Act and Rule Consequentialism

Act consequentialism evaluates each individual act by its own consequences, whereas rule consequentialism evaluates acts by their conformity to the set of rules whose general acceptance would have the best consequences.

Definition

Act consequentialism holds that an act is right if and only if its own consequences are no worse than those of any alternative; rule consequentialism holds that an act is right if and only if it is permitted by the code of rules whose general internalization would produce the best consequences.

Scope

This topic covers the distinction between act- and rule-versions of consequentialism, the motivations for moving from acts to rules, the formulation of rule consequentialism in terms of an ideal moral code, and the central objections to each. It addresses the 'collapse' problem and rule consequentialism's claim to better fit common-sense moral convictions.

Core questions

• Should the bearer of consequentialist evaluation be the individual act or a general rule?
• Does rule consequentialism collapse into act consequentialism once rules are made sufficiently specific?
• Can rule consequentialism explain why we should follow a rule when breaking it would produce more good?
• Which version better accommodates ordinary moral intuitions about promises, rights, and fairness?

Key theories

Ideal-code rule consequentialism

Hooker's view that an act is wrong if forbidden by the code of rules whose internalization by the overwhelming majority would have the best expected value, with a built-in concern to avoid disaster.

Indirect utilitarianism

The strategy, traceable to Mill, of applying the principle of utility to rules, dispositions, or practices rather than directly to each act, so that following reliable rules is itself utility-promoting.

History

Although Mill (1863) is sometimes read as a rule utilitarian, the explicit act/rule distinction was sharpened in mid-twentieth-century debates. Brandt (1979) developed a sophisticated rule utilitarianism grounded in an ideal moral code, and Hooker (2000) gave the most influential contemporary statement, defending rule consequentialism by its coherence with considered moral judgments.

Debates

The collapse (or incoherence) objection

Critics argue that a consistent rule consequentialist, by adding exceptions to maximize good, ends up extensionally equivalent to act consequentialism, or else irrationally worships rules.

Partial-compliance problems

Disputes arise over whether the ideal code is fixed by full or only partial acceptance, since real-world non-compliance can make following ideal rules counterproductive.

Key figures

• John Stuart Mill
• Richard Brandt
• Brad Hooker
• J. J. C. Smart

Seminal works

• mill1863
• brandt1979
• hooker2000

Frequently asked questions

Why prefer rule consequentialism to act consequentialism?

Defenders argue it better matches our convictions about rights, promises, and fairness, and avoids requiring agents to recalculate consequences for every action, while keeping the consequentialist grounding.

What is the collapse objection?

It is the charge that whenever following a rule would produce worse consequences, a consistent consequentialist must endorse breaking it, so rule consequentialism either becomes act consequentialism or arbitrarily 'worships' rules.