianism is really sufficient. However, what I take to be Mill's own interpretation of act utilitarianism, which Crisp calls a "tiered" view, seems to be a more moderate and workable position. Mill argues that society should continue to conform to the "customary morality[8]" it has cultivated since these rules have historically been shown to contribute to general happiness. As Crisp argues: “Mill believes that customary morality…emerged “because of the tacit influence of an unrecognized norm” (1.4). The beingsHumans are by nature concerned with their own happiness, and this concern, extended to others, has led, without us being fully aware of it, to the development of a customary morality based largely on the principle of utility[9]. According to Mill, these general principles of morality should be practiced until a situation arises in which these principles come into conflict; at this point the principle of utility should come into play. This adherence to so-called "rules" or generally accepted moral principles has been seen by some as indicative of Mill's adoption of a rule-utilitarian position. But it seems that this is not the case since Mill simply argues that we should follow these rules because, historically, they have been found to promote the most happiness upon reflection via act utilitarian methodology. Adhering to these general principles is simply skipping a step already taken. throughout history. Mill uses a navigation analogy to illustrate its relationship to the rules of morality; they are guidelines for achieving the ultimate utilitarian end: “It is a strange notion that the recognition of a first principle is incompatible with the admission of secondary principles. Informing a traveler about the location of their final destination does not prohibit the use of landmarks and direction signs along the way. The proposition that happiness is the end and goal of morality does not mean that no route should be laid out to reach that goal, nor that people traveling there should not be advised to take a certain direction. rather than another. certainly seems to be a less extreme approach to either-or utilitarianism than single-level act or rule utilitarianism and seems to avoid many pitfalls. This position does not bind an agent to a particular set of rules that might ultimately lead to the commission of a non-utilitarian act, but it also saves time through the acceptance of generally accepted principles inducing happiness. The evidence for utilitarianism appears to be consistent with the act utilitarian view. Some, however, seem to identify Mill's position more with that of the utilitarian rule; Urmson shares this view. It is beyond the scope of this investigation to examine Urmson's views in depth, but I will attempt to mention some of his main arguments. He claims that the correct interpretation of what Mill says in Utilitarianism is: "A particular action is justified as right by showing that it is in accordance with a certain moral rule. It is demonstrated to be wrong by showing that 'she transgresses a certain moral rule [11].' He claims substantial textual support for this claim; for example: "But to regard the rules of morality as improvable is one thing; to leave aside intermediate generalizations entirely and to strive to test each individual action directly is another." ]'. This does not, however, connect Mill to the utilitarian view of rules. Indeed, he recognizes moral rules which should be generally accepted, but the fact is that these moral laws were previously developed via the methods of utilitarianism. the act; it is only by discovering which moral rules tend to produce the greatest happiness that these laws have been adopted. Mill does not blindly follow a set of rules, but simply recognizes that these rules allow one to skip a step. already taken; since it has already been decided which actions would benefit society as a whole if society, as a whole, adopted them, the utilitarian can be safe in the knowledge that he has acted accordingly;.104