Act utilitarianism

Act utilitarianism is a utilitarian theory of ethics which states that the morally right action is the one which produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Act utilitarianism is opposed to rule utilitarianism, which states that the morally right action is the one that is in accordance with a moral rule whose general observance would create the most happiness. Act utilitarianism makes no appeals to general rules, but instead demands that the agent evaluate individual circumstances.

Utilitarianism

Main article: Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, which means that it stipulates that the morality of an action is determined by its outcome. (This is opposed to deontology, which argues that moral actions should flow from duties or motives.) This consequentialism is then combined with philosophical hedonism, which posits happiness or pleasure as the ultimate worthwhile pursuit. Therefore, since only the consequences of an action matter, and only happiness matters, then the morally correct action in any situation is the one that results in the greatest sum of happiness or pleasure.

Criticism

Act utilitarianism has been criticized for a number of reasons:

• It is too difficult or takes too long to calculate the right action in the circumstances of a moral decision. In fact it is probably computationally impossible to do the calculations. Additionally, a person cannot be expected to accurately anticipate the future to judge the consequences of every possible alternative. This is illuminated by the problem of moral luck where the alternative chosen has unintended consequences that are beyond the control of the person.^[1]
  • It is too pragmatic (i.e. it requires that one go against moral intuitions in order to bring about the greater good). For example, a classic objection to consequentialism in general (and act utilitarianism specifically) asks us to consider why we keep promises. The general intuition is that we keep promises because we made them. But for act utilitarianism, the moral imperative to keep a promise arises only because it would make the parties affected happier than they would be if the promise were broken. (It has nothing to do with the simple fact that we promised in the first place, it all comes down to happiness.
    • As such, a moral actor loses his integrity. This was a criticism that has been leveled by Bernard Williams: that utilitarianism undermines a person's humanity, and instead turns them into a vessel for bringing about consequences. It may require a person to act against their intuitions and convictions if it would produce the best consequences.)

  Rule utilitarianism was formulated to counter many of these criticisms. For example, it is less demanding of the agent and more accessible, and any reasonable formulation includes common sense rules.

  See also

  Philosophy Portal

  • Rule utilitarianism
  • Two-level utilitarianism
  • Preference utilitarianism
  • Jeremy Bentham
  • John Stuart Mill
  • Peter Singer

  Notes

  1. ^ Quinn, Michael J. Ethics for the Information Age. 2nd ed. ed. Boston: Pearson/Addison-Wesley, pg 78, 2006

  
  

  This article about ethics is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
  et:Teoutilitarism