Determine whether a deontologist would be persuaded in favour of Utilitarianism with Rule Utilitarianism as the idea being put forward.

Rule Utilitarianism, in contrast, uses a different modus operandi. For it, consequences of a specific act are extraneous. We need a set of rules for action. The best rule will be one wherein the best consequences on the whole will be generated. The intention of this view is to nullify deontological problems with consequentialism.

An objection to RU would be that it requires us to contemplate the broad-spectrum applications of a particular rule. For example the overall effect of normally adhering to a rule such as "Always keep your promises" is the most advantageous one. We can deduce from this that keeping promises is the best rule, and everyone should abide by it. But what if people have a tendency to break promises?

Second objection is that in order to be a 'best' rule, the rule would necessarily be complex. The best rules for promise keeping would be "Alwys keep your promises, unless" followed by a lengthy list of exceptions such as keep promises unless a life is at stake.

RU resolves some of the problems of Utilitarianism. RU can contend that our intuition not to harm others is morally right because it would produce the best results. It can include values such as justice into its proposed set of rules but only if it produced the most utility. RU would decrease the difficulty of Utilitarianism by deciding which would be the most beneficial rules, and incorporating them into society so when an issue arises, people know what action to choose without giving it too much thought. However Rule Utilitarianism cannot fix the problem that it could be required to forfeit utility in order to gain it instead they appeal to common sense i.e. one must keep one's promises in order to expect and encourage others to keep theirs.

An objection to Act Utilitarianism is that it is morally wrong, it claims that the end justifies the means, which is not always the case. In the case of killing one person in order to save the lives of 20 others, AU would say that it is justified because the greatest good for the greatest is being served. However my deontological instincts tell me there is still something wrong here: murder is still being committed. Perhaps in the actual situation something else could be done to prevent the compulsion of making such a difficult choice.

AU might respond by appealing to more long-term consequences. In the above instance the effects on the soul of the man who kills someone should be considered. However this is not a strong enough response: such a consequence may never occur and killing a person should never be justified. A second response is that one's instincts are only justified if the tend to maximise utility. So if killing will produce the most good then it is justified.

So far it does not seem that AU will succeed. However a contention is that RU ultimately reverts to AU anyway. Suppose there is a rule, which says never kill unless it would maximise utility. If this were the morally correct rule, RU is now exactly the same is AU. Just as above killing is justified if it produces the most good. It would seem that RU could not succeed without the success of AU and vice versa. They both either work or they both either do not.

I agree with Ross on his attach of AU. Just because an act produces the most good does not mean it is right. Rightness and goodness are not equivalent. Ross takes a common sense approach. He says that rightness of action sometimes comes from the past; it is not about the consequences. When a person keeps a promise he has made it is because he promised to do so, not because he thinks the consequences will maximise utility. Common sense says that often when there is a choice of action it is not easy to make a choice because both courses are duty-based. However the stronger duty would seem to be the right choice. Suppose a person is in a situation whereby he has a choice to lie or tell the truth, if both would maximise utility, Ross feels, as do I, that to tell the truth would be the right thing to do. Telling the truth is right in itself and lying is not, if there is a conflict between these two, the truth should prevail.

However it can be tricky if the choice is between two intrinsically good things. What should one do if the choice is between telling the truth and keeping a promise? How would one weigh, which is more valuable. Further who is to decide which rules make up the best set as a guide for morality?

Let's just say that in South Africa the rule with respect to driving is that we drive on the left. If everyone follows this rule utility will be served, as accidents will be avoided by the thousands because everyone will drive on the same side in the same direction. However in the U.S.A people drive on the right hand side so this rule if followed would cause chaos. The rule in the U.S.A would have to be modified. Flexibility of different cultures valuing different kinds of levels of utility would be required. RU does provide this kind of flexibility.

Rightness lies in part on contingent empirical facts. The point of rules is to do the right thing therefore if we end up doing the wrong thing it is a problem. We may end up doing the wrong thing depending on what the rules say. However there is no guideline as to who chooses the right rules to put into the set and what criterion to use in judging the rightness of certain acts. It seems as though Rule Utilitarianism has not completed its task.

A foundation has been laid but the structure has not been built on top of it. For Ross we can never be sure whether an act is right or wrong, as there is no principle whereby we can determine that an act will overall be advantageous or disadvantageous. Therefore if we cannot be sure if an act is the right one, and we choose the one, which turns out to be the right one, it is luck. Ross feels we are more likely to choose the advantageous act if we estimate to the best of our abilities, ie we are more likely to do the right thing if we try our hardest.

However this does not seem to be satisfactory reasoning. That is hardly a theory at all. Moral theory should advise us how to approach moral problems in order to do the right thing. This is merely throwing us into the world with the maxim "Do your best" as our core.

.