Can rule utilitarianism offer an adequate account of rights

Solution

Solution:

Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism and is closely associated with it. People often use both terms interchangeably with major deference that consequentialism does not specify a desired outcome, while utilitarianism specifies good as the desired outcome. It is based on, result based ethics theory. According to which the rightness and wrongness of acts depends entirely on facts about the maximization of overall well-being for the largest number of people. John Stuart Mill who gives the theory of Utilitarianism, defines utilitarianism as a theory based on the principle that \"actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.\"

Rule utilitarianism – It is an indirect form of consequentialism. It specifies that decisions should follow rules that promotes good and rules should promote outcome of a greatest good possible. In another words, an act is right if and only if it would be allowed by a system of rules whose general acceptance would result in at least as much wellbeing as any other system of rules. Thus, moral rightness of an act depend on the consequences of a rule.

Whether rule utilitarianism offer an adequate rights or not- Rule utilitarianism says us that any act is good or bad is based on moral rules which is solely based on its consequences. For example, rule utilitarianism implies that to follow signal rule it is better to stop at red and move at green. Now if all people follow that rule it prevents accident and saves the larger number of people to get hurt. In this way it protects the right of the people at larger level.

But rule utilitarianism failed to save the rights of people at individual level. For example, saving 10 people by killing 1 innocent people is right according to rule utilitarianism because it maximises the wellbeing of greater number of people. But, it is morally wrong to kill one person because it comes under the act of murder. So, in this way it doesn’t offers adequate account of rights at individual level.

Conclusion: If a person is rational he thinks about the rules and consequences of his act before committing it. So, rule utilitarianism doesn’t necessarily correct to follow. Based on the theory and examples described above it can be said that rule utilitarianism has its strengths and weakness. It should be applied with the mix of other ethical theory. . Its principal of utility theory should be incorporated as a criteria of right and not as a decision procedure.