Rule Consequentialism/Utilitarianism

Summary

This script discusses the challenges faced by act utilitarianism and presents rule utilitarianism as an alternative that avoids some of these issues. It explains how rule utilitarianism focuses on establishing general rules that maximize happiness rather than evaluating each individual action. However, it also highlights the dilemma of whether there can be exceptions to these rules, which can lead back to act utilitarianism or to a rigid adherence to rules regardless of consequences. The discussion concludes with a critique of consequentialism, suggesting that while consequences are important, other factors like rights and justice should also be considered in ethical decision-making.

Takeaways

• 🤔 Act utilitarianism faces significant challenges, such as the potential for violating rights and the difficulty of weighing each action's consequences.
• 📚 Rule utilitarianism is presented as an alternative to avoid act utilitarianism's problems by focusing on rules that maximize happiness rather than individual actions.
• 🔍 The principle of utility, central to utilitarianism, is used by rule utilitarians to select general rules that promote happiness instead of evaluating each action.
• 👮‍♀️ The example of a sheriff and a stranger is used to illustrate how rule utilitarianism would approach moral dilemmas differently by adhering to rules rather than specific actions.
• 🚫 A key issue with rule utilitarianism is determining whether there can be exceptions to the rules, which leads to a potential collapse back into act utilitarianism or strict rule adherence.
• 🔄 If exceptions to rules are allowed whenever they increase overall happiness, rule utilitarianism essentially becomes act utilitarianism, reintroducing its problems.
• 🚳 If no exceptions are allowed, even when following the rules leads to worse outcomes, rule utilitarianism might lose its utilitarian character and become more about rule worship.
• 🧐 The script suggests that consequences matter in moral decision-making, but there might be a need for side constraints that protect rights and principles of justice.
• 🤝 The implications of consequentialism, such as the inability to maintain special relationships and its demanding nature, are highlighted as reasons to potentially reject it as a complete ethical theory.
• 📚 The lecture concludes with a teaser for upcoming discussions on other ethical theories, including deontology, virtue ethics, social contract, and feminist ethics.

Q & A

What is the main challenge to act utilitarianism discussed in the script?

The main challenge to act utilitarianism is that it requires each action to be weighed against its consequences, which can lead to problems such as violating people's rights and not being able to maintain special relationships.

How does rule utilitarianism differ from act utilitarianism?

Rule utilitarianism differs from act utilitarianism by focusing on following general rules that maximize happiness rather than evaluating the consequences of each individual action.

What is the principle of utility as mentioned in the script?

The principle of utility is the idea that actions should be chosen to maximize happiness and reduce suffering.

Why might rule utilitarianism be seen as a solution to the problems of act utilitarianism?

Rule utilitarianism is seen as a solution because it avoids the problems of act utilitarianism by not requiring each action to be evaluated individually but instead following general rules that are deemed to maximize happiness.

What is the dilemma posed by the possibility of exceptions to the rules in rule utilitarianism?

The dilemma is that if exceptions to the rules are allowed whenever they increase overall happiness, then rule utilitarianism collapses into act utilitarianism with all its associated problems. If exceptions are not allowed, even when following the rules leads to worse consequences, then it seems to abandon utilitarianism altogether.

What is the 'rule worship' critique of rule utilitarianism?

The 'rule worship' critique suggests that if one adheres strictly to rules without considering the consequences, then the approach is no longer utilitarian, as it does not prioritize maximizing happiness.

What alternative ethical theories are mentioned as being discussed later in the script?

The script mentions that later discussions will include kantian ethics (deontological ethics), virtue ethics, social contract theory, and feminist ethics.

What is the 'reductio' argument against consequentialism as mentioned in the script?

The 'reductio' argument against consequentialism is that if one rejects the implications of consequentialism, such as the inability to have special relationships or the violation of justice, then one should also reject the theory itself.

What is the speaker's personal stance on consequentialism as expressed in the script?

The speaker expresses skepticism towards consequentialism, acknowledging its serious problems despite recognizing that many smart people, including their wife, believe it to be a good ethical theory.

Why does the speaker believe there should be side constraints in ethical decision-making?

The speaker believes there should be side constraints because one cannot violate rights or principles of justice even if it might bring about greater happiness, suggesting that other factors besides consequences should matter in ethical decisions.

Outlines

00:00

🤔 Exploring Rule Utilitarianism

This paragraph delves into the challenges faced by act utilitarianism and how rule utilitarianism offers a potential solution. Act utilitarianism is criticized for its focus on the consequences of individual actions, which can lead to issues like rights violations. Rule utilitarianism, on the other hand, emphasizes following general rules that maximize happiness and reduce suffering. The principle of utility in rule utilitarianism is used to identify the best rules rather than the best actions. For instance, instead of evaluating each action's consequences, one might adopt a rule like 'never punish the innocent,' which generally leads to the greatest happiness. However, the paragraph also points out the dilemma of exceptions to these rules. If exceptions are allowed when they increase overall happiness, it reverts to act utilitarianism, reintroducing its problems. If no exceptions are allowed, even in cases where rules lead to worse outcomes, it deviates from utilitarianism's focus on consequences, potentially becoming rule worship. The conclusion suggests that while consequences are important, there might be a need for side constraints that protect rights and justice.

05:00

🚫 Critiquing Consequentialism

The second paragraph continues the critique of consequentialism, suggesting that it may not be a satisfactory ethical theory due to its potential to violate rights, justice, and special relationships. It raises the question of whether consequentialism can be rejected outright if its implications are undesirable. The speaker also introduces the idea of 'reductio,' implying that the negative consequences of consequentialism might serve as a basis for rejecting the theory itself. The paragraph concludes by acknowledging that while consequentialism has its critics, including the speaker's wife, it remains a topic of interest in ethical discussions. The speaker expresses personal skepticism about consequentialism due to its serious problems and hints at upcoming discussions on other ethical theories such as Kantian ethics, virtue ethics, social contract theory, and feminist ethics, promising a broader exploration of normative theories in future conversations.

Keywords

💡Act Utilitarianism

Act utilitarianism is an ethical theory that judges the morality of an action based on the consequences it produces. In the script, it is mentioned as the first theory being considered, and it is criticized for potentially leading to significant problems, such as violating rights or being too demanding. The example of the sheriff and the stranger is used to illustrate how act utilitarianism might require punishing an innocent person for the greater good, which is a problem for this theory.

💡Rule Utilitarianism

Rule utilitarianism is a variant of utilitarianism that focuses on following rules that generally produce the best outcomes rather than evaluating each individual action. The script discusses how rule utilitarianism attempts to avoid the problems of act utilitarianism by adhering to general rules that maximize happiness. However, it also raises the question of whether there can ever be exceptions to these rules, which complicates the theory.

💡Consequentialism

Consequentialism is the ethical theory that the morality of an action is determined by its outcome or consequence. The script suggests that consequentialism faces challenges because it seems to require actions that might violate rights or principles of justice. The discussion revolves around whether consequentialism can be a satisfactory ethical theory given its implications.

💡Principle of Utility

The principle of utility is central to utilitarianism and states that actions are right insofar as they maximize happiness and reduce suffering. In the script, it is noted that rule utilitarians use this principle to identify general rules rather than to evaluate individual actions, aiming to achieve the best overall consequences.

💡Rights

Rights in the context of the script refer to the moral or legal entitlements that individuals have, which should not be violated. The discussion points out that consequentialism might require the violation of rights for the greater good, which is seen as a significant problem for the theory.

💡Deontological Ethics

Deontological ethics is an ethical theory that focuses on duties and obligations, rather than the consequences of actions. The script mentions that deontological ethics will be discussed later as an alternative to consequentialism, suggesting that it places importance on following rules and principles, regardless of outcomes.

💡Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics is an ethical theory that emphasizes the development of good character and virtues, rather than focusing on the consequences of actions. The script briefly mentions that virtue ethics will be explored, indicating that it is another approach to ethics that contrasts with consequentialism.

💡Social Contract

Social contract theory is a political and ethical theory that suggests that individuals form societies by agreeing to a set of rules or contracts. The script indicates that social contract theory will be discussed as a separate ethical theory, possibly in contrast to consequentialism, which might not account for such agreements.

💡Feminist Ethics

Feminist ethics is an approach to ethics that considers the experiences and perspectives of women and challenges traditional ethical theories. The script notes that feminist ethics will be discussed, suggesting that it offers a different perspective on ethics, which may critique or extend consequentialism.

💡Exceptions to Rules

The concept of exceptions to rules is a central dilemma in the script's discussion of rule utilitarianism. It questions whether there can be situations where breaking a rule might lead to a better outcome, thus challenging the rule-based approach. The script explores the implications of allowing or disallowing exceptions, which affects the coherence of rule utilitarianism as a theory.

💡Rule Worshipers

The term 'rule worshipers' is used in the script to describe a stance that blindly follows rules without considering the consequences. This is presented as a criticism of an extreme interpretation of rule utilitarianism, where adherence to rules is prioritized over the utilitarian goal of maximizing happiness.

Highlights

Challenges to act utilitarianism are discussed, suggesting that it faces significant problems.

Rule utilitarianism is introduced as an alternative to avoid the problems of act utilitarianism.

Rule utilitarianism suggests that the principle of utility picks out right rules rather than right actions.

The principle of utility is used to determine general rules that maximize happiness, not specific actions.

An example is given regarding the sheriff and the stranger, illustrating the approach to ethical decision-making in rule utilitarianism.

Rule utilitarianism avoids problems associated with act utilitarianism, such as violating rights.

The issue of exceptions to rules in rule utilitarianism is raised, highlighting a potential problem.

If exceptions are allowed, rule utilitarianism collapses into act utilitarianism, reintroducing its problems.

If no exceptions are allowed, even if it leads to worse consequences, it deviates from utilitarianism's focus on consequences.

The conclusion that consequences matter in moral decision-making is drawn, but not exclusively.

The idea of side constraints is introduced, suggesting that some principles cannot be violated even for greater happiness.

Consequentialism is critiqued for its implications, such as the inability to have special relationships and being too demanding.

A reductio ad absurdum argument is made against consequentialism, suggesting that its implications lead to its rejection.

The speaker expresses personal skepticism towards consequentialism despite acknowledging its supporters.

The lecture concludes with a brief introduction to consequentialism and a预告 of upcoming topics in ethical theory.

Transcripts

so we were talking about challenges to

act utilitarianism that was the first

one that we're considering uh the the

first theory that we're considering a

lot of philosophers believe that those

are significant problems for acute

utilitarianism but if instead you go for

something called rule utilitarianism you

can avoid those problems because the

challenges to consequentialism that i

just gave you all seem to arise from the

fact that each action has to be weighed

against the consequences the

consequences

but the rule consequentialist rejects

that idea instead they say that the

principle of utility remember we talked

about that that was the idea that

the actions need to bring about the best

uh consequences the principle of utility

they say picks out rules not right

action so it picks out right rules

instead of right actions

the principle of utility utility states

that you have to maximize happiness and

reduce suffering but you could use that

principle instead of picking out actions

that will bring up the challenges that

we describe they could pick out general

rules that maximize happiness so for

example

we would approach the story to our about

our sheriff and the stranger a little

bit differently the sheriff wants to

know what she should do but instead of

using the principle of utility to

determine her specific action she uses

it instead to determine what rules she

should follow something like punishing

an innocent person when it produces the

greatest happiness or never punish the

innocent

she seems to it seems true that

following the punishing innocent person

when it

produces the greatest happiness

will be right but um what will almost

always produce the best results is never

punishing the innocent right and so

instead of taking that principle of

utility and evaluating each each action

we're going to do we approach the rules

instead so a rule like don't punish

innocent people seems like it's going to

help people more in the long run in the

overall view it will result in the most

happiness if we follow that principle if

we follow that rule it will bring about

the most happiness overall so we don't

look at actions we look at rules instead

and that would avoid a lot of the

problems that we talked about with act

utilitarianism like

rights and violating people's rights and

that kind of things a problem though

with rule utilitarianism is that it

seems like there's really no good answer

to the question can there ever be

exceptions to the rules

all of the possible responses seem

problematic so let's say that we say

yes you can violate the rules so we're

using our principle of utility to find

the best rules to find the rules that

bring about the best happiness the most

of the time and so we use that principle

and then we say okay now i found this

rule that generally brings about the

best

the most happiness and reduces suffering

but can there be an exception to that

rule and if i say yes you can violate

the rule whenever it increases over

overall happiness to do so then you're

just an act utilitarian right you're not

using the rules anymore you say you're

just judging each act if you say yes i

can

violate the rule i can it there can be

exceptions to the rule anytime it brings

about more happiness to violate the rule

then i'm just an act utilitarian again

and all those problems that we talked

about before arise

if you you might say though no you can't

there can't be exceptions to the rules

but i can formulate the rules so that

violating them will never increase

happiness for example i can say

don't punish the innocent unless it

maximizes happiness but that's also just

act utilitarian right and you're just

saying

i can only violate the rules

when it brings about the best happiness

so i'm still not a rule utilitarian then

but if i say no you should never violate

the rules even if following the rules

brings about the worst consequences then

it doesn't even look like we're

utilitarian anymore we're just rule

worshipers

if the consequences matter then we can't

blindly be obedient to rules in that

case and so it doesn't look like there

it looks like in most cases act rule

utilitarianism just ends up being act

utilitarianism and you have all the

problems of

act utilitarianism if it collapse if

rule

utilitarianism collapses there but if

you say you can't have exceptions to the

rules then you're just kind of rule

worshiping and it doesn't even seem like

it's a utilitarian theory anymore at

that point so what conclusions can we

make about this well there's no doubt

that consequences matter when we're

making decisions about morality we know

they do we know we always look to the

consequences but there are good reasons

to reject consequentialism as a whole in

saying that that only the consequences

matter right there should be side

constraints at least that some some

philosophers have called it you cannot

violate anybody's rights even if it

brings about greater happiness you

cannot

violate principles of justice if even if

it brings about happiness so there seems

like there has to be some kind of

conditions even though we do think about

consequences and consequences do matter

it seems like other things should matter

as well so consequentialism doesn't seem

good in that way and then if it does

another conclusion is if that the

implications of consequentialism that we

talked about before that you can't have

special relationships that it's too

demanding that it uh violates justice

that it violates backwards looking

reasons that it violates uh rights and

all those things it seems by reductio

that's the idea that if you reject the

consequences you have to reject the

theory itself it seems like by reduction

we could reject the theory and so i'm

not a big fan of consequentialism again

lots of smarter people than i am do my

wife included as if she says she agrees

i do think that consequentialism is a

good ethical theory

but i think there's some serious

problems with it so that the we're going

to

look at a

kind of an issue that

in applied ethics that consequentialism

might be relevant to and then we're

going to talk about the other major

theories uh a little bit later we're

going to talk about kanji and ethics or

deontological ethics and virtue ethics

and we'll talk about social contract and

feminist ethics as well so i'll give you

lots of different normative theories but

we're going to break those up a little

bit with some applied topics as well but

i hope you enjoyed your brief

introduction to consequentialism