Rule utilitarianism is an improvement on act utilitarianism. Discuss (40 marks)

“Rule utilitarianism is an improvement on act utilitarianism.” Discuss (40 marks)

Mill’s rule utilitarianism is an improvement on Bentham’s act utilitarianism since it is not nearly as self-centred; it takes in to account what everyone else would do. In a sense it is a more responsible ethic. After Bentham’s theory was regarded as being “a doctrine fit for pigs” Mill came up with rule utilitarianism to prove that utilitarianism is a good ethic. Bentham rightly argued that “nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure, it is for them alone to point out what we ought to do.” While Mill believed in the same ethic, he argued that not all pleasure was the same. Both theories are teleological meaning that the end justifies the means. Act utilitarianism is a relativist theory meaning that there are no fixed rules, whatever brings the largest amount of pleasure to the largest number of people is considered to be the right thing. The problem with act utilitarianism is the fact that the minority are not considered in the equation. This means that as long as the majority choose to act in a certain way that brings them joy, we can justify it. This brings along further problems of abuse and cruelty on minority groups. A famous example of this would be how the Nazi Germans treated the Jews and the Holocaust. Using act utilitarianism, we can justify what the Nazis did since they were the majority. However, through the use of reason we know that what they did was wrong. It is because of this that people call act utilitarianism “a doctrine fit for pigs”. On the other hand, Mill’s rule utilitarianism provided a great theory which was applicable in every situation. by universalising an act before we committed it, we were sure that it would be the right thing to do.

A rule utilitarian would think, before acting, about the consequences of other people following that rule. If the outcome is regarded as positive, they might decide that it's good to follow that rule in general and will apply it in future. On the other hand, an act utilitarian doesn't generalise the act, but regards it as a single action with a single outcome. They will have to weigh the possible consequences each and every time they act by using the hedonic calculus. This is a time-consuming process. As well taking time, the person also needs to consider every outcome of the situation which is impossible. Also, the person might be bias when using the hedonic calculus so that they get the answer that they want. Therefore, rule utilitarianism is considered to be more practicable. On the other hand, act utilitarian’s consider rule utilitarian’s incapable of thinking for applying rules every time. Also, applying rules to specific situations can have unpredicted consequences. At the same time, act utilitarian’s are criticised for their double standards, they think it is useful if everybody follows certain rules, while they take the right to decide whether or not it is a good idea to stick to those rules in specific situations. For example, you must drive on the left-hand side of the road, this applies to everyone that drives and it is the rules and it must be or should be followed in all situation, even if we were stuck in traffic jam. This is because the rule is to keep order on the road

Bentham claims that as humans we desire pleasure and seek to avoid pain. However, we desire a range of things just because we do desire pleasure doesn’t mean we should. Bentham also believed that all pleasure has the same value. He claims, “Quantity of pleasure being the same, pushpin is as good as poetry” This makes any calculation easier since all pleasure has the same value meaning there is no need to differentiate.  Bentham also designed the hedonic Calculus, a very practical system for working out the utility of an action.  On the other hand, Mill believed in qualitative pleasure. We can make judgments about which pleasures are greater rather than claiming that they are all the same. Mill argues that intellectual pleasures are superior to sensual pleasures. He writes, ‘Better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied’. Some find that they get more pleasure from sensual pleasure than intellectual. This shows that we are all different. However, some people accuse Mill of being an elitist, and others accuse him of being subjective.

Mill developed Aristotle’s concept of ‘eudaimonia’. A point missed out on by Bentham.  My first piece of chocolate gives much more pleasure than my tenth.  A really happy life means one that is full of a variety of pleasures.  Aristotle thought Virtues were good in themselves, but Mill says they were only a means to the end of Happiness, which is what everyone desires.  

Act Utilitarian is flexible and allows you to do the ‘right thing’ in each situation.  However, it is impractical.  You can’t work out all of the effects of every moral choice you make.  Similarly, Mill states that it is sometimes necessary to break the rules. “Act in accordance with those rules which, if generally followed, would provide the greatest general balance of pleasure over pain.” This is much more practical than Act Utilitarianism also in line with how society works.  However, Mill says "...to save a life, it may not only be allowable, but a duty, to steal, or take by force, the necessary food or medicine, or to kidnap, and compel to officiate, the only qualified medical practitioner." This leads us to question how do we know if breaking a rule will lead to the greater good?

Bentham tells us that it is better to reduce pain first before increasing pleasure. Karl Popper suggested a Negative Utilitarianism that purely aimed to reduce as much pain as possible. It is far better and morally right to reduce one person’s pain than increase one person’s pleasure.  It would be better to have 20 people not enjoying themselves than 10 playing games while five others are being tortured. Nonetheless, it is hard to compare pleasure and pain. Treating everyone as having equal value, and trying to bring about the greater good, is "the highest abstract standard of social and distributive justice." This answers a criticism that Utilitarianism is unfair. For example, it would allow us to kill an innocent person if it saved hundreds of lives.  However, some people think Mill is cruel in claiming and that torturing innocent people is wrong even if it leads to ‘distributive justice’.

To conclude, the main differences between act and rule utilitarianism is the fact that one is teleological and the other is mainly deontological. Act utilitarianism beliefs that an action becomes morally right when it produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people, while Rule utilitarianism beliefs that the moral correctness of an action depends on the correctness of the rules that allows it to achieve the greatest good. Act utilitarianism is the belief that it is alright to break a rule as long as it brings greater good. Overall, rule utilitarianism is an improvement to act utilitarianism as it provides a better method of moral decision making. Mill improved Bentham’s theory by making it universal which makes it more applicable.