The principle of utility is the basis of all utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is defined as maximization of general happiness of a person regardless of the moral position of the means by which this is achieved. More happiness is considered better than less happiness anyways, right? General happiness is however difficult to quantify. For act utilitarianism, a deed is right only if it results in the greatest possible utility. It works by making comparison between two deeds that an individual could engage in, the one which results in the most satisfaction for the greatest number of people is considered the right one according to act utilitarianism (Hazlitt 14). This seems to push an individual into a situation of servitude to others.
On the other hand, rule utilitarianism considers a deed to be correct if it conforms to a set of rules, which when adhered to result in the greatest possible utility. Though destined for both act and rule utilitarianism may end up being the same, they differ quite significantly. Rule utilitarianism moves away from the internal criticisms of utilitarianism such as the confusion as to what comes after general happiness is achieved? How can this happiness be quantified? Rule utilitarianism is based more on logic and conscience. What an individual feels is the morally correct thing to do according to the general laws (Lyons 16). Act utilitarianism indicates that one should not act if not acting at the exact moment results in the greatest utility; rule utilitarianism on the other hand indicates that an individual should not act because the set rules explicitly indicate that one should not act.
Rule utilitarianism in this aspect seems to give a guideline as to the path that one is expected to follow. Act utilitarianism falls short in this aspect considering the individual has options as to the steps that they should take next and the quantification of whose results rather seem to depend on the perception of the individual. Rule utilitarianism provides an avenue of premeditated consequences for an act which makes it feel more stable and secure as compared to act utilitarianism. Furthermore, rule utilitarianism reduces the uncertainty and time spent in consideration of logical priority (Hazlitt 21). The fantasy created by act utilitarianism of better consequences from a lesser evil are further eliminated by rule utilitarianism as it explicitly points in the direction of the code of conduct, for instance, the former may indicate that lying to a friend may help by not hurting their feelings which may further preserve the friendship, this is a better consequence than maybe what would have happened had the truth been told, the latter disapproves of this as the morally correct step to take would be to tell the friend the truth regardless of what one presumes may result from this, as rules are rules, and they ought to be adhered to.
Consider a hypothetical situation, where a man has a sick child at home but luckily enough, he collects a hundred dollar bill while walking along the road, going by rule utilitarianism, he ought to look for the owner of this money and give it back for there to be maximum utility, however, going by act utilitarianism, getting treatment for the sick child or even giving it to charity may result in the greatest satisfaction. The idea of rule utilitarianism reaching idealness is a hypothetical expectation (Lyons 35). Rule utilitarianism however seems a safer option compared to act utilitarianism according to the evidence presented above. It therefore succeeds as an attempt to improve upon act utilitarianism.
Works Cited
Hazlitt, Henry. Foundations of Morality at the Mises Institute. (1964). Print
Lyons, David. Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism. (1965). Print.
