If we had a system in which we could, without any doubt, predict the consequences of our actions, would this negate rule-utilitarianism? What I mean to say is that if we could calculate the utility of our actions, then we wouldn't have to appeal to good rules. Right?
Act utilitarianism
4 posts
Re: Act utilitarianism
I don't see how it would be any different. We could still calculate the utility of if everyone did the action.
Rule utilitarianism isn't something people do because they lack information. That would be rules of thumb. Rule utilitarianism claims that following rules is inherently better than choosing actions on a case-by-case basis.
You could argue that the only rule would be to work out what action has the best consequences and do that, but you can argue that now.
Rule utilitarianism isn't something people do because they lack information. That would be rules of thumb. Rule utilitarianism claims that following rules is inherently better than choosing actions on a case-by-case basis.
You could argue that the only rule would be to work out what action has the best consequences and do that, but you can argue that now.
Consequentialism: The belief that doing the right thing makes the world a better place.
-
DanielLC - Posts: 703
- Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:29 pm
Re: Act utilitarianism
I am interested in this DanielLC. I didn't quite get the definitions of act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism at utilitarianism.com . I don't see how that applies... So you're saying that people who don't think about ethics or utilitarianism (don't ponder case by case), would be better off using utilitarian general rules (rule-utilitarianism) than having no rules at all. Do I understand?
-
Gee Joe - Posts: 93
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:44 am
- Location: Spain. E-mail: michael_retriever at yahoo.es
Re: Act utilitarianism
Hi all,
DanielLC, I think the strong rule utilitarianism that you describe ("following rules is inherently better") has been refuted by JJC Smart in a single-phrase, "rule-worship". It's silly to superstitiously follow a rule when to do so is contrary to our shared goal of increasing wellbeing.
However, I think there's a weaker rule utilitarianism that states that we should follow rules of thumb in favour of deliberating because this will increase happiness. I think that Hare reaches a suitable compromise between weak rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism in his discussion of the Archangel and the Prole in his book "Moral Thinking".
DanielLC, I think the strong rule utilitarianism that you describe ("following rules is inherently better") has been refuted by JJC Smart in a single-phrase, "rule-worship". It's silly to superstitiously follow a rule when to do so is contrary to our shared goal of increasing wellbeing.
However, I think there's a weaker rule utilitarianism that states that we should follow rules of thumb in favour of deliberating because this will increase happiness. I think that Hare reaches a suitable compromise between weak rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism in his discussion of the Archangel and the Prole in his book "Moral Thinking".
Wikipedia said:Hare posited two extreme cases of people, one of whom would only use critical moral thinking and the other of whom would only use intuitive moral thinking. The former he called the 'archangel' and the latter the 'prole'. ... according to his theory each person shares the traits of both to limited and varying extents at different times. The archangel has superhuman powers of thought, superhuman knowledge and no weaknesses. This unbiased 'ideal observer', when presented with an unfamiliar situation, would be able to immediately scan all potential consequences of all possible actions in order to frame a universal principle from which he could decide an appropriate action for the situation. Such a person would not need a set of intuitive moral rules, as he would be able to decide the correct response to any possible situation by reason alone. By contrast, the prole has these human weaknesses to an extreme degree. He must rely upon intuitions and sound prima facie principles all of the time, as he is incapable of critical thought. The set of intuitive moral rules that the prole follows must be simple and general enough that they can be easily understood and memorised, and also quick and easy to use. Once one has identified the different types of moral thinking, the next step is to identify when one ought to think like an archangel, and when like a prole. Hare identifies three types of situation where critical thinking is necessary. The first is when the intuitive general principles conflict in particular cases. The second is when, "though there is no conflict between principles, there is something highly unusual about the case which prompts the question whether the general principles are really fitted to deal with it."[9] Thirdly, and most importantly, critical thinking is necessary in order to select the intuitive prima facie principles that will be used.
You can read my personal blog here: CareyRyan.com
-
RyanCarey - Posts: 682
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:01 am
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
4 posts