Act vs. Rule Utilitarianism: Principles and Differences
Act and Rule Utilitarianism
If we consider the statement of the criterion of utilitarianism alongside the criterion of utility, we can ask what status corresponds to “utility.” In other words: is it a useful act or is it perhaps a more useful rule? We usually distinguish between two types of utilitarianism, which eventually have unmatched implications:
- Act Utilitarianism
- Rule Utilitarianism
Act Utilitarianism
Act utilitarianism involves a calculation of what we should do in each case or circumstance, determining the behavior that maximizes our pleasure or happiness without following a priori rules. Every action has consequences, and they are what allow us to judge its value. Act utilitarianism is more typical of Bentham’s work.
Rule Utilitarianism
Rule utilitarianism is an attempt to universalize criteria – and basically the utilitarian standard of “maximum pleasure for the greatest number.” Good or evil cannot be judged from the perspective of a specific action but from the global consequences of a rule that must be applied universally. The standard depends on utility, but it also creates utility. For example, the ethics of animal rights promoted by Peter Singer originates in the work of John Stuart Mill, and some authors have attempted to describe the Kantian categorical imperative in terms of rule utilitarianism.
A simple example of the difference between the two variants is found in John Stuart Mill’s reproach against his father regarding the female vote. John Mill’s father thought that women’s suffrage was not a significant event because, in fact, they tend to vote like their husbands. Therefore, it would only increase paperwork, complicate election campaigns, and not change the result. Giving women the vote was, therefore, not an act that increased anyone’s happiness. In contrast, John Stuart Mill said that even if this reasoning were correct, it disregarded the dignity of women as human beings and, therefore, violated a rule necessary to be happy.
The principle of utility requires the search for “greatest happiness,” but in Mill’s view, it is perfectly compatible with recognizing that certain kinds of pleasure are more desirable – and of higher value – than others. The value of pleasure is not confined to the immediate quantitative aspect but must recognize the intrinsic differences in quality between pleasures. While Bentham did not recognize differences in quality among the pleasures of a primitive individual and a cultured one (or claimed rights of animals to a pleasing life), Mill claims the qualitative difference of pleasures. He observes, in passing, that no human would share their pleasure with an animal, so the pleasures are not comparable. Only a man with his misfortunes would prefer health to the happy innocence of the insane. There is, therefore, a link between grades and qualities of pleasures that can make the application of the calculus of pleasures in a society.
Criteria
A) Society has the right to require us to respect certain rules:
- Limiting our ability to interfere in the lives of others.
- Forcing us into the minimum collaboration without which no society can function.
B) Society has no right to put limits on our freedom when it in no way affects the lives of those who do not want to be affected.
The Connection Between Utilitarianism and Liberalism
The basic principles of liberalism according to Mill:
Mill’s liberalism implies the need to prevent society or the state from interfering in the strictly private lives of individuals.