Act Utilitarianism vs. Rule Utilitarianism: A Detailed Comparison

Utilitarianism stands as a cornerstone of ethical theory, a consequentialist approach that judges the morality of actions based on their outcomes. At its heart, utilitarianism posits that the best action is the one that maximizes overall well-being, often defined as happiness or pleasure, and minimizes suffering. However, within utilitarianism, a critical divergence exists, separating act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. This article will delve into a comprehensive comparison of these two influential ethical frameworks, exploring their core tenets, key differences, strengths, and weaknesses, to provide a clear understanding for anyone navigating the complexities of moral decision-making.

1. Understanding Utilitarianism: The Foundational Principles

Before distinguishing between act and rule utilitarianism, it’s crucial to grasp the overarching principles of utilitarianism itself. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, meaning that the consequences of an action are the primary determinant of its moral rightness or wrongness. Unlike deontological ethics, which emphasizes duties or rules, or virtue ethics, which focuses on character, utilitarianism is resolutely focused on outcomes. The central aim of utilitarianism is to improve the world by increasing good and decreasing bad, measured by the overall utility produced.

This principle of utility, often summarized as the “greatest good for the greatest number,” seems straightforward, but it raises several fundamental questions:

a. Defining “Good”: What is Utility?

Utilitarians have varied in their definition of “good” or utility. Hedonism, championed by Jeremy Bentham, identifies pleasure and happiness as the sole intrinsic goods. Other goods, like wealth or health, are considered instrumentally good because they contribute to pleasure or reduce pain. Conversely, pain and unhappiness are intrinsically bad.

However, hedonism isn’t the only view within utilitarianism. Some theorists, known as pluralists or objective list theorists, argue that multiple factors beyond pleasure, such as knowledge, virtue, or personal relationships, are intrinsically valuable. Others focus on desire satisfaction or preference satisfaction, defining utility in terms of fulfilling individuals’ desires or preferences.

For the purpose of this comparison, we will use the term well-being as a broad and inclusive term to represent what utilitarians consider good, encompassing various interpretations from pleasure to desire satisfaction.

b. Scope of Utility: Whose Well-being Counts?

Utilitarianism can be applied in different contexts, from personal decisions to public policy. It can also consider the well-being of different entities:

• Individual Self-interest: When making personal choices, individuals might focus on maximizing their own utility. This is relevant to rational decision-making, but not typically considered moral utilitarianism.
• Groups: Utilitarianism can assess the best course of action for specific groups, like families or communities. This involves summing up the utility gains and losses for all members within the group.
• Everyone Affected: Moral utilitarianism, in its most comprehensive form, demands equal consideration of interests. This means when making moral judgments, we must impartially consider the well-being of everyone affected by our actions, not just ourselves or those close to us. Bentham’s famous axiom, “every man to count for one, nobody for more than one,” encapsulates this impartial perspective.

c. Consequences: Actual vs. Foreseeable?

A crucial debate within utilitarianism concerns whether to evaluate actions based on their actual consequences or foreseeable consequences.

• Actual Consequence Utilitarianism: Judges the rightness of an action based on its actual results, even if those results were unpredictable.
• Foreseeable Consequence Utilitarianism: Judges actions based on the consequences that could be reasonably predicted at the time of the action.

Consider the classic example of saving someone who turns out to be Hitler. Actual consequence utilitarianism might deem saving Hitler wrong because of the disastrous long-term consequences, even though the rescuer couldn’t have known this. Foreseeable consequence utilitarianism, however, would likely praise the action as right because, in normal circumstances, saving a drowning person is expected to produce good outcomes.

This distinction highlights a deeper issue: whether utilitarianism is primarily a criterion of right and wrong (actual consequence view) or a decision-making procedure (foreseeable consequence view). Foreseeable consequence utilitarianism emphasizes making the best decisions based on available information, while actual consequence utilitarianism focuses on the ultimate outcome as the definitive measure of moral rightness, regardless of predictability.

Jeremy Bentham, a key figure in the development of utilitarianism, advocated for hedonism and a quantitative approach to measuring pleasure.

2. Act Utilitarianism: Morality in Each Instance

Act utilitarianism is often seen as the most direct and intuitive application of the utilitarian principle. It asserts that in any given situation, the morally right action is the one that produces the greatest overall utility, considering all possible actions in that specific instance. Act utilitarians apply the principle of utility directly to individual actions, evaluating each act based on its unique consequences.

Core Tenets of Act Utilitarianism:

• Case-by-Case Evaluation: Every action is evaluated independently based on its specific context and potential outcomes.
• Direct Application of Utility Principle: The principle of utility (“maximize overall well-being”) is directly applied to each individual action choice.
• Rejection of Rigid Rules: Act utilitarianism is skeptical of absolute moral rules, arguing that rules are, at best, rules of thumb that can be overridden when greater utility can be achieved by breaking them.

Arguments in Favor of Act Utilitarianism:

a. Maximizing Utility Directly:

Act utilitarianism aims to maximize overall utility in the most direct way possible. By choosing the action that yields the highest utility in each situation, it seems logical that the cumulative effect of these individual choices would lead to the greatest possible total utility. If we consistently choose actions that produce less utility when more utility was attainable, we are, by definition, failing to maximize overall well-being.

b. Flexibility and Context Sensitivity:

Traditional moral codes often rely on broad, inflexible rules. Act utilitarianism, however, is highly context-sensitive. It recognizes that the consequences of actions vary significantly depending on the circumstances. For example, telling a lie is generally considered wrong, but in a specific situation, like lying to protect someone from harm, an act utilitarian might argue that it is the morally right action because it maximizes well-being in that particular context.

c. Objectivity in Moral Judgments:

Act utilitarianism offers a framework for making moral judgments that can be seen as objectively true. By focusing on consequences and well-being, it provides a method for assessing the moral rightness or wrongness of actions based on empirical outcomes, rather than subjective opinions or cultural norms. While measuring well-being can be complex, act utilitarianism provides a structure for reasoned moral decision-making. Bentham’s “hedonic calculus,” though simplistic, exemplifies this attempt to quantify and compare different sources of pleasure and pain to guide moral choices.

Criticisms of Act Utilitarianism:

a. The “Wrong Answers” Objection:

The most prominent criticism of act utilitarianism is that it can lead to morally repugnant conclusions in certain scenarios. Critics argue that it justifies actions that are intuitively wrong, such as:

• Punishing the Innocent: If punishing an innocent person could prevent widespread riots and save lives, act utilitarianism might seem to endorse this injustice if it maximizes overall utility.
• Organ Harvesting: If killing a healthy person and using their organs could save five lives through transplants, act utilitarianism could potentially justify this act, despite violating fundamental moral intuitions about the sanctity of life and individual rights.
• Breaking Promises: If breaking a promise results in a slightly greater net utility than keeping it, act utilitarianism appears to dictate that promises should be broken, undermining the importance of trust and reliability in human relationships.

These scenarios highlight a core tension between act utilitarianism and common-sense morality, which strongly condemns such actions as inherently unjust or wrong, regardless of potential utility gains.

b. The “Undermining Trust” Objection:

Critics argue that act utilitarianism, by prioritizing utility maximization in every instance, erodes trust and social stability. If individuals are perceived as constantly calculating utility and willing to violate norms or commitments whenever it seems to maximize well-being, predictability and reliability in social interactions would diminish. Trust in institutions like the justice system, healthcare, and interpersonal relationships would be weakened if people believed that moral obligations could be easily overridden by utilitarian calculations.

c. The “Too Demanding” Objection (Partiality and Impartiality):

Act utilitarianism’s commitment to impartiality and equal consideration of interests can be seen as overly demanding and unrealistic. It implies that we should always prioritize actions that maximize overall well-being, even if it means neglecting our own interests or the interests of loved ones. For instance, it might suggest that donating all discretionary income to alleviate global poverty is morally required if it produces more utility than spending it on personal needs or desires. Critics argue that this level of impartiality is psychologically unsustainable and fails to recognize the moral legitimacy of partiality towards oneself and close relationships.

Responses to Criticisms of Act Utilitarianism:

Act utilitarians have responded to these criticisms in two main ways:

• Reinterpreting Utility Maximization: Some argue that critics misapply act utilitarianism and that the “wrong answers” scenarios actually do not maximize utility when all factors are considered. For example, in the “punishing the innocent” case, the long-term consequences of undermining the justice system and eroding public trust might outweigh any short-term utility gains from preventing riots. Similarly, the widespread fear and distrust created by allowing organ harvesting could significantly decrease overall well-being.
• Challenging Common-Sense Morality: Other act utilitarians acknowledge that their theory may conflict with common-sense moral intuitions but argue that this is a strength, not a weakness. They contend that common-sense morality is often inconsistent, irrational, and based on outdated traditions. They advocate for a more rational and consistent ethical framework grounded in maximizing well-being, even if it requires revising or rejecting some deeply held moral beliefs. They might argue that our intuitions are not infallible guides to morality and that a consistent focus on consequences is a more reliable path to ethical truth.

John Stuart Mill, another prominent utilitarian thinker, refined Bentham’s hedonism and hinted at rule-based approaches to utilitarianism.

3. Rule Utilitarianism: Morality Through Rules

Rule utilitarianism offers a different approach to utilitarian ethics, attempting to address some of the perceived shortcomings of act utilitarianism. Instead of directly applying the principle of utility to individual actions, rule utilitarianism focuses on establishing and justifying moral rules. It argues that the morally right action is the one that conforms to a justified moral rule, and a moral rule is justified if its general acceptance leads to greater overall utility than alternative rules or no rule at all.

Core Tenets of Rule Utilitarianism:

• Rule-Based Evaluation: Moral actions are judged by their conformity to moral rules.
• Utility Justifies Rules: Moral rules are justified by the principle of utility – the rules that, if generally followed, would maximize overall well-being are considered the correct moral rules.
• Indirect Application of Utility Principle: The principle of utility is applied to the selection of moral rules, not directly to individual actions.

Arguments in Favor of Rule Utilitarianism:

a. Maximizing Utility Through Rules:

Rule utilitarianism proposes that overall utility is maximized not by focusing on individual actions in isolation, but by establishing and adhering to a set of beneficial moral rules. This might seem paradoxical – how can following rules, even when breaking them might seem to produce more utility in a specific instance, lead to greater overall good?

The rationale lies in recognizing the broader social and long-term consequences of rules. Consider traffic laws. Act utilitarianism might suggest that running a red light is permissible if, in a particular situation, it appears safe and saves time. However, rule utilitarianism would argue for the rule “stop at red lights” because general adherence to this rule, despite occasional inconveniences, significantly reduces accidents and promotes overall traffic safety and efficiency, thus maximizing utility in the long run.

Rule utilitarians argue that in many areas of life, establishing and following rules, even if they sometimes lead to suboptimal outcomes in specific cases, creates a more predictable, stable, and beneficial social environment overall. Rules can simplify decision-making, promote cooperation, and prevent the erosion of trust that could result from constant utilitarian calculations on a case-by-case basis.

b. Addressing Criticisms of Act Utilitarianism:

Rule utilitarianism is explicitly designed to address the “wrong answers,” “undermining trust,” and “too demanding” objections leveled against act utilitarianism.

• Wrong Answers Objection: Rule utilitarianism can avoid justifying actions like punishing the innocent or organ harvesting. Rule utilitarians would argue that moral rules prohibiting these actions are justified because a society that generally adheres to rules against harming the innocent and respecting bodily autonomy will have higher overall utility than one that permits such actions based on situational utility calculations. A rule allowing the punishment of the innocent, for example, would undermine the justice system and create widespread fear and insecurity, ultimately decreasing overall well-being.
• Undermining Trust Objection: By emphasizing adherence to justified moral rules, rule utilitarianism promotes trust and predictability. People can rely on others to generally follow these rules, fostering social cooperation and stability. Knowing that doctors adhere to a rule against harming patients for utilitarian purposes, or that judges follow rules of due process, builds trust in these institutions and enhances overall well-being.
• Too Demanding Objection (Partiality): Rule utilitarianism can accommodate partiality within a framework of impartial rule justification. Rules like “parents have a special duty to care for their children” can be justified on utilitarian grounds because a system where parents are primarily responsible for their own children’s well-being, while not completely impartial, is likely to be more effective in promoting the overall well-being of children than a system that requires equal care for all children by everyone. Rule utilitarianism allows for partiality in rule application while maintaining impartiality in rule justification, arguing that certain forms of partiality, when rule-governed, can actually maximize overall utility.

Criticisms of Rule Utilitarianism:

a. The “Rule Worship” Objection:

Act utilitarians criticize rule utilitarianism for what they perceive as “rule worship.” They argue that rule utilitarians irrationally adhere to rules even when breaking them in a specific instance would clearly produce greater utility. Act utilitarians see rules as tools to maximize utility, not as rigid constraints to be followed blindly. If the goal is to maximize well-being, they argue, why should we be bound by a rule when we know that violating it in a particular case will lead to a better outcome? They see rule utilitarianism as sacrificing potential utility gains for the sake of rule adherence, which they consider irrational from a utilitarian perspective.

b. The “Collapses into Act Utilitarianism” Objection:

A more fundamental critique argues that rule utilitarianism ultimately collapses back into act utilitarianism. If rule utilitarians are truly committed to maximizing utility, critics argue, they will be driven to create increasingly specific and exception-laden rules to maximize utility in a wider range of situations. As rules become more and more qualified with exceptions to cover various contingencies, they become increasingly complex and context-dependent. Eventually, critics argue, a “perfect” rule utilitarian code would consist of rules so finely tuned to specific circumstances that they effectively become equivalent to the act utilitarian principle of maximizing utility in each individual case. For example, a rule against lying might evolve into “Do not lie, except when lying prevents serious harm, unless that harm is caused by justly punishing a criminal, except when the lie is to a murderer asking about their intended victim…” and so on, approaching the complexity and context-sensitivity of act utilitarianism.

c. Wrong Answers and Crude Concepts (Justice, Rights, Desert):

Despite aiming to address the “wrong answers” objection to act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism is still criticized for failing to adequately account for fundamental moral concepts like justice, rights, and desert. Critics argue that because rule utilitarianism ultimately justifies rules based solely on utility maximization, it may still be forced to endorse rules that violate these concepts if doing so is deemed to produce the greatest overall well-being. For instance, even a rule utilitarian framework might struggle to definitively rule out the punishment of the innocent in all conceivable scenarios if it could be argued that, in extremely specific and unusual circumstances, such a rule violation would maximize utility. Critics argue that morality involves more than just maximizing utility; it also involves respecting inherent rights, ensuring justice, and giving people what they deserve, considerations that utilitarianism, even in its rule-based form, may not fully capture.

4. Conclusion: Navigating the Utilitarian Landscape

The debate between act and rule utilitarianism highlights fundamental questions about the nature of morality and how we should make ethical decisions.

Act utilitarianism offers a direct, flexible, and seemingly straightforward approach, focusing on maximizing well-being in each individual situation. Its strengths lie in its context sensitivity and its clear, consistent focus on consequences. However, it faces serious challenges regarding its potential to justify intuitively wrong actions, undermine trust, and impose overly demanding moral obligations.

Rule utilitarianism attempts to refine utilitarianism by emphasizing the importance of moral rules justified by the principle of utility. It aims to overcome the most problematic implications of act utilitarianism by promoting trust, stability, and a more nuanced understanding of moral obligations. However, it faces criticisms of “rule worship,” potential collapse into act utilitarianism, and continued difficulties in fully incorporating concepts of justice, rights, and desert into its framework.

Ultimately, both act and rule utilitarianism offer valuable insights into ethical decision-making by emphasizing the importance of consequences and the pursuit of overall well-being. The choice between them, or perhaps a more nuanced approach that integrates elements of both, remains a subject of ongoing debate and depends on how one weighs the various strengths and weaknesses of each framework and their implications for practical moral reasoning.

A visual representation highlighting the core difference: Act Utilitarianism applies the utility principle to individual actions, while Rule Utilitarianism applies it to moral rules.

5. References and Further Reading

(Note: The following list of references is directly copied from the original article to maintain accuracy and provide further reading resources. For a truly comprehensive, SEO-optimized article, these references would ideally be reviewed and updated to include more recent and highly authoritative sources. Additionally, internal links to relevant pages within “compare.edu.vn” or external links to other reputable resources could be strategically added throughout the article to enhance SEO and user experience.)

a. Classic Works

• Jeremy Bentham. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, available in many editions, 1789.
  • See Book I, chapter 1 for Bentham’s statement of what utilitarianism is; chapter IV for his method of measuring amounts of pleasure/utility; chapter V for his list of types of pleasures and pains, and chapter XIII for his application of utilitarianism to questions about criminal punishment.
• John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism, available in many editions and online, 1861.
  • See especially chapter II, in which Mill tries both to clarify and defend utilitarianism. Passages at the end of chapter suggest that Mill was a rule utilitarian. In chapter V, Mill tries to show that utilitarianism is compatible with justice.
• Henry Sidgwick. The Methods of Ethics, Seventh Edition, available in many editions, 1907.
  • Sidgwick is known for his careful, extended analysis of utilitarian moral theory and competing views.
• G. E. Moore. Principia Ethica, 1903.
  • Moore criticizes aspects of Mill’s views but support a non-hedonistic form of utilitarianism.
• G. E. Moore. Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1912.
  • Mostly focused on utilitarianism, this book contains a combination of act and rule utilitarian ideas.

b. More Recent Utilitarians

• J. J. C. Smart. “An Outline of a System of Utilitarian Ethics” in J. J. C. Smart and Bernard Williams, Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge University Press, 1973.
  • Smart’s discussion combines an overview of moral theory and a defense of act utilitarianism. It is followed by Bernard Williams’, “A Critique of Utilitarianism,” a source of many important criticisms of utilitarianism.
• Richard Brandt. Ethical Theory. Prentice Hall, 1959. Chapter 15.
  • Brandt, who coined the terms “act” and “rule” utilitarianism, explains and criticizes act utilitarianism and tentatively proposes a version of rule utilitarianism.
• Richard Brandt. Morality, Utilitarianism, and Rights. Cambridge University Press, 1992.
  • Brandt developed and defended rule utilitarianism in many papers. This book contains several of them as well as works in which he applies rule utilitarian thinking to issues like rights and the ethics of war.
• R. M. Hare. Moral Thinking. Oxford University Press, 1981.
  • An interesting development of a form of rule utilitarianism by an influential moral theorist.
• John C. Harsanyi. “Morality and the Theory of Rational Behavior.” in Social Research 44.4 (1977): 623-656. (Reprinted in Amartya Sen and Bernard Williams, eds., Utilitarianism and Beyond, Cambridge University Press, 1982).
  • Harsanyi, a Nobel Prize economist, defends rule utilitarianism, connecting it to a preference theory of value and a theory of rational action.
• John Rawls. “Two Concepts of Rules.” In Philosophical Review LXIV (1955), 3-32.
  • Before becoming an influential critic of utilitarianism, Rawls wrote this defense of rule utilitarianism.
• Brad Hooker. Ideal Code, Real World: A Rule-consequentialist Theory of Morality. Oxford University Press, 2000.
  • In this 21st century defense of rule utilitarianism, Hooker places it in the context of more recent developments in philosophy.
• Peter Singer. Writings on an Ethical Life. HarperCollins, 2000.
  • Singer, a prolific, widely read thinker, mostly applies a utilitarian perspective to controversial moral issues (for example, euthanasia, the treatment of non-human animals, and global poverty) rather than discussing utilitarian moral theory. This volume contains selections from his books and articles.
• Peter Singer. “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” in Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (1972), 229-43. Reprinted in Peter Singer. Writings on an Ethical Life. Harper Collins, 2000.
  • This widely reprinted article, though it does not focus on utilitarianism, uses utilitarian reasoning and has sparked decades of debate about moral demandingness and moral impartiality.
• Robert Goodin. Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 1995.
  • In a series of essays, Goodin argues that utilitarianism is the best philosophy for public decision-making even if it fails as an ethic for personal aspects of life.
• Derek Parfit. On What Matters. Oxford University Press, 1991.
  • In a long, complex work, Parfit stresses the importance of Henry Sidgwick as a moral philosopher and argues that rule utilitarianism and Kantian deontology can be understood in a way that makes them compatible with one another.

c. Overviews

• Tim Mulgan. Understanding Utilitarianism. Acumen, 2007.
  • This is a very clear description of utilitarianism, including explanations of arguments both for and against. Chapter 2 discusses Bentham, Mill, and Sidgwick while chapter 6 focuses on act and rule utilitarianism.
• Julia Driver, “The History of Utilitarianism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  • This article gives a good historical account of important figures in the development of utilitarianism.
• Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, “Consequentialism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  • This very useful overview is relevant to utilitarianism and other forms of consequentialism.
• William Shaw. Contemporary Ethics: Taking Account of Utilitarianism. Blackwell, 1999.
  • Shaw provides a clear, comprehensive discussion of utilitarianism and its critics as well as defending utilitarianism.
• John Troyer. The Classical Utilitarians: Bentham and Mill. Hackett, 2003.
  • Troyer’s introduction to this book of selections from Mill and Bentham is clear and informative.
• Ben Eggleston and Dale Miller, eds. The Cambridge Companion to Utilitarianism. Cambridge University Press, 2014.
  • This collection contains sixteen essays on utilitarianism, including essays on historical figures as well as discussion of 21st century issues, including both act and rule utilitarianism.

d. J. S. Mill and Utilitarian Moral Theory

• J. O. Urmson. “The Interpretation of the Moral Philosophy of J. S. Mill,” in Philosophical Quarterly (1953) 3, 33-9.
  • This article generated renewed interest in both Mill’s moral theory and rule utilitarianism.
• Roger Crisp. Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Mill on Utilitarianism. Routledge, 1997.
• A clear discussion of Mill’s Utilitarianism with chapters on key topics as well as on Mill’s On Liberty and The Subjection of Women.
• Henry. R. West, ed. The Blackwell Guide to Mill’s Utilitarianism. Blackwell, 2006.
  • This contains the complete text of Mill’s Utilitarianism preceded by three essays on the background to Mill’s utilitarianism and followed by five interpretative essays and four focusing on contemporary issues.
• Henry R. West. An Introduction to Mill’s Utilitarian Ethics. Cambridge University Press, 2004.
  • A clear discussion of Mill; Chapter 4 argues that Mill is neither an act nor a rule utilitarian. Chapter 6 focuses on utilitarianism and justice.
• Dale Miller. J. S. Mill. Polity Press, 2010.
  • Miller, in Chapter 6, argues that Mill was a rule utilitarian.
• Stephen Nathanson. “John Stuart Mill on Economic Justice and the Alleviation of Poverty,” in Journal of Social Philosophy, XLIII, no. 2.
  • Drawing on Mill’s Principles of Political Economy, Nathanson claims that Mill was a rule utilitarian and provides an interpretation of Mill’s views on economic justice.
• Wendy Donner, “Mill’s Utilitarianism” in John Skorupski, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Mill. Cambridge University Press, 1998, 255–92.
  • A discussion of Mill’s views and some recent interpretations of them.
• David Lyons. Rights, Welfare, and Mill’s Moral Theory. Oxford, 1994.
  • In this series of papers, Lyons defends Mill’s view of morality against some critics, differentiates Mill’s views from both act and rule utilitarianism, and criticizes Mill’s attempt to show that utilitarianism can account for justice.

e. Critics of Utilitarianism

• David Lyons. Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism. Oxford, 1965.
  • Lyons argues that at least some versions of rule utilitarianism collapse into act utilitarianism.
• David Lyons. “The Moral Opacity of Utilitarianism” in Brad Hooker, Elinor Mason, and Dale Miller, eds. Morality, Rules, and Consequences. Rowman and Littlefield, 2000.
  • In a challenging essay, Lyons raises doubts about whether there is any coherent version of utilitarianism.
• Judith Jarvis Thomson. “The Trolley Problem.” Yale Law Journal 94 (1985), 1395-1415. Reprinted in Judith Jarvis Thomson. Rights, Restitution and Risk. Edited by William Parent. Harvard University Press, 1986; Chapter 7.
  • An influential rights-based discussion in which Jarvis Thomson uses hypothetical cases to show, among other things, that utilitarianism cannot explain why some actions that cause killings are permissible and others not.
• Bernard Williams, “A Critique of Utilitarianism,” In J. J. C. Smart and Bernard Williams, Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge University Press, 1973.
  • Williams’ contribution to this debate contains arguments and examples that have played an important role in debates about utilitarianism and moral theory.

f. Collections of Essays

• Michael D. Bayles, ed. Contemporary Utilitarianism. Garden City: Doubleday, 1968.
  • Ten essays that debate act vs. rule utilitarianism as well as whether a form of utilitarianism is correct.
• Samuel Gorovitz, ed. John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism, With Critical Essays. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1971.
  • This includes Mill’s Utlitarianism plus a rich array of twenty-eight (pre-1970) articles interpreting, defending, and criticizing utilitarianism.
• Brad Hooker, Elinor Mason, and Dale Miller, eds. Morality, Rules, and Consequences. Rowman and Littlefield, 2000.
  • Thirteen essays on utilitarianism, many focused on issues concerning rule utilitarianism.
• Samuel Scheffler. Consequentialism and Its Critics. Oxford, 1988.
  • This contains a dozen influential articles, mostly by prominent critics of utilitarianism and other forms of consequentialism.
• Amartya Sen, and Bernard Williams, eds. Utilitarianism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
  • This contains fourteen articles, including essays defending utilitarianism by R. M. Hare and John Harsanyi, As the title suggests, however, most of the articles are critical of utilitarianism.

Author Information

Stephen Nathanson Email: [email protected] Northeastern University U. S. A.