Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Philosophy Society Must Be Governed By Rules Society Must Be Governed By Rules According to Sober, "Utilitarianism is an ethical theory whose central idea is ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’" (Sober 430). Utilitarianism rose in opposition to the idea that the upper crust of society had the right to arrange the rules of society as they saw fit. The concern of Utilitarianism is the most good for the most people, not the most good for the people that "matter." From this standpoint, Utilitarianism appears to be an attractive ethical theory. However, there are many philosophers who criticize Utilitarianism. They argue that the apparently simple premise of Utilitarianism has many complex problems behind it. For example, what is happiness? How can we ensure the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people? And what happens if acting for the greatest good for the greatest number leads to injustice? I believe that a specific variation of Utilitarianism – Rule Utilitarianism -- can adequately address these problems, and it is therefore the most plausible ethical theory. Rule Utilitarianism is derived from the basic Utilitarian principle of the greatest good for the greatest number. However, where Act Utilitarianism addresses each individual action or situation in reference to this principle, Rule Utilitarianism states that we must use the Utilitarian principle to define the rules that regulate society. Many of the rules of modern society have derived in this manner. For example, it would not benefit the most people if murder were allowed by society. No matter how beneficial a murder might be for one individual, society would not benefit from murder being allowed, and therefore Rule Utilitarianism supports the idea that murder is wrong. However, society does benefit from murdering people who are dangerous to society – those who murder other people. Therefore, Rule Utilitarianism can also be used to support the idea of capital punishment, even as it opposes murder. Rule Utilitarianism is an offspring of Utilitarianism; however, instead of using the utilitarian principle to examine whether an action is ethical on an individual basis, Rule Utilitarianism uses this principle to formulate rules to govern society. Therefore, Rule Utilitarianism is a very realistic ethical theory. Modern society is not governed by one overriding principle, as Utilitarianism would suggest. Society is governed by rules, and Rule Utilitarianism would allow society to formulate rules with the greatest good for the greatest number in mind. Elliot Sober presents one objection to Utilitarianism in what he calls, "The Case of the Lonely Stranger." Sober presents a situation in which a sheriff in a town where a murder has occurred knows that the murderer is dead, and knows the town will riot soon if a suspect is not arrested. The sheriff also knows that the town will not believe him if he tells them that the murderer is dead. The sheriff is then presented with a stranger with no ties to anyone in the world, who is in town for no reason. The ethical question posed by Sober is whether or not the sheriff should frame the stranger and, in doing so, prevents a riot, even though he knows that the stranger is perfectly innocent? Sober criticizes Utilitarianism, because a utilitarian would say that framing the stranger provides peace for the entire town, and if he is not framed a bloody riot will lead to more than just one death, so he must be framed. Intuitively, framing an innocent man cannot be considered ethical. This statement is the precise reason that Rule Utilitarianism is a superior response. Framing an innocent man is not ethical, and a rule utilitarian would abide by the rule that framing an innocent man is not an ethical behavior. Therefore, even though in this particular instance the most good for the most people would be derived from framing the innocent man, a rule utilitarian would not allow the sheriff to do so ethically, as it breaks a utilitarian rule. Sober, however, is not convinced that Rule Utilitarianism presents a convincing Utilitarian response to the case of the lonesome stranger. Sober argues that in the lonesome stranger case, the sheriff must decide whether it is a better rule to punish the innocent when it is convenient, or to never punish the innocent. Sober agrees that a general consensus would agree that, "Never punish the innocent," is a better rule. However, Sober goes on to present a third alternative, "Don’t punish the innocent, unless doing so will maximize utility." He states that a Rule Utilitarian must accept this rule, as it is a more utilitarian rule than, "Never punish the innocent." Utilitarianism, by definition, is concerned with the greatest good for the greatest number. Therefore, it would seem that if punishing an innocent man would create the greatest good for the greatest number, a utilitarian would have to support that action. However, I would argue that Sober is mistaken in claiming that a utilitarian would have to agree that, "Don’t punish the innocent, unless doing so will maximize utility," is a superior rule. The very reason that Rule Utilitarianism evolved was because certain situations exist that would create the most good for the most people from an unethical action. Rule Utilitarianism developed in order to create basic rules to guide society based on Utilitarian principles, so that these principles would not be violated by extreme circumstances. Sober is asking the rule utilitarian to accept a rule with a "clause" in it that completely undermines the reasons behind the foundation of Rule Utilitarianism. Rule Utilitarianism states that a general action – for example, punishing the innocent – should be examined and determined whether doing so is ethical or unethical. As a result of that analysis, a rule is formed to govern whether or not people should do that action – 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 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 number. Rule Utilitarianism is a successful hybrid of Utilitarianism and Kant’s deontological ethics. Rule Utilitarianism is based on the Utilitarian principle, which most people would surely agree with. However, it also recognizes that rules are necessary to govern behavior, as Kant did. Rule Utilitarianism is most successful because it incorporates the best aspects of both Kant and Utilitarianism, while avoiding many of the problems that trap them. Bibliography: Word Count: 1641
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.