Philosophy Consequentialism Questions Medium
Act consequentialism and rule consequentialism are two different approaches within the broader framework of consequentialist ethics. While both theories focus on the consequences of actions, they differ in terms of the level at which they evaluate moral decisions.
Act consequentialism, also known as act utilitarianism, holds that the morality of an action is determined by the specific consequences it produces. According to this view, each individual action should be evaluated independently, and the morally right action is the one that maximizes overall happiness or utility. Act consequentialism emphasizes the importance of considering the immediate consequences of each action and making decisions based on the specific circumstances at hand. It does not rely on fixed rules or principles but rather on the calculation of the expected outcomes of each action.
On the other hand, rule consequentialism, also known as rule utilitarianism, focuses on the evaluation of moral rules rather than individual actions. Rule consequentialists argue that moral rules should be established based on their overall tendency to maximize happiness or utility when followed consistently. Instead of evaluating each action separately, rule consequentialism emphasizes the importance of following general rules that have been proven to lead to the best overall consequences. This approach recognizes that in some cases, following a particular rule may lead to suboptimal outcomes in individual instances, but it argues that adhering to the rule in the long run will produce the greatest overall happiness or utility.
In summary, the main difference between act consequentialism and rule consequentialism lies in the level at which they evaluate moral decisions. Act consequentialism focuses on the consequences of individual actions, while rule consequentialism emphasizes the evaluation of moral rules and their overall tendency to maximize happiness or utility.