Consequences Of Act Utilitarianism

Does the end justify the means? This question comes up any time someone partakes in questionable actions, such as torturing an enemy soldier to extract information or lying on a resume in order to get a higher paying job to be able to financially support your family. Most people would agree that lying or torturing someone is wrong. However, some may argue that if you are helping more people than you are hurting, then it is okay to lie to or torture someone. Utilitarianism is the ethical theory that the action you choose to perform should result in “the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people” (MacKinnon and Fiala). It is a form of consequentialism that focuses on the consequences of actions that affect everyone rather
Facing criticism that negative actions – such as stealing or cheating – can be justified using this theory, contemporary utilitarians have begun examining the action as a general rule rather than on a case-by-case basis. This paved way for two versions of utilitarianism: Act and Rule. Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism both suggest that one should choose whichever action produces the most happiness, but they differ in their focus; Act Utilitarianism considers the consequences of each act individually while Rule Utilitarianism considers the consequences of the act if they were to be performed as a general practice. (MacKinnon and
Act Utilitarianism considers the consequences of an act separately. That is to say, act utilitarians will apply the principle of utility to assess the action on a case-by-case basis and suggest that we must always perform the action that has the greatest net happiness (MacKinnon and Fiala). Rule Utilitarianism, on the other hand, considers the consequences of the act if it was to be performed as a practice or a general rule. Rule utilitarians believe that “a) a specific action is morally justified if it conforms to a justified moral rule; and b) a moral rule is justified if its inclusion into our moral code would create more utility than other possible rules (or no rule at all)” (Nathanson). Rule utilitarians would ask the question ‘what if everyone did that?’ (MacKinnon and Fiala) and apply the principle to assess the practice. Then, when evaluating if the action is justified, they would see if it follows the rule or practice that generates the maximum happiness (Nathanson). To get a better understanding of how each of the two versions assesses actions differently, three different situations have been described below along with an explanation of what act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism suggest the proper course of action should