Act Utilitarianism: Individual Action Evaluation

Not rule-based:

No fixed commandments like "never lie" or "never steal"

Not duty-based:

Unlike Kant, consequences matter, not intentions

Flexible:

Each situation is evaluated independently

Step 1: Identify all possible actions

List every option available to you in this situation.

Step 2: Calculate consequences for each action

For each possible action, determine what pleasure and pain it will produce. Use the Hedonic Calculus (intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity, extent).

Step 3: Compare utility totals

Add up all the utility (happiness minus pain) for each action.

Step 4: Choose the action with highest utility

The morally right action is the one that produces the most net happiness.

Actual Consequence Act Utilitarianism:

Judge an action by its actual consequences, even if unforeseeable.

Example:

In 1938, someone rescues a child from drowning. But the child grows up to become Hitler. By actual consequences, the rescue was morally wrong (terrible outcomes).

Foreseeable Consequence Act Utilitarianism:

Judge an action by its foreseeable consequences (what a reasonable person could predict).

Example:

The same 1938 rescue. By foreseeable consequences, the rescue was morally right (the rescuercouldn't predict Hitler).

Strength 1: Logically Sound

If we maximize utility with each action, total utility is maximized. Simple logic: if each piece is the best, the whole is the best.

Strength 2: Maximizes Well-Being

Act utilitarianism doesn't tie our hands with rigid rules. In any situation, we can ask: "What will help people most right now?".

Strength 3: Intuitively Appealing

Most people think consequences matter morally. Helping someone suffering is intuitively good; harming them for no reason is bad.

Criticism 1: "The Wrong Answers" Objection

Act utilitarianism permits actions that are clearly immoral:

• Torture: If torturing one innocent person saves a city, torture is right
• Framing: If framing an innocent person prevents riots that would kill many, framing is right
• Harvesting organs: If a doctor kills one healthy patient to harvest organs for five sick patients, killing is right

These conclusions contradict our deepest moral intuitions and violate individual rights.

Criticism 2: "Undermining Trust" Objection

If doctors, judges, and promise-makers are committed to maximizing utility in each situation, wecan't trust them. A doctor might decide to harvest your organs without consent if it would save five other patients. Trust collapses, making society function worse, which reduces total utility.

Criticism 3: "Too Demanding" Objection

Act utilitarianism requires complete impartiality. You should donate all your money to help poor strangers rather than buy things for yourself. Your happiness has no special value;everyone's counts equally. Most people would need to donate almost everything to maximize utility—an impossibly demanding standard.

Criticism 4: The Prediction Problem

We often cannot predict actual consequences accurately. Future consequences are uncertain. How can we base ethics on calculations we can't reliably make? The butterfly effect applies to human consequences.

Criticism 5: Violations of Justice and Rights

Act utilitarianism ignores concepts like justice, fairness, and individual rights. It reduces morality to a pleasure calculation. Rights protect individuals from being sacrificed for themajority's benefit, but act utilitarianism permits exactly such sacrifice if utility is maximized.

Criticism 6: Integrity Objection

Act utilitarianism doesn't account for a person's projects, commitments, and integrity. It treats everyone's interests as equally important in every situation. Example: You promise to spend the afternoon with your child, but you calculate that volunteering at a food bank produces more utility. Act utilitarianism says you should break your promise. This destroys relationships and the integrity of personal commitment.