Act Utilitarianism vs Rule Utilitarianism vs Two-Level Utilitarianism (Explanation & Differences)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 вер 2024
- Do you know the difference between act and rule utilitarianism? Also, how does two-level utilitarianism fit into these?
Hey, it’s Ben here, and today’s video will answer the question; can I go over the difference between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism? So, first, I’ll explain what utilitarianism is and then go into the differences between the two. It will also include an explanation of strong rule vs weak rule utilitarianism and what 2-level utilitarianism is.
=== Subscribe on UA-cam and turn on the notification bell to get more videos: tinyurl.com/th...
Because the notification bell only sends to a small percentage due to algorithm changes, get notified about new videos and bonus extras here via email after you subscribe on UA-cam: tinyurl.com/th... =======
Maybe with rule utilitarianism, there should be a hierarchy of rules. Like “do not murder/let someone else be murdered” should go above “do not lie”
Absolutely, there should be.
Yes, what you're describing is Graded-Absolutism. It falls under Deontology.
I think that the problems with act/rule (strict+weak) Utilitarianism are all essentially the same: certainty of value judgements.
The less you are able to reliably predict the outcome of your actions (or at least it's utility), it makes more sense to rely on rules, assuming they were made intelligently and objectively.
But one can never the know the exact potential results of each action they can make.
So it essentially boils down to risk management, and all of the techniques that can be associated with it. Rules are just one example.
This is not as much a refutation of act or rule utilitarianism as much as it is a refutation of objective morality. The certainty of value judgements is not really a refutation because there are some moral outcomes that almosy everyone can agree on, but none that everybody will. Risk management, I think, would be better evaluated in aristotle's principles of vice and virtue.
The consequences of actions would be a process of examining the utility.
Very Easily Explained!
Thanks From India.
Nice overview, this was helpful 👍🏼
Two forms of rule utilitarianism is quite alike to the compromise between regularity and flexibility within confucianism. Mencius was once asked the question in sight of your brother’s wife fell into a well, should you not do anything to adhere to the Confucius principle of incompatibility between men and women (regularity). Mencius answered you’d be an animal if you did not save your sister-in-law (flexibility).
I appreciate your concise and insightful videos. Nice.
I'm sorta confused. It's said that utilitarianism falls under the principles of the teleological theory, but aren't we taking the means through which we achieve a goal into consideration in the case of rule utilitarianism? How's that different from the deontological approach?
Thanks
This explanation helped me a lot. Thank you!!
Thankyou, simple and well explained.
that you so much for the clear explanation, really helpful !!
Thanks Ben...very useful...
Thank you this helped a lot.
i don't understand why people bring the hospital bed example, to me it just sound like an appeal to selfishness, yeah nobody likes to be the person to die but nobody likes being on the other beds and dying because of one person either so why not save the larger number of people?
The hospital bed example is a good one, because it recognizes hidden external effects of harvesting a person - these effects are a general sense of insecurity in the entire society. Yes - without selfishness it wouldn't be the case - but the reality is that people fear for themselves by nature, and to minimize suffering also means minimize fears.
@@ofircarmel149 any moral system can be misused the difference is that to misuse utilitarianism you still need to produce a good act to justify the evil one so its far preferable than virtue or dentology who are the easier to corrupt (since good in their system is not objective and thus cannot be measured)and offer nothing in return
his hair is so good
😂😂😂 weak rule
thank you Ben.
It was very helpful
So helpful
Valuing happiness shouldn’t be the priority. Mitigating suffering should.
Utilitarianism takes mitigating suffering into account.
Utilitarianism does both of those
Get a set up that produces clearer and better volume!!
thank u smmmmm
How do these ideas and derivations of utilitarianism relate to the golden rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?"
We all desire happiness. Happiness is the only thing desirable at an end since things are only desirable because they bring about happiness.
Therefore, we produce happiness for others because we desire happiness for ourselves.
@@charis2023 I don’t agree with the golden rule, but if it were an axiom that statement would be problematic because you’re often doing unto others what you wouldn’t want to happen to you (displeasure) more than what you’d want to happen to you (pleasure). As utilitarianism requires sacrificing utility of some individuals for the greater utility of others.
I hate business ethics😓
In reality there is no difference between ‘act’ and ‘rule’ utilitarianism; all that ‘act utilitarianism’ attempts to do is place the act in an artificial bubble.
When the full implications for all those, both now and in the future (no boundaries are implied in concept of the maximization of utility) whose happiness is possibly effected by the act; the distinction between ‘act’ and ‘rule’ vanishes.
It has been rightly observed that Utilitarianism begins to look remarkably similar to the Kantian Imperative, however Utilitarianism is probably more useful in matters of jurisprudence.
po
A year later and people still are benefiting
Tnx🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏