(2) Was Mill an act utilitarian or a rule utilitarian?
I submit that Mill was an act utilitarian. Firstly, I will define the differences between act and
rule utilitarianism. However, to begin with, to answer whether Mill was an act or rule
utilitarian, the two options must be defined. On top of that, it is also essential to determine
what they have in common to make the differences between the two more explicit and
distinct. Therefore, the definition of utilitarianism is also an important one.
Utilitarianism is a branch of consequentialism that hold, as the name suggests, that outcomes,
the consequences, are solely what matters whether something is moral or not. Maximising
utility could be another way of phrasing it, the greatest good for the greatest amount of
people. Act utilitarianism can be seen as a direct form of consequentialism, while rule
utilitarianism can be viewed as a more indirect form. The former is a bit harder to understand.
Act utilitarians focus on particular actions, and a person's action is morally good if and only if
it leads to the best outcomes imaginable for that particular circumstance. In contrast, rule
utilitarians judge actions based on whether they follow moral rules, assuming a good, correct,
moral rule should always be followed without exceptions. A typical example would be the
rule "you should not kill". According to rule utilitarians, the best action is always to follow
such a rule, no matter the circumstances.
Firstly, Mill clearly states in Utilitarianism (2014) that happiness is the only fundamental
value which matters, "It results from the preceding considerations that there is in reality
nothing desired except happiness" (57). Moreover, he earlier says says: "The creed which
accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility or the Greatest Happiness Principle holds that
actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to
produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain;
by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure" (9). The two quotes together characterise
him as an act utilitarian. An action is morally right if it promotes happiness, and happiness is
the only thing which has a fundamental value, to begin with. Additionally, the interpretation
of happiness here does not matter as the argument is still intact without it.
Furthermore, in the final parts of the last chapter of Utilitarianism, Mill completely contrasts
rule utilitarianism by saying:
Though particular cases may occur in which some other social duty is so
important, as to overrule any one of the general maxims of justice. Thus, to save
a life, it may not only be allowable, but a duty, to steal, or take by force, the
necessary food or medicine, or to kidnap, and compel to officiate, the only
qualified medical practitioner (95).
Here, it is evident Mill acknowledges there sometimes may even be a duty to break a moral
rule. I would further argue that if Mill ever recognises that rule-breaking is fine, even if it
were an exception, that would make him an act utilitarian, not a rule utilitarian. Why is this? I
argue that otherwise, rule utilitarianism would quickly break down into act utilitarianism. If
we, for the sake of argument, say that one would have to revise the rule if it is okay
sometimes to break it. One possible revision to our earlier rule could be "one should not kill,
unless the killing itself can save other lives". If we revise the rule as such, I argue that it
would simply break down into act utilitarianism, as the fundamental decider of whether the
act is good or bad (moral or not) now, isn't necessarily the rule itself, but somewhat dependent
on the circumstances of the act. Therefore, I argue that the quote above clearly demonstrates
that Mill is an act utilitarian.
In conclusion, I submit that Mill is an act utilitarian and not a rule utilitarian.
(4) What is "moral luck"? Is it a problem for utilitarians?
Moral luck is when factors outside of one's control contribute to the consequences. It can be
both positive or negative "luck". For example, two people can do the same action, but the
results could be very different, depending on outside factors. This is "moral luck". However,
the question remains if and how moral luck should be considered. To begin with, as we
established, luck certainly changes the consequences of actions. So, is this a problem for
utilitarians? I would argue that it depends on if we are referring to act utilitarians or rule
utilitarians.
For act utilitarians, I would argue that moral luck is a problem. The same actions can have
different outcomes in terms of the fundamental value we judge specific, stand-alone, actions
by. Luck makes it very difficult to predict actions and their outcome. To judge two people
differently for the same action but with different outcomes becomes a moral issue. However,
rule utilitarians handle this issue much better. They judge actions based on how well it
conforms to the rules set up. So if two people break the same rule, or for that matter follow
the same rule, by performing the same action as each other, rule utilitarians would judge those
two people the same, even if there are drastic differences in the outcome.
Works cited:
Mill, J. (2014). Utilitarianism (Cambridge Library Collection - Philosophy). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139923927.001