Act utilitarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Act utilitarianism is a utilitarian theory of ethics which states that the morally right action is the one which produces the most pleasure.

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, which means that it stipulates that all that is morally relevant in an action is its outcome. (This is opposed to deontology, which argues that moral actions should flow from duties or motives.) Utilitarianism is a combination of consequentialism and the philosophical position hedonism, which states that pleasure is the only good worth pursuing. Therefore, since only the consequences of an action matter, and only happiness matters, then only the happiness that is the consequence of an action is morally relevant.

Act utilitarianism is opposed to rule utilitarianism, which states that the morally right action is the one that is in accordance with a moral rule whose general observance would create the most happiness. Act utilitarianism makes no appeals to general rules, but instead demands that the agent evaluate individual circumstances.

[edit] Criticism

Act utilitarianism has been criticized for a number of reasons:

• It is too difficult or takes too long to calculate the right action in the circumstances of a moral decision. In fact it is probably computationally impossible to do the calculations. Additionally, a person cannot be expected to be able to anticipate the future accurately enough to judge the consequences of every possible alternative.
• It is too pragmatic (i.e. it requires that one go against moral intuitions in order to bring about the greater good). For example, a classic objection to consequentialism in general (and act utilitarianism specifically) asks us to consider why we keep promises. The general intuition is that we keep promises because we made them. But for act utilitarianism, the moral imperative to keep a promise arises only because it would make the parties affected more happy than they would be if the promise were broken. (It has nothing to do with the simple fact that we promised in the first place, it all comes down to happiness.
  • As such, a moral actor loses his integrity. This was a criticism that has been leveled by Bernard Williams: that utilitarianism undermines a person's humanity, and instead turns them into a vessel for bringing about consequences. It may require a person to act against their intuitions and convictions if it would produce the best consequences.

Rule utilitarianism was formulated to counter many of these criticisms. For example, it is less demanding of the agent and more accessible, and any reasonable formulation includes common sense rules like, "in general, keep your promises."

[edit] See also

• Preference utilitarianism
• Jeremy Bentham
• John Stuart Mill
• Peter Singer