Socratic Ideas®
AUTHOR: JOHN WATERS
AUTHOR: JOHN WATERS
ACT AND RULE
UTILITARIANISM
DEFINITION OF ACT AND RULE UTILITARIANISM
ACT UTILITARIANISM: Assesses each individual situation on its own merits with the aim of promoting
the greatest happiness for those involved.
RULE UTILITARIANISM: People should follow and be guided by moral rules which in the past have
shown to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
Some examination boards label Jeremy Bentham an Act Utilitarian, and John Stuart Mill a Rule
Utilitarian. However such labels are crude and have two major faults: firstly, the terms Act and Rule are
anachronistic (out of chronological order) when applied to Bentham and Mill. As Robert Arrington,
Western Ethics, has mentioned, such labels came into use after Bentham and Mill had died! Secondly,
such terms fail to do justice to the subtleties of Mill’s philosophy – which many consider being more
akin to Weak Rule Utilitarianism (see below). However, for the purpose of examination boards I will
analyse the similarities and differences between Bentham and Mill, under the headings of Act and Rule
Utilitarianism, as this is often a topic which features on A-level examination papers!
COMPARISONS BETWEEN BENTHAM AND MILL
(1) PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY / GREATEST HAPPINESS PRINCIPLE
Bentham considered that “The good is that which will bring about the greatest sum of pleasure, or the
least sum of pain, for the greatest number” (Principle of Utility). This he applied by using the Felicific
Calculus by which he claimed he could scientifically prove what goodness is (for more information
please read the Utilitarian notes by John Waters, also on this Ethical Theory CD-rom). In a similar
fashion, Mill applied the Greatest Happiness Principle: “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to
© 2004 Socratic Ideas Ltd – All Rights Reserved
1
Socratic Ideas®
AUTHOR: JOHN WATERS
promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse.” Like Bentham, Mill applied the
empirical criteria of wishing to see the benefits of one’s moral choices here and now, as opposed to
asserting a metaphysical foundation for goodness. Interestingly, both Bentham and Mill’s principles
have been favourably compared to Jesus’ Golden Rule, “Love your neighbour as yourself” or “Do unto
others as you would have they do unto you.” So it can be seen that Utilitarianism upholds the message of
a benevolent God showing interest for the well being of human beings, whilst avoiding a reference to the
metaphysical God. It may be regarded as an issue of accepting similarities in one’s ethics, albeit for
different reasons, whilst rejecting ecclesiastical beliefs.
(2) DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PLEASURE AND HAPPINESS!
An important difference between Bentham and Mill’s Utilitarianism is that Bentham was a Hedonistic
Utilitarian, which means he was interested in promoting people’s pleasure, whereas Mill placed greater
emphasis on happiness. The difference between pleasure and happiness is subtle, but significant! A
person may experience a great deal of pleasure, a sense of gratification, and yet remain unsatisfied and
unfilled with their life. In contrast, happiness tends to adopt a more holistic approach, which has a high
regard for personal fulfilment and views life from a wider perspective. For example, a wealthy young
man may seek pleasure from drugs, alcohol and an active sex life with many partners, yet lack the
happiness of true friendship and the love of his family. Whilst Bentham has been labelled a Hedonistic
Utilitarian, Professor Brenda Almond has referred to Mill as a Eudaimonistic Utilitarian (concerned with
human well being.) It is worth pausing to appreciate the historical background and rationale behind
Mill’s Eudaimonistic Utilitarianism. At the age of twenty, Mill experienced a nervous breakdown, due
in part to the pressures placed upon him by his father James, who saw him as a child protégé (learning
Latin at the age of three…!) As part of his rehabilitation he found comfort and enlightenment in the
writings of Aristotle and the Lake poets Wordsworth, Byron and Shelley. The influence of Aristotle’s
Virtue Ethics approach encouraged a rounded, holistic view of what it is to flourish as a human being.
Reason, or as Aristotle described it, phronesis (practical wisdom) works in accord with emotions, by
selecting appropriate desires and implementing them through the Golden Mean (a healthy, balanced,
middle path) of appetite. Such a tripartheid view of the soul promotes eudaimonia, human flourishing
(contentment, satisfaction, happiness). For Mill, the Lake poets – who embraced the aesthetic
appreciation of nature – complemented Aristotle’s philosophy.
Whereas Bentham viewed pleasure, gratification, as something which could be sought as an end in its
own right, Mill considered happiness as more of a by-product of other activity. Happiness is something
which is best achieved as an indirect consequence of other activity – this requires a mature disposition
from the person making moral judgements.
© 2004 Socratic Ideas Ltd – All Rights Reserved
2
Socratic Ideas®
AUTHOR: JOHN WATERS
(3) QUANTITY OR QUALITY OF PLEASURE / HAPPINESS
Bentham’s felicific calculus is egalitarian in so far as he asserted that “one person’s pleasure is to count
for one, and no more than one.” At the heart of Bentham’s Utilitarianism is the wish to maximise the
overall quantity of pleasure; hence the Felicific Calculus’ focus on ‘pleasure units’ when assessing the
right course of action to pursue. According to Bentham, as all pleasures are of equal value, “Push-pin [a
simple child's game] is as good as poetry.” However, Mill wished to assess not simply the quantity of
pleasure/ happiness but also the qualitative differences. As he famously remarked, “…better to be a
dissatisfied human being than a pig satisfied; and better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a fool
satisfied.” According to J.S. Mill, higher, intellectual, pleasures are intrinsically more valuable than
physical pleasures: in a dismissive swipe at Bentham he described Hedonistic Utilitarianism as “a pig
philosophy fit only for swine.” When asked to justify his criticism Mill replied that those who have
experienced both kinds prefer intellectual pleasures; and if they disagree it simply goes to show that they
are not in a position to appreciate the difference! As a consequence of this distinction, Henry Sidgewick
was led to question whether Mill was a pure Utilitarian, as by bringing in the qualitative dimension of
pleasure, Mill shows that he values other goods beside pleasure.
(4) PIONEERS OF NINETEENTH CENTURY SOCIAL REFORMERS
“Bentham was the father of British innovation both in doctrines and in institutions” (JS Mill). As Mill’s
compliment shows, when it came to challenging and changing social convention and teaching, Bentham,
and indeed Mill himself, was highly successful in his counter-cultural campaigns. Bentham is well
known for his work on penal and Parliamentary reform. Equally important is the role played by
Bentham’s Felicific Calculus, which was the philosophy underpinning the Whig government’s Social
Reform of The New Poor Law Act in 1834. Edward Chadwick, who presented the bill before the House
of Commons, argued, “Man seeks pleasure and flees pain.” As a consequence The New Poor Law Act
stated that life inside the workhouse must be less eligible (pleasant) than life as an independent labourer.
Less well known, yet highly significant in today’s political climate, is the contribution Bentham played
in establishing the importance of animal rights on the political agenda. Bentham famously remarked,
“The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could
have been with-holden them but by the hand of tyranny….The French have already discovered that the
blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the
caprice of a tormentor. It may one day be recognised that the number of the legs, the villosity of the
skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive
being to the same fate. The question is not `Can they reason?’ `Can they talk?’ But `Can they suffer?’”
Mill was similarly industrious and influential in promoting change. As an M.P, he campaigned for
sexual equality; proposing votes for women and, in On Liberty (1859), Mill defended individual
freedom of thought, association and life-style on the grounds that only in a context of liberty in which
© 2004 Socratic Ideas Ltd – All Rights Reserved
3
Socratic Ideas®
AUTHOR: JOHN WATERS
competing “experiments of living” may be tried, can each of us hope to seek and find his own distinctive
happiness.
On Liberty is directed against repressive laws which inhibit voluntary association and are oppressive to
the expression of human spirit and individuality. This spirit of classical liberalism, which underpins
Mill’s writing, questioned the legal moralism and state paternalism previously adhered to by the public
and ultimately led to future legal reforms in the field of votes for women, divorce, censorship and
homosexuality.
(5) ACT AND RULE UTILITARIANISM
The use of the felicific calculus has given Bentham a reputation as an Act Utilitarian: i.e. it is up to the
individual to assess the merits, or otherwise, of pursing an action based upon the seven criteria within
the Calculus. No external guidelines are required; the individual is equipped sufficiently to deal with the
situation. More subtle and complex is the categorizing of J.S. Mill. On the one hand, as has been seen,
his classical liberalism meant that he respected the sovereignty of the individual over himself and the
importance of an individual’s freedom to express themself, so long as it was not detrimental to society.
Equally, Mill argued that people should be guided by general principles which over the passage of time
have promoted the greatest happiness. The combination of these two different strands has led many to
labelling Mill as “Weak Rule Utilitarian.” This has been interpreted to mean that, generally speaking,
people should follow rules which have stood the test of time in promoting the greatest happiness of the
greatest number. However, individuals should also have the right to self-expression and the freedom to
pursue their own creativity, i.e. “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person
were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than if he
had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” (Utilitarianism p229)
PROBLEMS OF ACT OR BENEFITS OF RULE UTILITARIANISM
CONSEQUENCES ARE DIFFICULT TO PREDICT
As Act Utilitarianism has no guidelines to help the individual when facing a moral decision, aside from
the Felicific Calculus – which many consider to be too impractical – they may experience difficulties
predicting consequences accurately. Conversely, Rule Utilitarians have the benefit of receiving guidance
from past rules which have shown to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number and are
therefore in a much better position to accurately predict the consequences.
Socrates Says: when raising this issue in the examination it is helpful to consider the differences
between Perfect and Bounded rationality. Bounded rationality is when someone is unaware of the full
facts, or as Professor John Rawles stated, they are acting under a “veil of ignorance.” On the other hand,
perfect rationality refers to the situation where all the facts are known. In practice, Act Utilitarianism
© 2004 Socratic Ideas Ltd – All Rights Reserved
4
Socratic Ideas®
AUTHOR: JOHN WATERS
suffers the drawback of bounded rationality more than Rule Utilitarianism, as it has no guidelines from
which it may predict outcomes, which have occurred in similar past situations.
ACT UTILITARIANISM IS SELF-DEFEATING
Peter Singer illustrates this problem with the example of promise keeping. Promises are made on the
understanding that they will be kept, something the Rule Utilitarian recognises as promoting happiness.
However, whilst Act Utilitarians may make a promise in a particular situation there can be no guarantee
that they will always uphold promise keeping; and so one can never take seriously a promise from them
– there is no confidence they will keep their promise!
ACT UTILITARIANISM IS, BY DEFINITION, AN INCONSISTENT PHILOSOPHY
Act Utilitarians make decisions which promote the greatest pleasure for the greatest number in a
particular situation, without following any principles other than utility. But if everyone followed Act
Utilitarianism it would be impossible to predict consequences. So, by definition, one could not will that
everyone follow an Act Utilitarian stance, for, if they did, the ethical theory could not work. However,
Rule Utilitarians recommend following rules, which in the past have promoted happiness, and so their
approach to ethics can be universally applied and consequences predicted; thus avoiding the
inconsistency of Act Utilitarianism.
ACT UTILITARIANISM DOES NOT TAKE ACCOUNT OF PROFESSIONAL OBLIGATIONS
Society functions by people recognising their obligations once they have signed a contract. For example
a doctor has an obligation to uphold a patient’s medical confidentiality. However, an Act Utilitarian
doctor (thinking it would produce the greatest happiness) might report her patient’s condition (e.g. a
teenage pregnancy) to the girl’s parents, even though she would be breaking the trust and code of the
medical profession. Rule Utilitarians however recommend following the professional code of patient
confidentiality, as, in the past, such a code has promoted the greatest happiness; i.e. teenagers are happy
to go to doctors for help and support as opposed to dealing with the situation on their own.
ACT UTILITARIANISM DOES NOT TAKE ACCOUNT OF FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
Utilitarianism has been accused of undermining family relationships as it adopts an impartial approach –
the overall happiness for the greatest number is all that matters. Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism states that
“Everybody is to count for one, and nobody for more than one.” An implication being that when it is
your mum’s birthday it would be better to donate money to Oxfam than to buy her a present (!)
Rule Utilitarians might reply that whilst the spirit of Utilitarianism is to be impartial, past experience
teaches that when preferential treatment is offered to those who are close (e.g. family and friends) then
those societies function well – producing the greatest happiness.
© 2004 Socratic Ideas Ltd – All Rights Reserved
5
Socratic Ideas®
AUTHOR: JOHN WATERS
ACT UTILITARIANISM UNDERMINES JUSTICE
In Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mocking Bird, Tom, a black farm-hand, is made a scapegoat and is unjustly
accused of having raped a young, white woman. If the racist, white, jury had adopted an Act Utilitarian
approach it might be justified in finding Tom guilty of a crime he did not commit, on the grounds that
the predominantly white townsfolk would have justice “seen to be done” and so the majority of people
would be happy. Such an undermining of justice is a serious criticism of Act Utilitarianism. A Rule
Utilitarian however, might reply that it has been shown that societies which uphold justice are those
which make for happy citizens. The long term implication being that by upholding the rule of justice,
people have confidence that they will not be found guilty of crimes they have not committed, even if an
erroneous guilty verdict meant that in the short-term the majority of people were happy.
Socrates Says: It is worth analysing Mill’s understanding of justice. As he writes, “Justice is a name
given for certain moral requirements, which, regarded collectively stand higher in the scale of
social utility, and are therefore of more paramount obligation, than any others.” (Utilitarianism) So, in
the true spirit of Utilitarianism, Mill concedes that justice is not of intrinsic value, but is important due to
the instrumental (consequential) value it has for society by upholding principles which make for the
greatest happiness of the greatest number.
© 2004 Socratic Ideas Ltd – All Rights Reserved
6