on – whether they should or should not punish the innocent. Therefore, Rule Utilitarianism would lead to a rule that the innocent should not be punished. There is no need to go further and incorporate a clause in the rule as Sober does. The reason Rule Utilitarianism is superior to Act Utilitarianism is because it avoids the pitfalls that can come from analyzing situations on an individual basis. However, another concern for Rule Utilitarianism is how are the rules of society to be defined. For example, how should society assess which rules have the best outcome "in general"? Furthermore, what happens when particular rules come into conflict? Of course, Utilitarianism is not the only major ethical theory. Immanuel Kant advocated deontological ethics. Utilitarianism is concerned with the consequences of an action – which action will create the most good for the most people. However, Kant’s deontological ethics focuses on the importance of rules. Kant established the categorical imperative, or a strict moral rule that holds in all cases. This is somewhat similar to Rule Utilitarianism; however, Rule Utilitarianism formulates its rules with the greatest good for the greatest number in mind. Kant formulated his rules by which ones he thought could be universalized. Kant believed that if you could apply the rule to everyone, if it could be a universal law, it was a categorical imperative. Although Kant’s categorical imperative is actually similar to Rule Utilitarianism, I believe Rule Utilitarianism is a superior ethical theory. I believe that Rule Utilitarianism is more rational than Kant in terms of how its rules are formulated. Rule Utilitarianism is concerned with the greatest good for the greatest number – its rules are formulated with this concern in mind. However, Kant is not concerned at all with the greatest good for the greatest number. He only considers what he thinks is right and ...
