Utilitarianism – Act and Rule

develop the differences between Act and Rule Utilitarianism Since it began, there have been two important exponents of Utilitarianism. They atomic number 18 Jeremy Bentham and J S Mill, and both of them base their own individual theories on the principle of utility, which defines something (an act, etc) dependent on if it achieves the superior merriment for the greatest number. This makes Utilitarianism a relativistic and consequentialist argument, as it takes into account only the end of events rather than the act itself as delegacy to determine whether it is true/right.Also it holds no absolutes it takes the best interests of the greatest number of people no matter if the mode of doing reckons morally wrong. Bentham and Mill were both world(a)ly harmonious in their arrangement that the general happiness of a human being is linked to their individualised fulfillment of amusement. Nevertheless, the two clashed when it came down to the arrangement of what true pleasu re is, and whether it holds assorted values under different circumstances. It was due to this that Bentham started Act Utilitarianism.Bentham thought that situations were to be treated completely differently to any and every other situation, and substantial the Hedonistic Calculus as a means of measuring the pleasure and unhinge of those directly involved in it. The calculus consists of seven aspects which Bentham believed could solution to whether something is pleasurable/painful or not they are Purity, Remoteness, Richness, Intensity, Certainty, Extend and Duration. It is mathematical for me to use an example to make this all seem clearer. There are five sadistic guards in a prison who dont like the reinvigorated inmate and want to give him a roughing up.One can argue that the pain the inmate will suffer is huge (purity) but the calculus is think on quantity rather than quality. Also, the happiness of the guards will be finish due to their sadistic means of pleasurement ( certainty) however, the guards might get caught and sacked which in turn makes them sad in the end, but perhaps they dont then the pleasure of the guards outweighs the pain that the inmate faces and therefore under these guidelines I think that Bentham would swan yeah, go ahead and allow the bullying and assault to happen.Benthams democratic and egalitarianistic admission meant that he believed nobodys pleasures are greater than anyone elses, and that they are all equal so we cant say that they count for more. This meant that Bentham was purely focus on the quantitative locating of the pleasure. It was here where Mill and Bentham came to a disagreement, as Mill however focused on the qualitative aspects of the pleasure, famously saying it is better to be Socrates dissatisfy than a pig satisfied. This meant understanding that there are differences that moldiness(prenominal) be acknowledged between higher(prenominal) and lower pleasures.He thought that higher pleasures consisted of the intellectual aspects of humans rather than the animalistic, such as reading to still your knowledge, listening to fine music and painting art. The aforementioned animalistic pleasures (lower) guess from the physical side of life, such as eating, drinking and indulging in sexual acts. This approach can be seen as elitist by some, which means that full excellence can only be realised by the mature males of the upper class within society natural amongst the past Greek Philosophers that preceeded Bentham and Mill, such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.As advocator to Rule Utilitarianism, Mills calculation order again differentiates from Benthams hedonistic calculus. Rather than Benthams quantitative approach, Mill looks at it in an alternative way, observing the various implications of the act. Mills interpretation is that there are general rules within society that should be followed as they create the greatest happiness for the greatest good for all those in society. This at first does seem very logical, but then again it begins to defy the basis on which Utilitarianisms foundations are layed down, which is a relativist and consequentialist theory.And this is where strong and weak rules comes into the frame. Mill never onces says must as regards to the rules he would involve as he perceives his judgment upon whether something is good or bad or what should occur within a special(prenominal) situation, which can be seen as his defence to remaining relativist, however a new term must be enforced to separate his understanding with the likes of a hedonist such as Bentham, hence the term universalisability.