Hopefully you understand what a utilitarian is already. I'd think fewer people would understand the difference between rule and act-based utilitarians though. The source of my explanation of the difference between the two is below:
https://iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/#:~:text=A ... tealing%29.
So, for act-based utilitarians, such as myself, we believe that whenever we are making a decision, we should perform the action that results in the greatest utility...with "utility" tending to refer to a maximization of pleasure and a minimization of suffering for the group we're concerned about.
Rule-based utilitarians use a more complex system that says that an action is justified if it conforms to a good moral rule, and the moral rule is good if the rule maximizes utility (noting that again, utility for utilitarians tends to mean maximizing pleasure and minimizing suffering for some group).
It's worth emphasizing that all forms of utilitarianism are consequentialist. In other words, utilitarians believe that things are only right or wrong based on the consequences of those things. This is in contrast to some other moral codes such as deontology, in which that which is right or wrong is determined not by the consequences, but by what actions you engage in - specifically, whether or not you follow rules that are the source of what is good according to a deontologist. It's also worth noting that while rule-based utilitarianism and deontology both emphasize the following of certain rules...the reason why the rule-based utilitarian follows the rules is because the rules result in ideal consequences...which are usually the maximization of pleasure and minimization of suffering for some group, whereas for the deontologist, the consequences, or likely consequences, aren't much of a factor. It's all about whether or not you obey the rules themselves. Obeying certain rules means you've done good, regardless of the results.
So, as a primarily act-based utilitarian...I have some of the most controversial views that can exist in a great many areas. Whether I think robbing or stealing or breaking other laws or ignoring other social norms is good or bad depends entirely upon whether or not I believe that will maximize pleasure and minimize suffering for humanity...or life in general...but I tend to focus most on humanity.
Rule-based utilitarians can often have some pretty controversial opinions too though. To illustrate how these three worldviews might view certain moral questions...let's get into the rather unpleasant topic of sex crimes...which, thought it's unpleasant, I have some ideas related to this that are the main purpose of this thread.
So, with sexual assault, a deontologist might describe the act of sexual assault itself as morally wrong. I'd definitely say that's the least likely way of viewing this issue to offend or alarm people. So, a deontologist might say: Do not commit sexual assault or you are doing something wrong. It doesn't matter what the impact is. Just don't do it...with the possible exception of if not doing it would violate some greater rule you have to follow, such as, if you did not kiss Sleeping Beauty (which I'd argue would technically be sexual assault) she's going to remain comatose forever or something like that...but that'd only be the case if you consider having Sleeping Beauty lying in a coma forever to be in violation of some rule you think is the root of goodness, that you decide is more important than the sexual assault rule. If you don't have a rule you're following about not leaving woman comatose that you believe is of higher priority than sexual assault...then Sleeping Beauty is going to remain sleeping.
Next, a rule based utilitarian might think, "Well...there are no acts that are inherently wrong...but the world would be a much better place if nobody committed sexual assault, so unless we find a species who enjoy it, we'd probably be best off if nobody committed sexual assault...so don't commit sexual assault...again with a probable exception for Sleeping Beauty, because otherwise she's going to be locked in a coma. Sexual assault causes lots of fear. It causes pleasure...but reading a good book can cause pleasure too, possibly even more pleasure than sexual assault, but without the terror and necessary jail time and sex offender registration used to discourage sexual assault that are necessary punishments to discourage more crimes that, if not discouraged via negative feedback, would have led to massive amounts more suffering.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next comes my usual variant of utilitarian: the act based utilitarians. I'm going to have a much more disturbing thought process than either of the above. When I think about sexual assault using my typical act-based utilitarian thought process, I think to myself, "Okay, what actions can I do that produce the most pleasure and least suffering?" Now, let's think about how that might work with certain forms of sexual assault...specifically some problems that might result in.
For example...sure, I'd agree with my above rule-based utilitarian buddy that the world would be better off without sexual assault. However, as an act-based utilitarian I know that if I sexually assault someone and won't get caught, that might provide me with lots of pleasure, and cause zero suffering for my victim...and whether I personally engage in sexual assault or not is not going to impact whether other people do it or not in any way.
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
So...based off my typical act-based utilitarian reasoning process...it does kind of sound like my usual moral code would actually encourage certain types of sex crimes that go un-caught and don't cause damage to my victim
![Crying or Very sad :cry:](./images/smilies/icon_cry.gif)
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
![Neutral :|](./images/smilies/icon_neutral.gif)
A problem with that is, that's essentially saying that it can be logical to commit sexual assault...and if that's the case, that's going to terrify much of society and through that terror cause much suffering, suffering that I'd argue would cause more damage than the joy of all those new sexual assaults would...so even just from my act-based utilitarian standard, my moral code is telling me that I need to find some way to CONVINCE society sexual assault is illogical.
Note that word CONVINCE by the way
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
![Sad :(](./images/smilies/icon_sad.gif)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, with the above in mind you can hopefully see why I'd be very tempted to, at least in this circumstance, temporarily switch over to rule-based utilitarianism.
A problem with that is, I don't like rule-based utilitarianism. I like it better than deontology...but I typically like both much less than act-based utilitarianism.
My view is that there is a single utilitarian math formula that determines, truly, what behaviors are best to engage in. This would be a universally true math formula. It would not be something created through culture. It would be existing in the laws of nature and discovered over time, and the longer life is around and able to understand it, the more similar our behaviors should become to one another regardless of what part of the galaxy we're in, because we'd gain more and more insights into how this enormous moral formula works...so I believe there are flat out right and wrong ways to do things that are not dependent on my opinions, so accuracy is very important to me. I'm not just interested in building a moral code that generally allows people to get along. I want the moral codes I encourage to be as close to the true correct as I know how to make them.
So, the problem I see with the types of broad rules rule-based utilitarianism advocates for is that there will likely be exceptions in which acting on those broad rules does not truly maximize pleasure and minimize suffering for all feeling life (my brand of utilitarianism strives to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering for all feeling life in all universes for all of time) and would therefore likely be inaccurate at times. So, again, what I don't like about rule-based utilitarianism is the broad rules that we're supposed to follow which, I'd argue, would likely not always maximize pleasure and minimize suffering to follow.
So, to maintain accuracy as I see it, I'd like to stick with act-based utilitarianism...but to do that I still think I've got to find some way to either convince society that sex crimes are bad, or more ideally think of some reason why they really are, just, bad, according to an act-based utilitarian perspective...to avoid the terror of everybody thinking certain sex crimes are at times logical to engage in, which would probably result in everybody being terrified of going to sleep/sleeping with guns beneath their pillows/etc. So now, finally, I'll go onto the meat of my post: my proposed solutions:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option A: convince people a watchful God exists that punishes or rewards people based on how they behave in this life, who dislikes sexual assault. If you already believe this exists, I figure you're good to go. You can be an act-based utilitarian and if you believe God will punish you for sexual assault then the pleasure of the sexual assault is countered by God's punishment and no longer becomes logical and as a result society no longer has to fear the prospect of sexual assault seeming like the logical thing to do. I don't believe in that kind of God though, so I'd perceive a society that did as being insufficiently truth-seeking, which I'd guess would result in its own problems...and people could also be lying about their belief in such a God so some people would still have reason to be afraid so I see a few flaws to that option.
Option B (this option is rather horrifying): convince society that sexual assault would ideally happen to us every time it wouldn't cause damage to us as individuals/victims and wouldn't be caught...but we're morally wrong for worrying about it because we're just harming ourselves through our worry, and ideally we'd just all be cool with the fact that we're probably going to be molested at some point
![Embarassed :oops:](./images/smilies/icon_redface.gif)
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
![Crying or Very sad :cry:](./images/smilies/icon_cry.gif)
Option C (this option is also rather alarming): Go with the aforementioned Machiavellian cabal of rapists who view sexual assault as good in many circumstances, who rule over the ignorant masses who believe differently. So...everybody just blindly trust Dear Leader. Dear Leader knows best. Do not question Dear Leader or you'll end up going on a...we'll call it a long term vacation
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Option D: Make punishments for sex crimes so harsh that even the tiniest risk of being caught would in no possible rational mind be worth the risk of what short term pleasure could be gained from sexual assault. and then more criminals murder more victims to avoid being caught, and fewer victims report crimes because they feel the punishments are too harsh to fit the crime. Also, again, I think we need a system of just being able to trust people, regardless of whether or not we can see them or else society is going to have all sorts of long term trust-based problems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now below are what I consider the best answers:
Option E: Point out that it's impossible to know we don't live in a computer simulation and the creators could be watching us...or that it's impossible to know that you won't be caught A problem with this is that you may be pretty confident that you won't get caught.
Option F: note that if we reward ourselves with pleasure for acts that assist society, or don't risk harm to it, or that wouldn't cause fear if people knew we were doing it, we'll tend to focus on strengthening ourselves while assisting society, and often engaging in tasks that require willpower, and through limiting our rewards of pleasure to these sorts of circumstances, making it more desirable and easier for us to engage in these constructive and willpower-dependent, useful actions for society. On the other hand, if we allow ourselves to slip into tempting and likely destructive behaviors like non-consensual sexual contact, we're weakening ourselves and likely making resisting such damaging temptations more difficult in the future...perhaps even causing more suffering to ourselves than the pleasure of the sex offense would redeem...even if we lacked the pain of a guilty conscience for doing so. I think this option would work just fine...so long as you're going to be alive for a fair amount of time. One major weakness I'd say this system has is that, if you're about to die, the long term impacts this version involves won't be much of a factor, and therefore you could say that this system still leaves open an avenue for it actually being morally good for people about to die to engage in certain forms of sexual assault...so I think it does work great for most things, just very poorly in some circumstances.
Option G: I resign myself to relying on rule-based utilitarianism in this circumstance, rather than my typical, and preferred, act-based utilitarianism. Again, I don't usually like rule-based utilitarianism because when we claim it's good to follow certain rules, even if we're right most of the time, there will likely be exceptions in which following those rules will not actually maximize pleasure and minimize suffering. However, it could be that there is just no other way to convince society that sex crimes are generally bad besides using this system, or some much more destructive system...which I think most of the aforementioned options would be.
Option H: Argue that if you don't engage in sexual assault, even if you don't get caught, other people might not engage in sexual assault for the same reason...and that, for greed-bases reasons, you can use to convince yourself that you'll be living in a more secure, trusting world through not engaging in sexual assault, because if you do it, that's a sign that other people would behave similarly. Take joy in the feeling that you're part of something greater than yourself - a sheltering blanket of trust, and feel your hedonistic, greed-based reward for your behavior in the satisfaction you feel as a result. I like this one in particular, because even if that's not impressive to everyone, we could build a society and do psychological and sociological research to figure out how to max that system more impressive to society.
Option I: Just don't think about it. It's sexual assault. It's bad. This is not exactly any formal brand of moral reasoning...but oh well. It often seems to work
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My preferred explanation is a combination of all of that which I described as the "best" answers. I did not include the option that describe spreading word of a watchful God that disapproved of sexual assault...because I don't believe that exists, but if I did, I'd probably include that in the list too.