Rule Utilitarianism: Following Utility-Maximizing Rules
Summary
Rule Utilitarianism is the view that an action is morally right if it conforms to a good rule, and a rule is good if its general practice maximizes happiness (compared to other possible rules). Rather than calculating consequences for each individual action, rule utilitarians follow established moral rules like"Don't lie," "Keep your promises," and "Don't steal." John Stuart Mill developed this approach as a response to problems with act utilitarianism. The key insight is: even if breaking a rule would produce more utility in this one case, following the rule produces more utility overall because it maintains trust, predictability, and social stability. For example, lying might help in one situation, but a society where everyone lies whenever convenient would collapse, producing less total happiness. Rule utilitarians argue this approach avoids the "wrong answers" problem of act utilitarianism (like justifying torture) while still being grounded in maximizing utility.
Detailed Explanation
What is Rule Utilitarianism?
Definition
A consequentialist theory that judges the morality of an action based on whether it conforms to a justified moral rule, rather than whether the individual action itself maximizes utility.
Two-Part Structure
Evaluate Rules:
A rule is justified if accepting it into our moral code produces more utility than alternative rules.
Evaluate Actions:
An action is right if it conforms to a justified rule, even if breaking the rule would produce more utility in that case.
John Stuart Mill's Rule Utilitarianism
Mill's Qualitative Hedonism
Mill, unlike Bentham, believed that not all pleasures are equal. He prioritized higher pleasures (intellectual, moral, aesthetic) over lower pleasures (physical).
Mill's Key Quote
"Though the consequences in the particular case might be beneficial—it would be unworthy of an intelligent agent not to be consciously aware that the action is of a class which, if practiced generally, would be generally injurious, and that this is the ground of the obligation to abstain from it."
What This Means:
- Even if your lie benefits someone right now, you should recognize that lying as a general practice injures society.
- Therefore, you shouldn't lie, even in this beneficial case.
The Core Process of Rule Utilitarianism
Step 1: Identify the rule in question
What general rule does this action fall under? (e.g., "Keep your promises").
Step 2: Ask the utility question
If everyone followed this rule, would it maximize utility? If everyone broke this rule whenever they wanted, would it maximize utility?
Step 3: Judge the action by the rule
If the rule maximizes utility, follow it—even if breaking it now would produce more happiness.
Example: Should I Break My Promise?
The Scenario:
You promised to spend the afternoon with your friend. A stranger asks you to volunteer at a food bank, which would help more people overall.
Act Utilitarian Calculation:
- Helping the stranger produces more happiness than spending time with your friend.
- Therefore, break the promise.
Rule Utilitarian Calculation:
- The Rule: "Keep your promises"
- Question: If everyone broke promises whenever they could help more people elsewhere, would society maximize happiness?
- Answer: No. Trust would collapse. People wouldn't rely on promises. This would cause massive unhappiness.
Conclusion:
Even though breaking the promise produces more happiness in this case, following the rule produces more happiness overall. Therefore, keep the promise.
Example: The Lying Question
The Scenario:
You could lie to save someone's life.
Act Utilitarian Answer:
Lie. The life saved outweighs the harm of one lie.
Rule Utilitarian Answer:
- The Rule: "Tell the truth"
- Question: If everyone lied whenever it benefited them, what happens?
- Answer: Trust in communication collapses. People would doubt everything they hear. This produces massive unhappiness.
- BUT: Mill admits that in extreme cases—like where truth-telling would clearly cause catastrophic harm—the rule might be overridden.
Mill's View:
Rules are hierarchical. The rule "Protect innocent life" might override "Tell the truth" in extreme scenarios.
Strengths of Rule Utilitarianism
Strength 1: Avoids "Wrong Answers"
Rule utilitarianism doesn't justify torture, organ harvesting, or executing innocents. The rule "Don't torture" maximizes utility overall, even if torture in one case would help.
Strength 2: Preserves Trust and Predictability
If everyone knew that doctors, judges, and promise-makers would break their duties whenever it maximized utility, society would collapse. Rule utilitarianism maintains the institutions that enable happiness.
Strength 3: Less Demanding
Rule utilitarianism permits partiality toward family and friends. The rule "Spend time with your family" maximizes utility, so it's morally justified. This is more realistic than act utilitarianism's demand for constant sacrifice.
Strength 4: Reflects Moral Common Sense
Most people think honesty, promise-keeping, and justice are important. Rule utilitarianism explains why—these rules maximize utility.
Criticisms of Rule Utilitarianism
Criticism 1: "Rule Worship" Objection
Rule utilitarians continue following a rule even when breaking it would clearly produce more utility.
Example:
- Imagine a rule against lying that maximizes utility in 99% of situations.
- But in a specific case, lying would save a life and harm no one.
- Rule utilitarians say: "Don't lie" anyway.
The Objection:
This is irrational. It's "rule worship"—treating rules as ends in themselves rather than as means to utility. A true utilitarian should break the rule when it clearly produces more good.
Criticism 2: Which Rules Should We Follow?
Different sets of rules might maximize utility.
Example:
- Rule Set 1: "Always tell the truth; always keep promises; never steal"
- Rule Set 2: "Tell the truth unless lives depend on it; keep promises unless helping strangers; steal if the poor need food"
Question:
Which rule set maximizes utility? Different rule utilitarians might give different answers.
Criticism 3: Doesn't Protect Individual Rights
Rule utilitarianism can still permit injustice if the rule maximizes utility.
Example:
Suppose executing one innocent person prevents riots that would kill 100 people. A rule permitting this (with careful trial procedures) maximizes utility.
The Objection:
An innocent person's rights are violated. Utilitarianism, even rule-based, cannot protect fundamental individual rights.
Criticism 4: The Problem of Over-Generalization
Some rules are too general to capture moral nuance.
Example:
- The rule "Tell the truth" applies to everything.
- But the rule "Tell the truth unless a lie would prevent serious harm" is more specific.
Question:
Which rule maximizes utility? If the more specific rule maximizes utility, don't we eventually collapse back into calculating individual cases?
Criticism 5: The Problem of Moral Integrity
Following a rule against your conscience (when you know breaking it would help) can undermine your moral integrity.
Example:
You know lying would save your friend's life. But the rule says don't lie. Obeying the rule might feel like moral cowardice.
Scholarly Perspectives
John Stuart Mill
"Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. But for the application of this principle to the practical guidance of individuals, it is necessary that there should exist established rules and conventions."
Mill acknowledges that while the Principle of Utility is the ultimate foundation, applying it directly to every action is impractical. Instead, established moral rules provide the necessary practical guidance.
Modern Interpretation
"A moral rule is justified if accepting it into our moral code will maximize utility compared to other possible rules. An individual action is right if it conforms to a justified moral rule, even if violating the rule would produce more utility in that particular case."
This captures the essential two-part structure—rules are justified at the utility level, but then govern individual actions without further calculation.
Key Takeaways
Rules First
Judge actions by whether they follow good rules, not by calculating each action.
Two Levels
Evaluate rules by utility, then evaluate actions by rules.
Why Rules Work
A society that follows trustworthy rules produces more total happiness than one where everyone constantly calculates.
Mill's Approach
Unlike Bentham's quantitative hedonism, Mill values qualitative pleasures and long-term social progress.
Partiality Permitted
You can spend time with family because the rule "Invest in family relationships" maximizes utility.
Hierarchical Rules
Some rules override others (e.g., "Save innocent life" > "Tell truth").
Rule Worship Objection
Critics say rule utilitarians irrationally refuse to break rules even when clearly better outcomes are possible.
Quick Reference: Act vs. Rule Utilitarianism
| Feature | Act Utilitarianism | Rule Utilitarianism |
|---|---|---|
| Moral Unit | Individual actions | General rules |
| Decision Process | Calculate each action | Follow established rules |
| Flexibility | Very flexible | Less flexible |
| Lying | Lie if this lie produces more utility | Follow "Don't lie" rule (mostly) |
| Breaking Promises | Break if it helps more people now | Keep promises (usually) |
| Demandingness | Requires constant sacrifice | Allows partiality to loved ones |
| Trust | Undermines trust | Preserves trust |
| Avoids "Wrong Answers" | No—justifies torture, organ harvesting | Yes—protects against abuse |
| Founder | Jeremy Bentham | John Stuart Mill |
| Criticism | Too flexible; too demanding; wrong answers | Rule worship; doesn't protect rights |