Pluralistic rule utilitarianism is a modified form of utilitarianism. It rejects hedonism (that only pleasure is intrinsically good). Instead, it accepts a pluralistic view of value (that many things are intrinsically good, including virtue, knowledge, pleasure, life, and freedom).RU problemsThis view also says that we ought to do what would be prescribed by the RULES with the best consequences for people in society to try to follow. It says that we'll live better if we follow strict rules in areas like killing or drugs. Without strict rules, we'll too often talk ourselves into doing foolish things.
Rule utilitarians claim that their approach avoids the bizarre implications and produces better consequences.
One may object that rule utilitarianism, even if it leads to the right judgments, would do so for the wrong reasons.RU opposes killing the innocent on the grounds that socially useful rules would forbid such actions. But what if socially useful rules permitted such actions? Then would killing the innocent be right? The belief that this would be right would seem to violate GR consistency. So wouldn't it be better to hold that killing the innocent is wrong in itself?
<= back | menu | forward =>