Prompt Utilitarianism holds that of the actions available to us, we are morally required to do whichever one will maximize the total amount of happiness in the world. This has led many philosophers to object that if utilitarianism were true, situations will arise where we are morally required to sacrifice an innocent person against their will in order to maximize the total amount of happiness in the world. For example, in certain situations we will be morally obligated to kidnap and kill one person to steal their organs so as to distribute them to several needy others (thus maximizing happiness). In your paper, (1) explain how revising Utilitarianism into what is called a “Rule Utilitarianism” is able to avoid this objection, and (2) evaluate this revised Rule version of Utilitarianism. Sample Bad “Paper” (S1) Utilitarians have long struggled with the case of the Transplant. (S2) Involved in the case are several sick people who all need different organs and one healthy man who if he died no one would be the wiser. (S3) By strict Utilitarian principles, the healthy man would have to be killed for his organs. (S4) However, to kill the man for his organs would go against the rules of society, and therefore if we were to be rule utilitarians, we wouldn’t steal the organs. (S5) As for me, I think the man has rights, and therefore he shouldn’t be forced to give up his organs unless he consents. (S6) The man didn’t do anything to the people in the hospital, so he doesn’t owe them anything. What's Wrong With The Above “Paper” Sentence 1 - Does the author really know how long the Utilitarians have struggled over this case? How old is the case? Perhaps Utilitarians don’t take the case seriously? The point is: the author shouldn’t claim historical facts that they don’t have any reason to believe. Instead, they might have very easily communicated the same information without committing themselves to historical claims they can’t back up. For example, “The Transplant Case poses a problem for traditional utilitarianism.” Sentence 2 - Why does the author describe the case? Pretty much all the cases we are discussing in class are widely known thought-experiments, therefore the author need only refer to the case by name and need not waste space laying out the case. However, if the author wanted to, they could (and maybe should) describe why the case is a problem—if just to show me that you understand why the case causes trouble. For example: “This case raises questions about traditional utilitarianism’s ability to account for individual rights.” Sentence 3 - In this line the author has two options for revision. They could just delete the line since it should already be obvious what the utilitarian would say about the case. Or, they could tell me what the utilitarian principle is and describe why it applies here. As the line is now, it communicates no new information, nor does it show the author’s understanding of the utilitarian principle since all it says is that such a principle leads to a certain result. Sentence 4 -Where did societies rules come into the game? Utilitarianism judges by the existence of pleasure and pain (or, alternatively, satisfied and unsatisfied desires). Utilitarianism does not claim that morality is rooted in the existence of society, it claims that morality is rooted in the existence of pleasure and pain (or, alternatively, desires). Even rule utilitarianism is about the hypothetical rule that would on average maximize happiness, not the rule passed by society. Sentence 5 - Aside from the annoying appearance of such phrases as “As for me” and the “I think”, this sentence also fails to engage with the ideas of utilitarianism the author has just spent the last four lines lying out. Is the author agreeing with rule utilitarianism? Disagreeing? Perhaps after telling me about rule and traditional act utilitarianism, the author should tell me if they agree or disagree with these forms of utilitarianism (and why) before moving on to give their position. Also, the author needs to tell me where the man’s rights come from. Just to say the man has rights is not an argument. For example, traditional utilitarianism denies that we have rights, so here the author is begging the question against them. Sentence 6 - This last line might be the basis of a good argument, but the author just mentions it instead of fleshing it out. Plus, the author has already made their (poor) argument based on the man having rights, now he is making an argument based on the fact that the man hasn’t done anything wrong. Which is it? Piling on reasons will only obscure what you are trying to say. Just stick to one reason in your paper; that should be hard enough to do right. Sample Good Paper: Rule Utilitarianism The Transplant Case poses a problem for traditional utilitarianism. The case raises serious questions about utilitarianism’s ability to account for our intuitions about individual rights. That is, traditional utilitarianism and the Transplant Case lead to the following counter-intuitive consequence: (1) Traditional Utilitarianism. Take the action that maximizes net happiness. (2) Sacrificing one innocent man against his will is what will maximize net happiness in certain situations (e.g. The Transplant Case). Therefore, (3) The right action is to sacrifice the life of an innocent man against his will in certain situations. One possible way for the traditional utilitarian to avoid the above conclusion, would be to modify utilitarianism in the following way: (1*) Rule Utilitarianism. Take the action that is dictated by the rule that maximizes net happiness. Certainly sacrificing the innocent man against his will in the Transplant Case will maximize net happiness, but as a rule sacrificing people against their will would not maximize net happiness. Therefore, if we replaced (1) with (1*) in the above argument, the counter-intuitive conclusion where we must violate an innocent man’s right to life would no longer follow. This is an encouraging result for the prospects of a revised utilitarianism. However, rule utilitarianism introduces problems of its own. Consider the following case: Red-button World. Jon is an upstanding rule utilitarian and he knows that in his world it generally maximizes happiness to push red buttons (let’s say that in the world Jon lives red buttons turn on liquid-Prozac sprinklers). Now one day—to test Jon’s commitment—I present Jon with a red button that I tell him will destroy the world in a slow and painful way if pressed. While I fully expect Jon to recoil from the possibility of causing such suffering, I am surprised to find that Jon is a better rule utilitarian than I thought. While Jon fully realizes that pushing the red button will cause great pain and suffering, since as a rule pushing red buttons generally maximizes happiness, Jon gathers all the moral courage he has and does what he takes to be the right thing: Jon pushes the red button. Now, did Jon do the right thing? Certainly not. Therefore, while rule utilitarianism allows us to avoid the counterintuitive result in Transplant Case, it leads us to even worse results in Red-button World. This leaves us with two options: (1) return to traditional utilitarianism (a.k.a. act utilitarianism) and simply accept the counter-intuitive result it leads to, or (2) to reject utilitarianism altogether for some alternative moral theory. However, since I have not presented an alternative moral system that we could retreat to, it would be illegitimate for us accept (2). Consequently, unless some plausible alternative to act utilitarianism is presented, we are forced to take option (1) and simply accept the fact that taking a man’s organs against his will is the right thing to do in the Transplant Case.