In utilitarian ethics, which description best expresses rule utilitarianism's approach to evaluating morality?

In utilitarian ethics, which description best expresses rule utilitarianism's approach to evaluating morality?

• A. The morality of an action is determined solely by its immediate consequences
• B. The morality of an action is determined by following a rule that maximizes utility in general
• C. The morality is based on virtue and character
• D. The morality of an action is determined by the rule, if generally followed, that promotes the good

Answer: (D)

Rule utilitarianism evaluates morality by looking at the rules we would adopt if they were generally followed, and those rules are judged by whether they promote the good when widely practiced. In this view, an action is right to the extent that it complies with a rule that, if everybody followed it, would maximize overall utility. That emphasis on generally adopted rules is what sets rule utilitarianism apart from evaluating a single act in isolation. Think of it this way: if there were a rule like “tell the truth,” and following that rule tends to produce more happiness and trust in society when it is generally obeyed, then actions that conform to that rule are deemed right. This avoids the messy, sometimes paradoxical results you get when you judge each act by its immediate consequences alone. By contrast, focusing only on the immediate outcome of a particular act describes act utilitarianism, which can lead to odd judgments where a single lie might be justified if it seems to produce more utility in that moment. Mathematics aside, the rule-based approach also fits more naturally with how societies form norms and laws, because it relies on stable standards rather than case-by-case calculations. Virtue ethics centers on character and what a good person would do, not on adherence to rules designed to maximize utility, so that option doesn’t capture rule utilitarianism’s method.

Rule utilitarianism evaluates morality by looking at the rules we would adopt if they were generally followed, and those rules are judged by whether they promote the good when widely practiced. In this view, an action is right to the extent that it complies with a rule that, if everybody followed it, would maximize overall utility. That emphasis on generally adopted rules is what sets rule utilitarianism apart from evaluating a single act in isolation.

Think of it this way: if there were a rule like “tell the truth,” and following that rule tends to produce more happiness and trust in society when it is generally obeyed, then actions that conform to that rule are deemed right. This avoids the messy, sometimes paradoxical results you get when you judge each act by its immediate consequences alone.

By contrast, focusing only on the immediate outcome of a particular act describes act utilitarianism, which can lead to odd judgments where a single lie might be justified if it seems to produce more utility in that moment. Mathematics aside, the rule-based approach also fits more naturally with how societies form norms and laws, because it relies on stable standards rather than case-by-case calculations.

Virtue ethics centers on character and what a good person would do, not on adherence to rules designed to maximize utility, so that option doesn’t capture rule utilitarianism’s method.