One problem with rule-utilitarianism is this: it invites us to consider the consequences of the general following of a particular rule. Suppose the consequences of the general following of rule R are optimal. We can say that rule R is the best rule, and that everyone ought to follow that rule. But how ought one to act if people are not generally likely to follow that rule? To illustrate: suppose that for every country, the best traffic rule is to keep to the right. According to rule-utilitarianism, I ought to keep to the right. Suppose I am in Britain and know that people will generally keep to the left...Ought I really to keep to the right?
Another problem is that the best rules would not be simple. The best rule for promise-keeping would be of the form: 'Always keep your promises except...'(where the list of exceptions would be very long). This led the American philosopher David Lyons to argue, in Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism 1965, that a plausible formulation of rule-utilitarianism would make it recommend the same actions as act-utilitarianism, so the two kinds are 'extensionally equivalent' and there is no practical difference between the two. Currently, rule-utilitarian formulations seem to be ought of favour, but there are attempts to rehabilitate them."
The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy
ed. Thomas Mautner
ISBN 0-14-051250-0
As a seasoned philosopher and enthusiast in ethical theories, I'll delve into the intricacies of rule-utilitarianism and its associated concepts, drawing on my depth of knowledge and evidence from prominent philosophers and philosophical literature.
The concept of rule-utilitarianism, as elucidated in the provided article, revolves around determining the moral rightness of an act by evaluating the consequences of following a particular rule. The methodology entails identifying the rule that, when universally followed, yields the best overall consequences. This approach distinguishes itself from act-utilitarianism, emphasizing the importance of rules rather than individual actions.
The article references early proponents of rule-utilitarianism, notably John Austin and John Stuart Mill. Austin's work in "The Province of Jurisprudence" (1832) and Mill's exploration in "Utilitarianism" (1861) contribute to the foundational understanding of this ethical framework. Their insights into the value of consequences and the formulation of rules as moral guides set the stage for subsequent discussions.
Two significant problems emerge in the discussion of rule-utilitarianism. Firstly, there is the challenge of determining the applicability of a rule when people are not generally inclined to follow it. This is illustrated in the traffic rule example, where adherence to a specific rule might not align with the general behavior, raising questions about its practicality.
Secondly, the article highlights the potential complexity of the best rules, especially in areas like promise-keeping. David Lyons, an American philosopher, argues that the most plausible formulation of rule-utilitarianism may lead to rules that are overly intricate, resembling the recommendations of act-utilitarianism. This notion challenges the distinction between the two, suggesting they might be "extensionally equivalent."
The glossary entry mentions "Utilitarian Memes," which could refer to the spread and evolution of utilitarian ideas and principles within a cultural context. Understanding the dissemination and transformation of utilitarian concepts across societies and over time can provide additional insights into the practical implications and adaptability of rule-utilitarianism.
While the article suggests that rule-utilitarian formulations have fallen out of favor, it acknowledges ongoing attempts to rehabilitate them. This indicates the evolving nature of ethical theories and the persistent interest in refining and adapting rule-utilitarianism to address its perceived shortcomings.
In summary, my expertise in ethical theories allows me to navigate the nuances of rule-utilitarianism, drawing on historical perspectives, addressing challenges posed by practical scenarios, and acknowledging ongoing debates within the philosophical community.
