e left (thus keeping to the left of the road) should one keep to the right? According to rule-utilitarianism one ought to keep to the right, proving rule-utilitarianism not to be universal. Hence there are many examples to prove that rule-utilitarianism is not universal and can therefore not exist as a constant principle. Rule-utilitarianism has other objections, one of these objections is that it does not allow for freewill. By following the actual rules of one’s society one is simply conforming to the ideals of others thereby not expressing their individual freewill. For example, “one ought not to murder another”. There is no absolute moral law in Mill’s argument that says this is right or wrong, moral or unjust. Act-utilitarianism says to look at the greatest happiness, and rule-utilitarianism says to look at societal rules. By looking at the greatest happiness, it has already been determined that the greatest happiness may lie on either side so one ought to look at social rule. By obeying these rules one conforms and does not murder because others deem it as wrong or immoral to do so, thereby not expressing their own freewill. This is not to say that murdering is morally right, it is just explaining that freewill is absent in the utilitarian standpoint. Ergo, rule- utilitarianism does not allow for an individual’s freewill because it tells one to examine others rules, or beliefs and not one’s own. Thereby conforming to sociality. In Mill’s book Utilitarianism he makes a distinction between act and rule-utilitarianism. Both types of utilitarianism are not without great flaw and therefore cannot exist as a base for moral principle. By adding the branch of rule-utilitarianism to the utilitarian tree Mill tries to compensate for some of act-utilitarian’s flaws but as seen rule-utilitarianism has it’s own objections and does not improve on the simple of act-utilitarianism thought out...
