Question

• What does Smart think the difference is between treating moral rules as “mere rules of thumb” and claiming that moral rules determine whether actions are right or wrong? Which approach to moral rules do you think is more reasonable and why?

Answer 1

• The difference depends on definition of the rightness of an action. Extreme utilitarians look at rules as guidelines which can be strayed from if it would promote better consequences, and restricted utilitarians look at rules as things made from consequences and that govern actions to promote morally right ones.
• Rule utilitarians believe the moral life depends upon moral rules without which the net utility decreases. Act utilitarians believe that whether moral rules are binding or not depends upon the situation. Thus, act utilitarians treat moral rules as mere “rules of thumb,” general guidelines open to exceptions, while rule utilitarians regard moral rules as more definitive.
• Smart means by treating moral rules as mere rules of thumb that moral rules can be useful but do not always tell us what we should do.
• I found myself relating to Smart’s explanation that “For an extreme utilitarian moral rules are rules of thumb. In practice the extreme utilitarian will mostly guide his conduct by appealing to the rules (“do not lie,” “do not break promises,” etc.) of common–sense morality.
• I think most people subscribe to this kind of thinking when it comes to their individual actions, especially those actions that impact others around them. Smart goes on to explain restricted utilitarianism is a school of thinking which “regards moral rule as more than rules of thumb for short-circuiting calculations of consequences. Generally, he argues consequences are not relevant at all when we are deciding what to do in a particular case.
• I think the idea of consequences being irrelevant is somewhat counter-intuitive, seeing as more often than not, people consider the ramifications their actions will have to themselves and to others around them.
• By following rules (as an extreme utilitarian would advocate), we recognize “that the rule does not give us a reason for acting so much as an indication of the probable actions of others, which helps us to find out what would be our own most rational course of action.By deducing the probable course of action of others, we can better optimize the utility of our own actions.
• The example that resonated with me most strongly was the theoretical situation of saving a drowning man. A restricted utilitarian would say we should always save the drowning man, however an extreme utilitarian would argue that sometimes breaking the rules is right thing to do. If the man drowning in the river was Hitler, extreme utilitarianism would tell us to let him drown, because this action would produce higher total utility.
• According to extreme utilitarianism, letting Hitler drown would be wrong, but would be praiseworthy at the same time. Following this train of thought, I agree that between the two options, extreme utilitarianism seems to be the better option.