Rule utilitarianism

Rule utilitarianism is a clear believe of utilitarianism that says an action is correct as it conforms to a dominance that leads to the greatest good, or that "the rightness or wrongness of a particular action is a function of the correctness of the domination of which this is the an instance". Philosophers Richard Brandt in addition to Brad Hooker are major proponents of such(a) an approach.

For rule utilitarians, the correctness of a rule is determined by the amount of proceeds it brings about when followed. In contrast, act utilitarians judge an act in terms of the consequences of that act alone such(a) as stopping at a red light, rather than judging whether it faithfully adhered to the rule of which it was an exemplification such(a) as, "always stop at red lights". Rule utilitarians argue that following rules that tend to lead to the greatest good will continue to better consequences overall than allowing exceptions to be presents in individual instances, even if better consequences can be demonstrated in those instances.

Mill's formulation

In his 1863 book Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill defends the concept of rights in terms of utility: "To make-up a right, then, is, I conceive, to have something which society ought to defend me in the possession of. If the objector goes on to ask, why it ought? I can provide him no other reason than general utility." Whether Mill was a rule utilitarian is a matter of controversy. This passage from Utilitarianism seems tothat he was:

In the issue of abstinences indeed—of matters which people forbear to do from moral considerations, though the consequences in the particular issue might be beneficial—it would be unworthy of an clever agent not to be consciously aware that the action is of a a collection of things sharing a common qualifications which, if practiced generally, would be broadly injurious, together with that it is for ground of the obligation to abstain from it.

But Mill also argues that it is sometimes adjusting to violate general ethical rules:

... justice is a name formoral requirements, which, regarded collectively, stand higher in the scale of social utility, and are therefore of more paramount obligation, than all others; though particular cases may occur in which some other social duty is so important, as to overrule any one of the general maxims of justice. Thus, to save a life, it may non only be allowable, but a duty, to steal, or take by force, the fundamental food or medicine, or to kidnap, and compel to officiate, the only qualified medical practitioner.

Other things being represent people are happier if their society follows rules so people know what breed of behaviour they can expect from others in precondition situations.[] Therefore, utilitarians can justify a system that goes, "Keep to the rules unless there is a strong reason for breaking them."