Act and Rule Consequentialism
My Notes From Daniel Bonevac’s Lecture: “Act and Rule Consequentialism”
Decisions and Consequences
There are three steps that lead to a decision:
- Identify your options
- Identify your goal(s)
- Identify your motives
Once these are identified, a decision is made.
A decision leads to an intention. An intention leads to an action. An action leads to consequences.
Here’s a way to visualize those steps:
After this process, the person can compare his or her goals to see how well they match up to the consequences.
What Shapes This Process?
- The conditions of the world
- The person’s character
- Social institutions
- Civilization
- Etc.
Two Decisions
Consequentialism — and all other moral theories — must make two decisions.
Decision 1: What is our basic unit of analysis?
This is a fundamental evaluation of what makes an action good or bad. Consequentialists decide to think in terms of consequences. This is their basic unit of analysis.
Decision 2: What should relate to the basic unit most directly?
Many consequentialists are act consequentialists. The category that relates to their basic unit (consequences) most directly, is action.
The category for other consequentialists could be a person’s motives, goals, intentions, character, etc.
What is Consequentialism?
Consequentialism can be defined as the view that moral value derives entirely from consequences. It is primarily a theory about what is better than what.
The fundamental idea behind consequentialism:
x is morally preferable to y if x tends to lead to better consequences than y does
X can be an action, a rule for action, a motive, a character trait, or any other relevant category.
Two Types of Consequentialism
Act consequentialism: The consequences of actions themselves determine how good or bad an action is.
Rule consequentialism: The consequences of adopting certain rules determines how good or bad a rule is.
Bentham’s Act Consequentialism
The philosopher Jeremy Bentham was an act consequentialist. His version of act consequentialism was centered around something called the principle of utility. In An Introduction To The Principles Of Morals And Legislation, Bentham wrote:
By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the part whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in other words to promote or to oppose that happiness.¹
Explained simply: An action is good or bad depending on how it impacts the happiness of those who it affects.
Mills’s Act Consequentialism
The philosopher and economist John Stuart Mill was also an act consequentialist. Though he was a student of Bentham, his version of act consequentialism differed slightly. In Utilitarianism, Mill wrote:
The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.²
Berkeley’s Rule Consequentialism
The philosopher George Berkeley was an early rule consequentialist.³ In Passive Obedience, he wrote:
In framing the general laws of nature, it is granted we must be entirely guided by the public good of mankind, but not in the ordinary moral actions of our lives. … The rule is framed with respect to the good of mankind; but our practice must always be shaped immediately by the rule.⁴
Harrod’s Rule Consequentialism
The philosopher R.F. Harrod revived rule consequentialism in the 20th century. In “Utilitarianism Revised”, he wrote:
He will find it necessary to refine the crude utilitarian principle by applying the process of generalization in all relevant cases.⁵
Harrod’s point is that we have no way of judging tendencies in individual cases except by looking at the tendencies of the general rule. To illustrate this, he gives an example:
For example, it may well happen that the loss of confidence due to a million lies uttered within certain limits of time and space is much more than a million times as great as the loss due to any one in particular.
Consequently, even if on each and every occasion taken separately it can be shown that there is a gain of advantage (the avoidance of direct pain, let us say, exceeding the disadvantages due to the consequential loss of confidence), yet in the sum of all cases the disadvantage due to the aggregate loss of confidence might be far greater than the sum of pain caused by truth-telling.⁶
Explained simply: You may believe it is ok to tell one lie when the benefits seem to outweigh the costs. The problem is that if one million lies are told, even if in each and every isolated situation the benefits outweigh the costs, put together, those million lies may result in a loss of confidence that is greater than all the costs of telling the truth in those isolated situations.
Divergence
Act: Do the better thing
Rule: Follow the better rule
These principles conflict when breaking the better rule could produce better consequences in a particular case.
Bonevac’s example:
When I was a child, my father was driving back to our house from my grandparents house. It wasn’t very far but you had to go up a hill and up at the top of the hill was a stoplight.
It was snowing that night and he went up to the top of the hill — and I had been watching a show called highway patrol which was on every early evening, and so I was learning about traffic rules and I loved cars as a kid — and we were approaching the red light. And guess what? My father went through the red light!
And I said ‘Daddy! red means stop. green means go.’ And he said ‘You’re right, but in this case, if I stop on the hill, it’s icy and I’m not going to be able to start up again and there’s nobody around so I decided it’s best to go through the red light.’
In this case, the act consequentialist would go through the red light. The rule consequentialist would not go through the red light.
If you liked this post, check out my substack for more.
