possible, and he formulates his rules with this in mind. Therefore, disagreeing with Kant’s rules is fairly simple. For example, Kant does not think a world is possible where a person can commit suicide when their life is going badly. However, if most people are happy in a society, and the few unhappy people decide they don’t want to live anymore, the happy people will be able to continue with their lives. There are even examples of societies in which suicide was a viable alternative in certain situations. In samurai culture, if a samurai was shamed or disgraced in some way, he was not only allowed but also required to kill himself. Obviously, Kant is mistaken in saying that this kind of society could not possibly exist. I agree with Kant that society needs rules to govern its behavior (hence, my support of Rule Utilitarianism). However, I believe that the formulation of these rules should have the Utilitarian principle in mind, and should not come from one particular individual.Of all the ethical theories that have been discussed, I believe that Rule Utilitarianism is the most plausible. Rule Utilitarianism is an improvement upon Act Utilitarianism, which faces difficulties that arise from examining each individual action on its own. By defining rules for society based on the Utilitarian principle, Rule Utilitarianism avoids these problems and maintains the idea of the greatest good for the greatest number. A major point for Rule Utilitarianism against Act Utilitarianism is that it loosens the pressure on society to consider all of the exact consequences of every possible action. In other words, society only has to decide what rules to follow. Thus, Rule Utilitarianism is also superior to Kant’s deontological ethics, which also governs behavior through rules; however, Kant’s rules are defined as to whether or not they are universal, not whether or not they create the greatest good for the greatest n...
