I feel one should always aim to create good and happiness and not pain, but I feel following the theory of Utilitarianism is not a sufficient way to achieve this. For this reason, they claim that the person who rescued Hitler did the right thing, even though the actual consequences were unfortunate. In contrast, act utilitarians judge an act in terms of the consequences of that act alone The justification of action for the above rule mentioned are about the greater good of the society , How are Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism different from each other??? The purpose of this is to provide overall security to people in their jurisdiction, but this requires that criminal justice officials only have the authority to impose arrest and imprisonment on people who are actually believed to be guilty. The second context concerns the content of the rules and how they are applied in actual cases. A useful analog here may be rights. Hence, the theory of utilitarianism highlights the idea that morality or goodness is centered on useful actions or rules that benefit humanity on the whole.
It is based on factuality and leaves little room for imagination. There are obvious problems with both Act and Rule Utilitarianism. There are two reasons that show why it is false. We no longer need to worry too much about the specific circumstances surrounding any particular ethical decision. The Ten Commandments, for example, focus on types of actions, telling us not to kill, steal, bear false witness, commit adultery, or covet the things that belong to others. Throughout time, there have been several different cultures that have similarities and differences, as far as standards of living within the community.
Even if however we decide that Utilitarianism is useful in making our moral decisions, there still seem to be some great practical obstacles. Writings on an Ethical Life. For example, rules can provide a basis for acting when there is no time to deliberate. Two influential contributors to this theory are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. As a result, people who are innocent are sometimes prosecuted, convicted, and punished for crimes they did not do. An agent who is lazy, or incompetent, or lacking information, may indeed tend to achieve better outcomes by following some version of rule or two-level utilitarianism.
Had Hitler drowned, millions of other people might have been saved from suffering and death between 1938 and 1945. Here are two further examples to highlight the differences between the two theories of Utilitarianism. The reason why a more rigid rule-based system leads to greater overall utility is that people are notoriously bad at judging what is the best thing to do when they are driving a car. More importantly, the act utilitarianism evaluates an act by its actual consequences, unlike rule utilitarianism. There is tension and high drama in their composition. Thus, act utilitarianism believes that it is the right action that results in a greater advantage or good to the people.
Act Utilitarianism would imply that the doctor should kill the healthy man and save the five patients, as this is creating the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Once we embrace the act utilitarian perspective, then every decision about how we should act will depend on the actual or foreseeable consequences of the available options. Why Act Utilitarianism is Better than Traditional, Rule-based Moralities Traditional moral codes often consist of sets of rules regarding types of actions. Act utilitarianism basically states that an action is moral if it produces the greatest happiness for the most people. In addition, both act-utilitarians and rule-utilitarians also demand that an individual strives to maximize the happiness of the group as a whole, not just to maximize the utility of the self. Some rules can identify types of situations in which the prohibition is over-ridden. So if I killed somebody, and my intent was cold-blooded murder, if by coincidence the person I killed was carrying a devastating disease and by me killing him I prevented the spread of this disease to thousands, and hence prevented the pain of thousands, my act of cold blooded murder, according to Act Utilitarianism was a morally right action to carry out.
Although some people doubt that we can measure amounts of well-being, we in fact do this all the time. It asks more than can reasonably be expected of people. Rule Utilitarianism would take a different approach. Surrealism- Surrealism is a modern painting style. In order to have a criminal justice system that protects people from being harmed by others, we authorize judges and other officials to impose serious punishments on people who are convicted of crimes. Rule utilitarianism, on the other hand, is a utilitarian theory of ethics that highlights the morality of an action is when it conforms to a certain rule that leads to the greatest good or happiness of the people.
For the murderer who killed the person with the disease, there is no justice for him. If however the next child to be late for class was the one person who had never been late before, she would still punish him. When referring to levels of higher and lower pleasures rule utilitarianism becomes socially exclusive to those who cannot experience higher pleasures. In each case, act utilitarianism implies that a certain act is morally permissible or required. In other words, we can maximize the overall utility that is within our power to bring about by maximizing the utility of each individual action that we perform.
The main philosophy of the theory of Utilitarianism is to create the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Accident victims including drivers may be killed, injured, or disabled for life. On the other hand if the doctor makes up a story concerning the diagnosis and prognosis that is not true but that gives the ill person more time to enjoy life before the illness makes it obvious that the end is near, well then the results are different. Even if the murderer was completely unaware of the disease the victim had, and was purely killing out of cold-blood, he has still carried out a morally right action, and hence would be exempt from punishment according to Utilitarianism, as he has done no wrong. In his defense of rule utilitarianism, Brad Hooker distinguishes two different contexts in which partiality and impartiality play a role. So an individual action is only right if it promotes happiness.