Rule Utalitarian vs. Objection Argument

Tabitha Ramotwala

Utilitarianism vs. Rights Objection Paper

As John Stuart Mill would assert, utilitarianism is a moral system based on “...an existence exempt as far as possible from pain and as rich as possible in enjoyments...” [Mill]. It advocates for policies and attitudes which are concerned with the good of the collective whole. On the other hand, the rights objection invalidates this theory, arguing that at times, infringing rights maximizes utility, but infringing on these rights is morally wrong. Therefore, this suggests that utilitarianism in its entirety, is wrong [Utilitarianism, Rights and Rules handout]. However, rule utilitarianism, as defined by Smart, is not as concerned with the consequences of an action. According to rule utilitarianism, the principle of utility must be applied to actions indirectly by following generally accepted rules that have been established to maximize utility [Smart]. Rule utilitarianism therefore, disproves the notion that utilitarianism does not adequately account for individual rights. In this essay, I will highlight cases applying utilitarianism would seemingly infringe upon individual rights, and outline how utilitarianism would instead prohibit the infringement these rights.

Rule utilitarianism, also referred to as restricted utilitarianism, follows Mill's greatest happiness principle, which states that “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” However, while Mill's edict is restricted to the morality of actions individually, rule utilitarianism considers the morality of rules that regulate actions as a collective. According to this type of utilitarianism, the moral rule should be known to maximize utility, but should be followed even when it fails to do so. This latter specification has been a cause for concern for many, who believe that rule utilitarianism is not consistent with the core meaning of utilitarianism. On the...