Do we really need a moral code of conduct to guide us?

Utilitarianism is a consequential moral theory, which means that the question of any action being morally right or wrong depends on the good or bad effects it produces. Thus, utilitarianism works on a single moral principle- maximizing utility and thus ensuring greatest good for the greatest number.

Utilitarianism, however, is not uniform- the two most primary forms of this theory are Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism.

Act utilitarianism focuses on the impacts of individualistic actions whereas rule utilitarianism focuses on the effects of the nature of the action itself. In other words, while act utilitarianism will tackle the issue of the robbery of a bank and judge its consequences, rule utilitarianism will tackle and judge that of the very act of stealing.

Check Yourself: – 5 Symptoms to Identify If You are Elitist or Not

Therefore, although both types primarily agree that the moral or rational judgment should be consequential, they disagree on what part of the issue must be evaluated to determine the consequences-

Act utilitarianism: The sole act that will be/was performed. Rule Utilitarianism: Evaluation of first the moral rules the act is based upon and then the act itself, the evaluation of the latter being based on- Whether the act adheres to the said moral rules. Whether the acceptance of these morals through the said act will maximize utility in the society.

Unlike act utilitarianism which evaluates utility on the basis of acts performed, rule utilitarianism believes that maximization of utility occurs only by setting up a moral code, containing rules that produce better results than other rules. Actions performed must conform to these rules, making this criterion the primary one to judge all actions. Let’s understand costs and benefits of this theory.

Also Read: – Monkey Mantra: The Key to Freedom of Expression

#PROS of RULE UTILITARIANISM

• By removing the discretion of the doer, it maximizes utility in most situations. Rule utilitarianism might sound paradoxical because when it argues that one can produce more beneficial results by following rules than by always performing actions whose results are beneficial, it implies that performing utility-maximizing actions isn’t always justified, going against the very idea of utilitarianism.

Also Read: – What Does Your MBTI Personality Type Say About Your Career?

However, one must understand that realistically, an individual may not know which action maximizes utility or may be in a situation where it becomes difficult to evaluate the consequences of an action. In such common situations, having a moral code that states what morally maximizes utility removes the danger of unwanted actions due to poor discretionary powers of people unless these can be assured, which is never definite.

• The presence of a moral code, however, doesn’t reflect the absence of exceptions to the same. An ambulance, for example, can justifiably ignore a stop sign due to a dire medical need as long as it’s safe while other vehicles will be required to stop, ignoring the fact whether their drivers think stopping is necessary in a particular situation or not. Existence of exceptions doesn’t mean that act utilitarianism works better in these cases; it simply implies that in these cases, having a moral code does not maximize utility or having these exceptions as a rule in turn maximizes utility.

• It avoids giving incorrect answers to moral questions by not evaluating actions separately but by supporting rules that, when applied, maximize utility. So, while act utilitarianism will accept the act of doctors killing healthy patients to use the organs of one person to save more lives, rule utilitarianism will consider which rule maximizes utility- a rule that allows doctors to kill healthy patients to use their organs for transplants that will save a larger number of patients or one that forbids doctors to remove the organs of healthy patients in order to benefit other patients. Further evaluation of these rules reveals that if the first rule is adopted, many people would not go to doctors at all, implying that medical treatment wouldn’t be beneficial because of lack of trust on doctors. Thus, although the first rule may maximize utility in an individual case, it is the second that maximizes utility in the long run and thus at a larger level.

• It maintains trust in the society. As the correct actions will be based on a moral code that has already been established, rule utilitarianism would increase predictability of actions in the society, thereby making individuals consider their counterparts as reliable, predictable and trustworthy. The existence of rules creates a positive expectation out of people, raising the propensity of them acting in the expected manner. It also ensures accountability of individuals while performing certain actions, further increasing trust in the society. Although the moral code may not ensure cent percent trustworthiness in all, it definitely claims that violation of trust will be seen as a wrongful act.

• It is not utopian or too demanding when it comes to impartiality. Helping a stranger and helping a dear friend hold different significance in people’s lives as they often believe that they owe a little more help to the latter because of the connection they share. However, Act Utilitarianism demands absolute impartiality. Rule utilitarianism, on the other hand, allows for partiality toward oneself and one’s loved ones, while being able to recognize justifiable partiality without rejecting the commitment to the utilitarian concept of impartiality.

Also Read: – How Exclusive Have We Made the World for Our Queer Friends?

This is done by differentiating between the principle behind a rule and the application/consequences of the rule. The former requires absolute impartiality i.e. no rule must principally consider the impact of an action on all people and weigh all interests equally. The application of the rule to different cases, however, can differ; a rule utilitarian code will allow partiality to play a role in determining what morality requires, forbids, or allows us to do. So, a moral rule requiring parents to perform a special duty to care for their own children is a partial rule as it not only allows but actually requires parents to devote more time and resources to their own children than to others. While it does not forbid devoting resources to other people’s children, it allows people to give to their own. This partiality, however, can be justified- caring for children is a demanding activity which cannot be done for all, children need the special attention of adults to develop physically and emotionally and children’s needs vary, requiring knowledge of particular children’s needs to benefit them. Thus, a division of labor when it comes to caring for children (particular parents care for particular children) is necessary to maximize the overall well-being of children as a class. Rule utilitarianism’s commitment to maximizing overall utility also allows it to limit the degree of permissible partiality.

#CONS of RULE UTILITARIANISM

• It denies violation of any rule, often diminishing utility and ignoring rationality, referring to it as “Rule Worship”, which might have no rational justification. When it is known that utility can be further maximized by violating the rule, the default position should be over-ridden, which, however, defeats the very purpose of having a rigid moral code in the first place.

• It is extensionally equivalent to Act Utilitarianism, sharing its defects and key features. The utilitarian moral rule code often follows the following pattern- “do x except when not doing x maximizes utility” and “do not do x except when doing x maximizes utility”. On careful observation, we see that this is exactly what act utilitarianism dictates- these rules are equivalent to saying that “do whatever action maximizes utility”, which is exactly what act utilitarianism states.

Also Read: – Condoms and The Shame Attached to it

To avoid this collapse into act utilitarianism, the moral code propagated by rule utilitarianism should not only identify conditions of exception accurately within its rules but should also have a reasonable amount of flexibility in them- just enough to explain the complexities in a society and while not generalize too much to not remain a rule.

• It is unable to correct wrong answers as it ignores many central moral concepts by focusing only on utility of rules. Often, key concepts like justice and rights do not play a significant role in these rules, thus endangering their preservation. For example, rule utilitarianism will prohibit punishing innocent people only because the rule that permits this would lead to worse results overall than a rule not permitting it. This reasoning, however, is merely based on a prediction, and if it isn’t, the theory must acknowledge that intentionally punishing the innocent can be morally justified.

Also Read: – The Need of Gender Equality Cells in Academic Institutions

But, common sense morality appeals that such a punishment is unjustified as it not only treats the person unjustly but also violates one’s right not to be punished despite being not guilty or undeserving. Such reasoning tends to be ignored by rule utilitarianism, often leading to unjust justifications of a certain rule or action.

#CONCLUSION

Although it has its flaws, the theory of rule utilitarianism cannot be completely abandoned. While it stresses the recurrent features of human life and the ways in which similar needs and problems arise over and over again, raising the need for a code of moral conduct, it often ignores specific contexts and individual features that might come into play. Other versions of utilitarianism as well as the alternative moral theories available can often eliminate the existing flaws in rule utilitarianism.

However, it is right in determining one aspect of morality- the main determinant of what is right or wrong is the relationship between what form our moral code takes and what is the impact of our moral perspective on the level of people’s well-being. It is this interdependence between the two that assures the prevalence of a just code and a just idea of behaviour itself in the society.