The Main Differences Between Act and Rule Utilitarianism

The theory of Utilitarianism asserts that we should measure and decide our moral actions in accordance to whether or not they create the "greatest happiness for the greatest number". This means that the theory is concerned not with the intentions of or the effects on the action on the individual, but the effect it has on the people affected by the action - so if the result of that action causes happiness to the majority then, morally, the action is right, in the same way that if the action causes pain to the majority then the action is therefore, morally wrong. This theory can be split into Act, Rule and Preference Utilitarianism - the first two being the two main strands and the ones which I will be explaining and comparing in my essay.

Act Utilitarianism is a teleological theory which is concerned mainly with the end consequences of an action, and how that affects society or the surrounding people. Those who agree with this theory would hold that each situation is different in its circumstances and moral dilemmas and that the acts morality should therefore be judged not on the act itself but on the outcome of that action. For example, they would advocate lying to someone if it meant that the lie would bring about more happiness (or pleasure, depending on which theorist you are referring to) than if you were to answer truthfully.

Rule Utilitarianism, on the other hand, is a deontological theory which places value on society having general or universal rules to follow in order to maximise the happiness of the majority, regardless of whether or not the individual (that makes the decision) receives a maximal amount of pleasure from their action.