Rule utilitarians see the social implications of rules-based morality as one of the key virtues of their theory. The three cases just discussed show why utilitarianism undermines trust but not rule utilitarianism. Basically, doctors, judges and promising people are about trust. Being able to trust others is extremely important for our well-being. Part of people`s confidence is being able to predict what they will and won`t do. Since action utilitarians are engaged in a case-by-case method of evaluation, adopting their point of view would make people`s actions much less predictable. As a result, people would be less likely to view others as reliable and trustworthy. Rule utilitarianism does not have this problem because it is bound by rules, and these rules create positive “waiting effects” that give us a basis for knowing how others are likely to behave. The general form of each of these arguments is the same. In all cases, actutilitarianism implies that a particular action is morally permissible or necessary.
But each of the judgments that result from actutilitarianism is at odds with widespread and deeply rooted moral beliefs. Since actutilitarianism endorses actions that most people consider patently morally wrong, we can know that this is a false moral theory. What is utility? What is a good consequence? Or, to use a bit of jargon, what is a “useful” where the word “useful” means a unit of utility? There are many possible answers to this question, but here are three versions of utilitarianism that give three different answers to this question: In each of these cases, rule utilitarians may agree with critics of law utilitarianism that it is wrong for doctors, judges, and slips of the tongue to judge on a case-by-case basis whether they should harm their patients. Condemning and punishing innocent people and breaking promises. The utilitarian approach to rules emphasizes the value of general rules and practices and shows why compliance with rules often maximizes overall benefits, even if, in some individual cases, something must be done that brings fewer benefits. There are other versions of utilitarianism, but you get the idea. Because its ideology advocates the greatest good for the greatest number, a company that acts in a utilitarian way should increase the well-being of others. In practice, however, utilitarianism can lead to greed and dogs, which can undermine social welfare. However, since we cannot predict the future, it is difficult to know for sure whether the consequences of our actions will be good or bad. This is one of the limitations of utilitarianism.
Based on examples like these, rule utilitarians argue that their view, unlike actutilitarianism, avoids the problems raised in terms of demand and bias. The obligation of impartial justifications of moral rules does not compel them to reject moral rules that allow or oblige people to give priority to certain others. The contrast between act and rule utilitarianism, although noted earlier by some philosophers, was not clearly established until the late 1950s, when Richard Brandt introduced this terminology. (Other terms used to make this opposition are “direct” and “extreme” for actutilitarianism and “indirect” and “limited” for rule utilitarianism.) Since the contrast had not been accentuated, earlier utilitarians such as Bentham and Mill sometimes applied the principle of utility to actions and sometimes to the choice of rules for evaluating actions. This has led to scientific debates about whether classical utilitarians support act utilitarians or rule utilitarians, or a combination of these views. One indication that Mill accepted rule utilitarianism is his assertion that a direct appeal to the utility principle occurs only when “secondary principles” (i.e., ) are in conflict with each other. In such cases, the principle of “maximizing benefits” is used to resolve the conflict and determine the right actions. [Mill, Utilitarianism, Chapter 2] One of the reasons for adopting utilitarianism with predictable consequences is that it seems unfair to say that the rescuer acted badly because he could not foresee the future negative effects of rescuing the drowning person.
In response, utilitarians respond to the real consequence that there is a difference between the evaluation of an action and the evaluation of the person who performed the action. In their view, even if the Savior`s action was wrong, it would be a mistake to blame or criticize the Savior because the bad results of His act were unpredictable. They emphasize the difference between evaluating actions and evaluating the people who carry them out. One of the oldest amber deposits in the world, 100 million years old, is located in the northern region of Myanmar. Myanmar amber is abundant, of high quality and contains inclusions in the resin. The extraction of these amber specimens in Myanmar is at the center of many legitimate sales and on the black market to academic researchers and private collectors. Over the past decade, more than a billion dollars in legal revenue has been generated by the extraction and sale of amber. Law students learn early on that discussing cases and laws in class can begin with questions about what the rule is, but probably turns into questions about what the rule should be. And in most law classes, the analysis of the question “should” will probably take one of two tracks. The first path leads to fairness (what outcome is fair to the parties in this case; which rule will lead to equitable outcomes in the future). The second path leads to politics (which rule will have the best consequences in the future).
Fairness theories will be discussed in future issues of the Legal Theory Lexicon; Today we focus on political arguments and the theoretical question: “What does it mean to say that a rule would have the best consequences?” One answer to this question is “utilitarianism,” a theory of enormous interest and influence. But what exactly is “utilitarianism” and how could it be criticized or defended? What is “utilitarianism”? Utilitarianism provides a relatively simple method for determining the morally correct course of action for a particular situation. Over the years, the principle of utilitarianism has been refined and expanded into many variants. Today`s utilitarians describe the advantages and disadvantages in terms of satisfaction of personal preferences, or in purely economic terms, monetary advantages over monetary costs, rather than in terms of “happiness” and “pleasure.” The literature on utilitarianism is huge, but here are some good starting points: While utilitarianism is certainly a reason-based approach to determining right and wrong, it has obvious limitations. This edition of the Legal Theory Lexicon is an introduction to utilitarian moral and political philosophy suitable for law students (especially first-year law students) interested in legal theory. Critics of the act`s utilitarianism say it allows judges to sentence innocent people to harsh sentences if it maximizes benefits, allows doctors to kill healthy patients if it allows them to use a person`s organs to save more lives, and allows people to break promises when it brings a little more benefit than the promise. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) developed the principles of utility by defining them as a measure of maximizing pleasure while minimizing pain. Bentham wrote that everyone prefers pleasure to pain.
With this belief, utilitarian moral principles are founded (Sandel, 2010). In developing the theory of utilitarianism, Bentham may have meant pleasure as in “happiness” and pain as “sadness”; However, the rendering of Bentham`s utilitarianism seemed hedonistic, as if sensuality were the measure Bentham associated with pleasure (Hinman, 2013).