The Rule Utilitarian Model

The Utilitarian model, in its broadest sense, can be described as “the greatest good for the greatest number” (38). This way of thinking prioritizes the needs of the many over the needs of the few. There are three approaches to this model, the cost-benefit approach, the act Utilitarian approach, and the rule Utilitarian approach. In the first approach, the course of action that is chosen is the course that produces the greatest benefit relative to cost. The act approach deals with problems that don’t always have quantifiable values. For example, in a situation where the cost of two items are roughly equal, the item that should be chosen to be implemented is the item that will benefit the people using the item the most. Lastly, in the rule approach,
These moral agents consist of any autonomous person, and excludes inanimate objects and animals. In this approach every person, or every moral agent, is regarded equally and is considered a basic requirement for justice. This differs from the Utilitarian approach because protecting individuals has priority over maximizing the welfare of the majority. The “Respect for Persons” model prioritizes people, and does not allow an action if people are to be killed, deceived, denied their freedom, or otherwise violated simply to bring about a greater total amount of utility. The first approach to this model is the golden rule approach. This approach relies on the concepts of universalizability and reversibility. Universalizability is grounded in the idea that if we think we are acting in a morally acceptable fashion, then we should find it morally acceptable for others to perform similar actions in similar circumstances. Reversibility applies universalizability and is the definition of the golden rule, treating others as one would want to be treated. Under the golden rule approach, a person is expected to make decisions that other people are likely to also make, if placed in a similar situation. Next, in the self-defeating approach, universalizability is applied to ask, if everyone else did what I am doing, would this undermine my ability to do the same thing? And if
The land he needs is owned by the Jones family, and they are unwilling to sell the land that has been in their family for 150 years. If Carson was to utilize the Utilitarian approach and take the course of action that would benefit the majority, he would most likely choose to exercise eminent domain. The travelers who would use the highway would hold a majority over the Jones family, and building a road over the farmland would benefit more people. However, if Carson was to take a “Respect for Persons” approach, and priorities the rights of the Jones family and their ownership of the land, he would most likely choose to rebuild the road where it was initially. These two approaches lead to completely different conclusions because they place priority on different group of people. I believe that in this case, the “Respect for Persons” approach is the best course of action. There is already an established road that people can use to reach their destination without the road that would use the Jones’ land. Additionally, the Jones family owns the land, and does not desire to sell it, it is their right to keep it if they choose. While the travelers using the highway won’t have the convenience of a 20 minute shorter drive, not having this shortcut will not hinder them from getting to