Utilitarianism, Basic.

Act utilitarianism is the concept that the right course of action is the one which results in the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. In act utilitarianism, an individual action is evaluated for all possible consequences of that action. The benefits and damages to all affected people are compared. An action is deemed right if there are more benefits and wrong if there are more negative consequences.

Rule utilitarianism is the concept that applies utilitarianism to a rule of conduct. If following a rule results in more beneficial consequences then that rule can be generally considered right. Other major differences include that rule utilitarianism believes in the rights of people and that they replace one of act utilitarianism's two sovereign masters, that being pleasure, to happiness. They do this because J.S. Mill believes that happiness is easier to calculate and quantify than happiness. Mill further expands upon this and states that we should strive for higher pleasures e.g. reading, fine art etc, instead of physical pleasures e.g. sex. We can then deduce from this that following rule utilitarianism would produce more civilised behaviour as opposed to following act utilitarianism, which in theory, would allow such abhorrent acts such as gang rape or murder, should the circumstances promote such behaviour. The major difference between the two ethical theories is that act utilitarianism measures the consequences of a single act, while rule utilitarianism measures the consequences of an act as a rule that would be followed anytime a similar situation would apply.

An example would be Robin Hood’s policy of stealing from the Rich and giving to the Poor. Under act utilitarianism, Robin Hood’s action results in a loss of utility among the smaller population (the Rich), but a greater gain of utility among a larger population (the Poor) which would make the act morally right. The same action applied as a rule however, would be construed...