MoPhil - Act vs Rule Consequentialism

What is utilitarianism?

• An ethical theory has two goals. 

  • Explanatory goal: Offer an account of which actions are correct, and why.

  • Deliberative goal: Offer an account of how we should we act in practice. 

• General issues:

  • Epistemic objection: cannot see all future effects of actions

Objective vs subjective point of view

• Does the rightness of the action depend on the actual (objective) or expected (subjective) outcome?

  • subjective/expected point of view accounts for infinite futures

  • Mill’s utilitarianism requires a subjective point of view in the proof

Total vs average maximizing view

• Total can lead to the repugnant conclusion (Parfit) where there are millions of people with lives barely worth living

  • The distinction between higher and lower pleasures allow Mill to argue against this 

What is AU? 

• Act utilitarianism: an act is right insofar as it produces utility, wrong insofar as it produces the reverse of utility. 

• This is a direct theory

• Nozick – idea of side-constraints which should limit the scope of the GHP to where individual rights are not violated. 

  • But again, epistemic issues: how can we know whether an action will violate someone’s rights in the future? 

What are the problems of AU?

• Demandingness objection - for maximising act utilitarianism

  • Demands too much from people (ex: sacrifice all money for famine relief)

• Incompatible with justice

• Counterintuitive objection

  • Can lead to the repugnant conclusion 

  • Can encourage people to break promises 

• Moral character of actions: every action becomes judged on a moral character. What you eat, wear, etc. – RU avoids this by not having rules for every action

What is RU? 

• Rule utilitarianism: an act is right insofar as it adheres to a system of rules such that adherence to that system of rules provides more utility than adherence to any other set of rules.

• This is an indirect theory

• Can deal with justice/demandingness of AU

• Hard RU could avoid collapse by refusing any exceptions, but it leads to counterintuitive actions

• Hooker’s/sophisticated RU focuses on the effects of RU’s teaching and acceptance. If exceptions cannot be taught/internalized then, they will not be included → rules are not too numerous, complicated, or demanding

  • Collapses only in edge cases where there are high epistemic demands — not on a case-by-case basis

What are the problems of RU?

• Collapsing objection — RU is just AU 

  • Set up: (P1) There is a set of rules X, (P2) If exception E to X leads to more happiness, then X+E is the set of rules that produces more happiness than any other set of rules, (P3) RU will adopt the set of rules that produces more happiness than any other set of rules, (C) So RU will adopt X+E 

    • Problem: But, then, this continues indefinitely. The optimal set of rules would allow every action that increases utility, which is just AU

  • The only rule that can possibly be followed is maximizing happiness

    • 2.24 - rules do not have to maximize happiness all the time. Only the general practise of the rule should maximize happiness. and it is okay for an agent to not maximize happiness if it follows the rule

• Rule worshipping objection — RU cannot account for rule-breaking to avoid disaster 

  • Problem: RU produces suboptimal outcomes – ‘not stealing’ may not be a good rule in all cases

  • Mill allows for exceptions (2.28)

  • BUT exceptions result in sub-rules and eventually collapse into act-U

  • Rebuttal: Ideal moral code theory (due to ch 5) — Hooker’s internalization

    • Instead of taking rules as they come, they should be internalized

    • Internalization entails general motivation of agents to follow the code, anger at not following the code, etc.

    • Actions are judged by accordance to moral code

    • Code can have exceptions → collapse? – No, because ideal moral code considers complexity of code being enacted; it accounts for only realistic cases & you can break a rule

What is multi-level AU

• Criterion of right action (what makes an action right) is different from criterion of decision making (which actions we should take)

• A multi-level AU advocates the use of rules in practice, but is still an AU

  • Rules are just heuristics to avoid the epistemic objection

• Second-layer epistemic objection: when to decide based on the rules of customary morality and when to opt out of those rules. 

  • Ex: McCloskey – sheriff can only prevent deadly riots by framing and excecuting an innocent man

• Incoherency objection

• Supported by Crisp

What type of utilitarian is Mill?

• 2.2 - R-U

  • Mill talks about the “tendencies” of actions in promoting happiness/unhappiness

  • Only possible for a class of acts to have a tendency

• 2.19 - R-U

• 2.24 - multi level A-U

  • Talks about internalizing utilitarianism like Christianity

  • Talks about traveling using sign posts 

  • First and second principles 

  • “Whatever we adopt as the fundamental principle of morality, we require subordinate principles to apply it by” 

Urmson

• Interprets Mill as a RU 

• ONLY when there is conflict between secondary principles (moral laws) should people appeal to first principles

• Mill uses the word ‘tend’ → RU

Hooker

• Act-consequentialism problems: (1) agents lack information about probabilities (2) agents lack information about values of consequences (3) too demanding (4) calculation mistakes 

• Rule-consequentialism problems: (1) consequentialist argument is wrong that rule-consequentialism results in the best outcomes (2) starts with a condequentialist premise (3) conflates practical and epistemic questions 

• Best argument for rule consequentialism is that it is better than rivals 

• Suggests a disaster prevention clause 

• Suggests internalizing rules in multi-level AU

Lyons

• “One of the strongest obstacles to the reception of the doctrine of utility or happiness is the criterion of right and wrong has been drawn from the idea of justice” 

• Utility is about maximizing pleasure – which says nothing about justice

• Logically possible by utilitarian doctrine that slavery (an injustice) could lead to more overall happiness

• Rights are independent of positive law → we have moral rights

• Ch 5 doesn’t make sense with an act-utiltiarian reading 

• “Justice is a name for certain classes of moral rules which concern the essentials of human well-being more nearly, and therefore of more absolute obligation, than any other rules for the guidance of life.” (5.32)

Mabbott

• Agrees with Urmson

  • Points out: (1) It is right to do an action in accord with moral rule even if it produces less good and (2) rightness is determined by hypothetical consequences

• Believes in AU when rules conflict 

• Mill calls rules corollaries to first principle

• Rules are like signposts - metaphor

• Mill states a rule interpretation but upon defense slides into act