¶ … Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism Normative Ethics

Normative ethics entails accessing the moral standards that relate to right and wrong conducts. Normative ethics provides the ideal for socially correct behaviors. Normative theories are founded on an individual's principles of determining and differentiating between right and wrong (Rachels & Rachels, 2009). Therefore, it is appreciable that normative theories are founded not only by the societies' expectation but also on the principles an individual rides on as far as right and wrong relate. This paper presents a comparison between Act utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism.

On the overall, utilitarianism determines ways of determining the best action depending on the choices individuals face. The guiding principle of utilitarianism is basically the consequence of individual actions, policies and laws (Rachels & Rachels, 2009). The evaluation of ones actions in utilitarianism is thus dependent on the outcome of the action and whether the outcome satisfies the individual's desire. An action will produce some degree of satisfaction and this will be said to good if the individual's utility is maximized. Preference for an action will thus be on the amount of good that is derived.

Difference between Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism

The difference between these two theories is seen in how an action should be undertaken in order to achieve the best result. Act utility is guided by deciding between the actions that yield the overall highest net utility. The best overall utility maximizing action is preferred. Going by the principles of Act utilitarianism, an action is only right if it maximizes utility than any other action thus creating more well-being (Rachels & Rachels, 2009).

Rule utilitarianism on the contrary, incorporates two aspects; the moral rule and moral code. According to Rule utilitarianism, an action is said to be good if it conforms to the set moral rules and if its inclusion in the moral code yields the highest possible utility compared to other actions. This perspective require that we access whether a particular action meets the general rule of morals and our own individual moral codes to achieve the highest well-being compared to others actions (Rachels & Rachels, 2009). The main divergence between Act and Rule utilitarianism is that Act utilitarians employ the utilitarian principle to the assessment of individual actions directly. Rule utilitarians on the other hand, utilize directly the utilitarian principle to evaluate the rules and then assess individual acts on whether they produce the highest possible utility as well as they fall in line with the rules (Rachels & Rachels, 2009).

In Act utilitarianism, individuals are expected to act in accordance to the available alternatives seeking to maximize utility. Although Act utilitarianism stands as a test criterion, it does not guide decision making. Act utilitarianism will also not serve direct an individual towards an act when knowledge of utility maximization is not with the realms of knowledge. In order to facilitate decision making related to Act utilitarianism an ancillary test is used to determine the probability values of outcomes. The test serves to give the probability that an action would yield a particular outcome (Rachels & Rachels, 2009).

To maximize utility one is expected to choose the action that when compared to other actions, it maximizes the utility. In the case for Act utilitarianism, the test guides an individual to pick the action with the highest value obtained by multiplying the outcome value with their respective probability of occurrence. In Act utilitarianism, the rationale stands that repeating the decision problem a number of times will yield higher utility maximization compared to any other actions. Generally, the Act utilitarian should distinguish the right act objectively and subjectively. The right act objectively is one that going by the available alternatives would maximize utility. The right act objectively is the act; going by the available information to the agent seems the most rational with aim being to maximize utility. Under Act utilitarianism there are two distinct perspectives of maximizing utility (Rachels & Rachels, 2009).

On the one hand, an agent always acts in a way to maximize utility per person (average utility). On the other hand, one seeks always to maximize aggregate or total utility always. The two choices yield similar results unless in situations where the outcome is expected the affect a number of individuals (Rachels & Rachels, 2009). Example a decision to have a baby is expected to affect an individual while a decision to create a policy to increase...

The desire to attain maximum utility puts the followers at a position to ignore social rules and seek the idealistic utility maximizing choice. Considering a decision on democratic election voting where an individual voter has a choice between voting or not voting. The morally right choice is to vote in an electro process as a measure for exercising a civil right and enforcing their political choice. In contested elections, although an individual's vote is said to be a tie-breaker to an individual taking to vote is not maximizing their utility.
Under the maxims of Act utilitarianism between staying home to watching TV and going to vote, an individual derives may more utility from staying at home. The decision to remain at home rather than vote is the most rewarding but not necessarily for the greater society's good. Depending on the number of people who opt to stay at home avoiding to vote, the society may not end with the ideal persons in leadership positions.

Similar to the case of voting, if there is a need for individuals to conserve water in a locality due to outbreak of war, Act utilitarianism may see it as a utility maximizing option. In this regard, the agent fails to see the need to conserve water and is driven by the need to act in a way to maximize utility. The likely result of their act is that the moral good for the society is locked-out putting society at risk.

An additional case is where utilitarianism may disregard the moral good and extend punishment to an innocent person just to deter future potential antisocial acts. A justice minister may consider after it difficult to catch up with a terrorist to frame an innocent person and send them to the gas chambers. The end result would be a just punishment to an innocent person. The justice department will have attained its intention of deterring potential terrorist and this is a measure that will maximize utility. The actions are ideal to deter terrorism, but not considerate of the moral values of punishing an innocent person.

To avoid the potential of a society's moral value being eroded, the Rule utilitarianism is proposed as means to endorse maximization of utility with consideration to moral action. Rule utilitarianism facilitates creation of conscience to the agent that no matter what the yielding utility, morality of the action is paramount. Rule utilitarianism forces individual actors and institutions to arrive at a decision that will ensure highest utility, as well as uphold moral values.

Rule utilitarianism requires individual and decision maker to incorporate two levels of though in arriving at desirable action. One needs to justify the practices and the intended action related to the practice (Rachels & Rachels, 2009). In this rule, one ought to follow the existing guides to good practice as a rule. The practice of appealing to maximize utility under Rule utilitarianism is put to check by the need to morally seeking to uphold the set guidelines. Rule utilitarianism calls upon the need for one's action to maximize utility by incorporating the moral justification. The set practices in any actions need to be reviewed and accessed their ability to meet the morally acceptable standards (Rachels & Rachels, 2009). Idealistic Rule utilitarianism requires a certain level of conformity to the set guidelines and the guidelines be evaluated for their articulation of moral standards. Some of these rules need not be written down some come out just as simple norms and relation measures.

As opposed to maximizing utility, like in Act utilitarianism Rule utilitarianism seek to attempt idealist conformity to the guiding principles of conduct. By acting in conformity to the set rules, utility I maximized. This means that the most gain to the most people is achieved. Rule utilitarianism ensures conformity with rules. In the case of deterring terrorism and acts of terrorism, the concerned officer will be guided by the moral standards in conducting investigations. The ideal in deploying Rule utilitarianism ensure that no single party is treated unjustly and the social norms and rules are upheld (Rachels & Rachels, 2009).

Conclusion

Between the two normative theories, Rule utilitarianism is the most ideal to arrive at the highest utility and satisfaction to the most with little or no chance of conflict. The Act utilitarianism comes out as selfish and inadequate to determine general good for persons in society. It measures what is good is based on the assumption that are not easy and practical while; Rule utilitarianism…