Classical Utilitarianism including Mill's three considerations of desirability, exhaustiveness, and impartiality
According to classical utilitarianism, the sole purpose of any choice of action is to maximize happiness (utility). Utilitarianism as a form of consequentialism explores the wrongfulness or rightfulness of an action based on the consequences. John Stuart Mill, one of the classical utilitarian ethicists argued that the benefit of harm can be defined based on the pain or happiness caused. Mill principle of utilitarianism is derived from three considerations; exhaustiveness, desirability and impartiality. On desirability, Mill argues that happiness is a desirable end product of any action. An action that does not end in happiness is avoided. On exhaustiveness, Mill argues that desirability is the only end product that exhaustively defines the end product needed for a given act. On impartiality, Mill assert that all peoples’ happiness matters equally. No one’s happiness is more important than the other’s.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Act Utilitarianism
Act utilitarianism, just like rule utilitarianism agree that the overall aim of any course of action is to maximize happiness. Act utilitarian ethicists argue that when deciding the course action to take, the one to be selected should have the best net utility (Emmons, 1973). They call for a case-to-case approach to determine whether a given course of action should be taken. A course of action may be preferred today but discouraged tomorrow based on the prevailing circumstances at that time.
Rule Utilitarianism
On the other hand, rule utilitirians proposes that moral rules should be put in place to ensure that there is a more defined approach that determines the course of action to be taken at any given time (Emmons, 1973). They push for a more consistent way of addressing moral and ethical dilemmas instead of using a case-to-case approach proposed by act utilitarians. The major difference between rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism is that while rule utilitarianism uses utilitarian principle to evaluate all actions, act utilitarianism handles each act independently to come up with the most desired outcome based on the prevailing circumstances (Emmons, 1973).
Take this example. You are invigilating an examination. There is this student who has been struggling with his studies. He even deferred his studies for a year to get enough fees to meet this year’s financial obligations. As you walk around the classroom, you find him with a written piece of paper, obviously cheating in an examination. The school has a very strict code when it comes to exam cheating. There are two course of actions that be taken in this case. Report the student to the disciplinary committee where you are sure he will be discontinued from his studies, or at the least be forced to repeat the year, or warn him at a class level. However, as a fair and professional lecturer, you have to follow the school’s code when it comes to exam cheating. If you warn him at a class level, you may create a terrible precedence that may even be used against you in a similar case in future. But also, as a parent, you think about the plight of this student. Maybe this was the last chance he had with his studies. The disciplinary committee’s decision may condemn his life to misery and he will blame you forever. It is hard making the right decision in such a case.
I find act utilitarianism more appealing. Act utilitarianism proposes the handling of each case independently based on the prevailing circumstances and the desired end results. If a utilitarian principle is applied, it may fail to recognize the prevailing circumstances in a different scenario and end up delivering less desired results. Act utilitarianism also meets John Stuart Mill’s three considerations that should be used to select a course of action using a utilitarian approach.
References
Emmons, D. C. (1973). Act vs. Rule-Utilitarianism. Mind, New Series, 82 (326), 226-233.
