The Basics Of: Act and Rule Utilitarianism
by Utilitarianism, the doctrine of “the greatest good for the greatest number” is everywhere in modern ideology. Most notably, it’s the supposed cornerstone of political democracy. It ran into roadblocks from the beginning, however, and returns us to the age old issue of balancing dogmatic guidance with human freedom and the power of intent.
Utilitarianism is a teleological theory of ethics which revolved around the idea of ‘the end justifies the means’. It was first defined in around 1779 by philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who claimed that an action was deemed ‘good’ if it is intended to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people. As an ethical theory, Hedonistic Utilitarianism is divided into several subcategories.
Act Utilitarianism, which is thought of as Utilitarianism in its ‘pure form’, involves the study of a specific situation and the immediate consequences. The correct action is therefore determined according to each individual circumstance in order achieve the greatest good for the greatest number. This school of thought is a form or relativism.
The second subcategory, Rule Utilitarianism, is a more dogmatic form of the philosophy. According to Rule Utilitarianism, to act morally one is expected to abide by rules which generally promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people. It is universal and absolutist. There are in fact other subcategories including Negative Utilitarianism (which aims to alleviate suffering rather than create happiness); Positive Utilitarianism (which aims to attain maximum pleasure with no consideration of pain and considers long term consequences); Preference Utilitarianism (which judges an action by its ability to fulfil personal priorities); and Ideal Utilitarianism (which revolved not just around happiness, but other things of value suck as personal liberty, love and knowledge). However, it is the first two, Act and Rule, which I will be discussing in connection to euthanasia.
Euthanasia comes from the Greek ‘eu thantos’ meaning ‘gentle death’. It is intended as a process by which those suffering terminal and often painful, degrading illnesses choose to have their own life ended, generally through the use of pain relieving medication. According to many absolutist ethical theories, euthanasia is unacceptable because it violates the fundamental principles of the preservation of life. According to Natural Law, Euthanasia desecrates the sanctity of life. Roman Catholics believe that human beings are made imago dei (in the image of God) and that to consent to end ones life, which is a gift from him, is a desecration of his image. However, Natural Law is an absolutist theory, whereas Utilitarianism tends to lean more towards situation ethics, which is more flexible according to circumstance.
The Utilitarian argument has several strengths. First, it caters for the preference of the majority, therefore bringing fulfilment to a greater number. American philosopher Robert Nozick claimed that from a moral point of view, there are only individuals. Therefore he supported Utilitarianism for being people, rather than principled centred like Kantian Moral Law. Secondly, the intuitive aspects of Utilitarianism make them highly flexible, and more easily applied in day to day life.
Liked it
