Questions: Act Utilitarianism vs. Rule Utilitarianism

Question 1

A surgeon can save five patients who need organ transplants by killing one healthy patient. Act utilitarianism appears to endorse this. A rule utilitarian would most likely respond by arguing:

• A. The calculation is wrong — killing one to save five does not actually maximize utility
• B. The rule 'never kill patients for their organs,' if generally followed, produces more utility than a rule permitting such killings
• C. Rights-based constraints override utility maximization in this case
• D. The surgeon's duty of care makes this action impermissible regardless of consequences

Answer: (B)

Rule utilitarianism doesn't challenge the act-by-act calculation — it shifts the level of evaluation from individual acts to rules. A society where surgeons routinely kill patients for organs would generate massive fear, distrust of medicine, and social harm far exceeding the gain from any individual surgery. So 'never kill patients for their organs' belongs in the optimal rule set. Note that option C describes a deontological argument, not a utilitarian one. Rule utilitarianism reaches the right conclusion for consequentialist reasons — by pointing to the long-run effects of the general practice.

Question 2

The 'collapse objection' to rule utilitarianism argues that:

• A. Rule utilitarianism is too demanding because it requires calculating consequences for every possible rule
• B. A sufficiently detailed rule will always specify the act with the highest utility, making rule and act utilitarianism equivalent
• C. Rule utilitarianism collapses into deontology because it treats rules as binding constraints
• D. Rules cannot be derived from utility calculations because utility is inherently subjective

Answer: (B)

The collapse objection targets rule utilitarianism from within its own framework. If you're committed to maximizing utility, you can't stop at simple rules — you must keep refining them to handle exceptions ('do not lie... except to save a life... except when the person would consent... except...'). As the rule gains exceptions it eventually specifies exactly which actions maximize utility in each circumstance, at which point it's functionally identical to act utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism either collapses into act utilitarianism (via detailed rules) or commits 'rule worship' (following rules even when breaking them produces more utility).

Question 3

A rule utilitarian can consistently hold that the surgeon should NOT harvest the healthy patient's organs, even if doing so would produce more total utility in this specific case.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: True

This is exactly what rule utilitarianism is designed to deliver. The rule utilitarian asks not 'does this act maximize utility?' but 'does the rule that permits this act, if generally followed, maximize utility?' The rule permitting organ harvesting on utility calculations would, if generally adopted, produce enormous social harms — so the rule is not in the optimal set. Therefore the surgeon should not harvest, even if the particular act would help. This is rule utilitarianism's core advantage over act utilitarianism: it can align with common moral intuitions without abandoning consequentialism entirely.

Question 4

Rule utilitarianism fully resolves the counterintuitive implications of act utilitarianism because moral rules function as genuine, non-overridable constraints rather than convenient heuristics.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: False

This is precisely what the collapse objection challenges. For rule utilitarianism to resolve act utilitarianism's problems, rules must function as genuine constraints — not just useful shortcuts. But a utilitarian is committed to maximizing utility as the ultimate value. If following a rule produces less utility than breaking it, a consistent utilitarian seems obligated to break it. So either the rules are genuine constraints (but then why hold them when utility favors violation?), or they're just heuristics (which means they can be overridden whenever the calculation favors it — making them indistinguishable from act utilitarianism in practice). The tension is internal to utilitarianism, not fully resolved.

Question 5

Explain the collapse objection to rule utilitarianism. Why does it threaten to make rule utilitarianism indistinguishable from act utilitarianism, and what dilemma does it force the rule utilitarian to face?

Model answer: The collapse objection notes that a committed utilitarian must keep refining rules to handle exceptions — adding enough detail that the rule eventually specifies exactly which action maximizes utility in every situation, becoming functionally identical to act utilitarianism. This forces a dilemma: either accept highly detailed rules (and collapse into act utilitarianism) or treat simple rules as genuinely binding even when breaking them would produce more utility — the 'rule worship' fallacy that abandons the core utilitarian commitment.

The objection reveals a structural tension: rule utilitarianism tries to give moral rules more grip than mere heuristics while remaining grounded in utility. But if utility is the ultimate value, any rule that blocks utility-maximizing actions seems self-undermining. The more seriously rule utilitarians take the 'follow the rule even when it costs utility' instruction, the more their theory resembles deontology (rules as binding constraints) rather than consequentialism. This is part of why many philosophers think consequentialism and deontology represent genuinely distinct commitments rather than reconcilable variants.