Act-Utilitarianism Requires Too Much Impartiality?
To begin, Act-Utilitarianism can be defined as a method of behavior in which any act carried out that maximizes the overall well-being of each individual effected is considered moral and correct. Whereas, Rule-Utilitarianism is based on overall behaviors/rules set in motion, rather than just one act. All correct moral principles or rules should be followed, regardless of happiness. To further distinguish the two principles, our textbook gives us one clear-cut example. In this example, a girl decides to kill his uncle because he is an evil and vindictive person and killing him would create more happiness than it would diminish, which Act Utilitarianism would define as appropriate and just. However, with Rule Utilitarianism, as our text explains,
…show more content…
Act-Utilitarianism requires too much. For example, it is essential that each act carried out requires that each action factor in the outcome that will provide the best over-all well-being, which can be difficult, if not impossible.
2. Act-Utilitarianism requires too much impartiality. To expand further, as we have learned, it is very difficult for humans to be impartial. Suppose five children plus your child are in danger, you can either save your child plus two children or save all of the children except for your own. The normal human response would be to save your child. However, that would not maximize the well-being of all of the adults involved and would violate Act Utilitarianism.
3. Act-Utilitarianism ignores the distribution of happiness. This criticism is pretty much forthright and does not require further explanation. Happiness, rather than being divided is unbalanced. While more people are happy, some could be extremely miserable and heavily affected.
4. Act Utilitarianism ignores duties- Basically, this criticism portrays the fact that one person who is sick and needs to be driven to the hospital in order to save their live could be blown off in order for an individual to work in a soup kitchen and potentially help
Act-Utilitarianism requires too much. For example, it is essential that each act carried out requires that each action factor in the outcome that will provide the best over-all well-being, which can be difficult, if not impossible.
2. Act-Utilitarianism requires too much impartiality. To expand further, as we have learned, it is very difficult for humans to be impartial. Suppose five children plus your child are in danger, you can either save your child plus two children or save all of the children except for your own. The normal human response would be to save your child. However, that would not maximize the well-being of all of the adults involved and would violate Act Utilitarianism.
3. Act-Utilitarianism ignores the distribution of happiness. This criticism is pretty much forthright and does not require further explanation. Happiness, rather than being divided is unbalanced. While more people are happy, some could be extremely miserable and heavily affected.
4. Act Utilitarianism ignores duties- Basically, this criticism portrays the fact that one person who is sick and needs to be driven to the hospital in order to save their live could be blown off in order for an individual to work in a soup kitchen and potentially help