What is your answer?

People object that rule utilitarianism

    { 1 } - may still lead to bizarre implications.
    { 2 } - may give the right judgments for the wrong reasons.
    { 3 } - Both of these objections are raised.

<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 3.
























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

























1 is wrong. Please try again.

People object that rule utilitarianism

It isn't clear that RU can handle some of the objections to classical utilitarianism. Part of the problem is that RU is difficult to apply. It isn't easy to determine what rules would have the best consequences. So it isn't easy to determine if RU has absurd results.

But the other objection is important too.

<= back | menu | forward =>
























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

























2 is wrong. Please try again.

People object that rule utilitarianism

    { 1 } - may still lead to bizarre implications.
    { 2 } - may give the right judgments for the wrong reasons.
    { 3 } - Both of these objections are raised.

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?

But the other objection is important too.

<= back | menu | forward =>
























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

























3 is correct!

People object that rule utilitarianism

    { 1 } - may still lead to bizarre implications.
    { 2 } - may give the right judgments for the wrong reasons.
    { 3 } - Both of these objections are raised.

It isn't clear that RU can handle some of the objections to classical utilitarianism. Part of the problem is that RU is difficult to apply. It isn't easy to determine what rules would have the best consequences. So it isn't easy to determine if RU has absurd results.

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 =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

























the end