Rule Utilitarianism

What is Rule Utilitarianism?

An action is only right if it complies with specific rules which people have automatically, through a process of trial and error.  Mill claims that moral rules exist because our ancestors have already worked out which actions produce the most happiness. For instance, we are taught by our parents that is wrong to lie and steal, because humanity has realised that theft and lying lead to unhappiness.  These rules will lead to the greatest happiness if everyone followed them.  Mill's secondary principles are rules of thumb, so that they are not strict rules, but moral guidance on how we should act.  As the rules apply regardless of their outcomes, Mill's form of Utilitarianism is deontological. 

da190a8b-ad4c-4429-94d0-82ebef9876d1 (image/jpg)

Mill's View of Pleasure

This branch of utilitarianism is qualitative; it is not merely the amount of pleasure or pain that is important. As such, some pleasures are 'higher' or better than others.  Mill thought that there was an objective test to decide which pleasures are higher than others; if almost everyone who knows what they are talking about compares two pleasures and agrees  that the first is 'more desirable and valuable' than the second, then the first is a higher pleasure. This is known as the rule of the competent judge. This creates an additional problem; how can we tell if a pleasure if more valuable or just more pleasurable? (Quality vs. quantity). Mill stated people have to prefer a higher pleasure, even if that pleasure brings pain with it. e.g.) Being in love has the potential pain or longing or breaking up, but most people would prefer it to eating delicious food. Mill saw that as long as their physical needs were met, they would prefer intellectual pleasures (thought, feeling and imagination) than sensual pleasures of the body. Our higher capacities mean we can also experience boredom, terrible pain and dissatisfaction, and despite this, people still prefer intellectual pleasures, meaning it must be of higher value.

ad07ebaa-9437-47c2-b911-0360c6a98668 (image/jpg)

Caption: : "It is better to be a human satisfied than a pig satisfied. It is better to be Socrates unsatisfied than a fool satisfied." - Mill

The vital claim of rule utilitarianism was that we should deduce and follow rules that generally produce the greatest balance of pleasure over pain.  Mill stated that "over himself, over his body and mind, the individual is sovereign." This also goes with the harm principle (where the individual should be free to do as they choose if they cause no harm to others). This could be seen as saying that individual freedom will lead to a happier society.  Mill said that treating everyone as having equal value and trying to bring about the greatest good is the highest standard of justice. 

More on Rule Utilitarianism

0cbf2f1a-ecea-4eac-98d6-326b2626777a (image/jpg)

The Influence of Aristotle

Mill developed Aristotle's concept of eudaimonia (happiness). He said that happiness included a richness of life and complexity of activity, which can only be achieved by experiencing a mixture of different pleasures. This builds upon what Bentham first claimed, as the amount of pleasure resulting from the same action may be different each time, dependent on the circumstances. Aristotle had thought that virtues were good in themselves, but Mill saw them as a means to the end of happiness, which everyone desires.

10d982fb-4c9b-40a3-bb54-86c5f7514d98 (image/jpg)

Advantages over Act Utilitarianism

There is a rule forbidding the torture of children because there would be more happiness if everyone follows this rule than if they don't. Therefore, it is always wrong to torture children. We don't have to work out the consequences of each action to evaluate whether it is right or not. Once we have realised which rules lead to the most happiness, all we need to do is follow them. There is also a rule that allows people to act on integrity and this promotes more happiness than any other rule. Morality is not so demanding - we are only required to act in a way that if everyone acted in the same way, the greatest happiness would be promoted. e.g) I would only need to give to charity my 'fair share'. 

d9f2d0a8-a868-4480-97cd-510e2c0cfba9 (image/jpg)

Strengths of Rule Utilitarianism

The qualitative element is good because it moves away from hedonism and the criticism that under act utilitarianism that it is acceptable to torture someone for pleasure. Categorising higher and lower pleasures improves the Hedonic Calculus.  This theory recognises that happiness is more complex than just experiencing pleasure and avoiding pain. Following rules is more practical than act utilitarianism and it is also in line with how our society is set up. 

489d5a9f-e73f-4a49-91b2-8deb44b0e837 (image/jpg)

Criticism of Rule Utilitarianism

The higher and lower pleasures element of rule utilitarianism is entirely subjective - it is merely Mill's opinion that intellectual activities result in better pleasure for the individual. Mill's rule about two "competent judges" deciding what is a higher or lower pleasure is also entirely subjective, because two competent judges may prefer different things. How do you know if breaking the rule will lead to the greater good? Individual freedom doesn't always lead to happier society; someone could be harming themselves by taking drugs, for example. This would lead to less individual happiness for that person and less overall happiness. Treating everyone as having equal value and trying to bring about the greatest good answers the criticism that Utilitarianism is unfair, however, some people think that Mill was unsuccessful in solving this problem, because torturing innocent people is wrong, even if it may lead to distributive justice.

Act utilitarians say that rule utilitarianism leads to 'rule-fetishism'. The point of the rules is to promote the greatest happiness, however, if most people, and not all of them follow the rule, the greatest happiness cannot be reached. e.g.) We ought to give more than our fair share to charity. Rules cannot apply to everyone, as we all derive pleasure from different things. e.g.) Tattoo artist and a needle phobic There should be an exception for breaking the rules, as moral laws cannot be absolute and apply to all situations (perhaps there should be a way of assessing each situation separately. e.g.) Lying in a particular situation may cause more happiness than telling the truth. RESPONSE: Deciding via act utilitarianism will break down our trust that people will behave morally. Therefore, following a rule even in a particular case where this leads to more unhappiness than breaking it, is still justified, as if people kept breaking the rules, this would lead to more unhappiness in the long run,