For example, if there were a situation in which more happiness came from an abortion, then the abortion in this particular case would be justified. For instance, in the case of a teenage pregnancy, it may be argued that the happiness that the mother would obtain in the event of an abortion would outweigh that of the child’s life.
The absolute form of rule utilitarianism on the other hand, is a deontological approach to ethics, based on teleological principals, based on empirical results. In other words, general rules are derived from the principal of “the greatest happiness for the greatest number”. In its strictest practical form, rule utilitarianism may be regarded as a purely deontological approach, regardless of the fact that it was founded on teleological principals, as no account of consequences is taken in each situation.
Examples of rule utilitarianism can be seen in our state laws. For example, the rule that forbids murder is, on utilitarian grounds, a good law, as it aims at maximising the greatest happiness (assuming that this was the basis of the law).
As can be seen, the main difference between act and rule utilitarianism is the fact that one is teleological, and the other is mainly deontological. Although this is true for the two extremes of these theories, there may be many utilitarians who use neither one of these theories, but an equal mix of them both. For example, someone may have a set of general rules based on utilitarian thinking, although may break these rules under extreme circumstances. In this case, utilitarianism could neither be called ‘act’ or ‘rule utilitarianism’.
Although these two forms appear very different from on another, when looked at in a different context, they can both be classed as very similar. To show this, we need to go back to the first principal of utilitarianism, i.e., “the greatest happiness for the greatest number”. When this principal is implemented in the individual, then it seems to take the form of Act utilitarianism. However, when society as a whole adopts utilitarianism as its moral code, then we seem to arrive at rule utilitarianism.
If this argument is accepted, then it would appear that the only difference between Act and rule utilitarianism is that one is a practical application of the individual, whereas the other is a practical application of society.
Q: To what extent is utilitarianism a useful method of making decisions about euthanasia?
The extent to which utilitarianism is a useful method of making decisions about euthanasia depends heavily on the situation and circumstances in which the decision has to be made.
For example, in the case of the individuals happiness, completely aside fro the rest of society, then the consequences involved are relatively simple, and the overall sum of happiness may be approximated fairly easily. However, when the rest of society enters the equation, then the consequences become far greater in number and magnitude (depending on the size of the society).
For example, imagine an elderly man who suffers from MS, and only has one more year to live. His pain is at times excruciating, and will not improve beyond a certain level. This man has no reason to live and may ask his wife to assist him in ending his life. If, for the sake of argument, these were the only two people concerned, then on utilitarian grounds euthanasia may justifiably be considered right, as the unhappiness that would come from the mans prolonged existence, and the feeling of guilt of the wife, would cease to exist in the death of the man, and thus the greatest happiness would be upheld.
However, if society as a whole allowed euthanasia, for the sake of cases such as the above, there may be many abuses of the law which would ultimately create overall unhappiness. For example, murder may be covered up in the name of euthanasia, temporarily mentally unstable people may die, when in the absence of their condition they would choose to live, even mentally stable people could be seen to make unwise decisions resulting in negative happiness.
This however, is not the problem with utilitarianism as a use for determining judgements on euthanasia, as if all these arguments and consequences could be agreed upon, then it would be an effective way of tackling the problem.
The problem with utilitarianism for making decisions upon issues such as euthanasia is the unpredictability, and sometimes the ambiguity of the decisions arrived at.
Despite this, I still believe utilitarianism to be one of the most effective ways of dealing with moral issues such as this one.
