i’m interested in Utilitarianism. i was reading some news the other day… i have some question about Utilitarianism.i’m kind of confused about those two theories… if any of you guys help me out, i’ll be so happy… thank you very much
Act Utilitarianism is the process of judging each individual action you are about to take by analyzing their potential results in terms of net happiness. One objection to act utilitarianism is that it seems to be too permissive. One could possibly justify any crime, and even make it morally obligatory. So for example, I could use act utilitarianism to justify stealing money from an old lady, because I reasoned that the amount of happiness received by me through committing the act would outweigh the happiness generated by not stealing from her at all. By this line of thinking, I am morally obligated to steal from the old lady, as it would afford the greatest amount of happiness- at least in my mind. The subjectivity of act utilitarianism becomes a problem. Another objection is that act-utilitarianism seems better in theory than in practice, since we hardly ever have the time and the knowledge to predict the consequences of an act, assess their value, and make comparisons with possible alternative acts.
This brings us to rule utilitarianism, which is an attempt to solve the problems of act utilitarianism. It argues that instead of deciding on our own (which will lead to personal bias, as described above), we find out which rules have worked the best, and follow them. To use the stealing example, rule utilitarianism would say that stealing is wrong, so I should not steal from the old lady. Unfortunatly, rule utilitarianism has some problems of its own as well. Suppose I am stealing from the lady to feed starving children? Not only this, but the act of feeding the children would bring about the greatest amount of happiness. Now, instead of doing what is ultimately right, rule utilitarianism has not allowed me to proceed with the act. Rule utilitarians will argue that there are more rules to stealing than simply “don’t steal.” They’ll argue that the rule should really be-“Don’t steal, unless the following stipulations are met: 1,2,3,4,5…etc.” Now I’m forced to memorize hundreds of rules in order to be moral; not very practical. We’re now at the same impasse that we were with act utilitarianism.
With respect to M.A.D., neither theory would be able to give a clear cut response. Since we have never seen the result of a global nuclear holocaust, we don’t have a rule to base it off of, so rule utilitarianism would not be able to supply an adequate response. Act Utilitarianism’s answer would depend upon the person deciding whether the amount of happiness derived from wiping out your enemies overshadowed the death of billions. It seems obvious that it wouldn’t, but then it also seems obvious to us that strapping a bomb to our chest is ludicrous. So really, both theories would be inconclusive.
Matthew is only partially accurate with his deascription of Act Utilitariansim. He gives the impression that it requires a personal interpretation of the consequences of the propsed action which is not true. Whilst in practice this might be what occurs, Act Utilitarianism requires an impersonal view of the consequences. Whilst I agree in principal that Act Util could justify the action of stealing from the old lady, I don’t think enough information is given to warrent making this call.
As regards MAD, it seems to me clear that Utilitarianism (any form) would be obligated to consider this immoral. If we assume that on balance the current ‘welfare balance’ in the world shows a positive inclination, the destruction would result in less welfare than before the act. If you disagree with this assumption consider this: if there is mutual destruction this removes the possibility of any future welfare (and, true enough, un-welfare too), the removal of all possible future welfare is surely enough to suggest that MAD must be considered immoral.