Act-U: An act is right to the extent that it brings about the overall utility (value, good, well-being) of all those with moral standing who are affected by the act.

Rule-U: An act is right insofar as it conforms to a rule the general observance of which brings about the greatest overall utility (value, good, well-being) of all those with moral standing who are affected by the act.

Smart’s argument against Rule-U
P1.  A rule utilitarian is still a utilitarian and therefore grounds morality in utility (rather than, say, rights).

P2.  Whenever the prescriptions of act-utilitarianism diverge from rule-utilitarianism, the act prescribed by act-utilitarianism will produce more utility.

P3.  It would be irrational for one who grounds morality in utility to morally prefer an act that fails to promote utility simply because it happens to diverge from a general rule.  (To do so would amount to an irrational rule-worship).

C.  Therefore, utilitarians should all be act-utilitarians.
 
 

Three Theories of the Good
Bentham: hedonistic theory of good.  Purely quantitative analysis of pleasure.  No intrinsic difference in the quality of pleasures.

Moore: ideal theory of good.  Some states of mind are intrinsically good, independently of their pleasantness (e.g. acquiring knowledge).

Also, e.g., equality, fairness, beauty.

Mill: quasi-ideal theory of good.  “pleasure is a necessary condition for goodness but that goodness depends on other qualities of experience than pleasantness and unpleasantness.”

Need two adjectives to distinguish:
Act vs. Rule
Theory of Good

E.g.:
hedonistic act-utilitarianism
ideal rule-utilitarianism
quasi-ideal act-utilitarianism.
 

Happiness vs. contentment

Happiness as descriptive & evaluative.
Also, e.g. honest, fair, cruel.

Nozick’s experience machine.
Suppose there were an experience machine that would give you any experience you desired.  Superduper neuropsychologists could stimulate your brain so that you would think and feel you were writing a great novel, or making a friend, or reading an interesting book.  All the time you would be floating in a tank, with electrodes attached to your brain.  Should you plug into this machine for life, preprogramming your life’s experiences?  If you are worried about missing out on desirable experiences, we can suppose that business enterprises have researched thoroughly the lives of many others.  You can pick and choose from their large library or smorgasboard of such experiences, selecting your life’s experiences from, say, the next two years…Of course, while in the thank you won’t know that you’re there; you’ll think it’s all actually happening.

Nozick against EM:
1.   We want to do certain things.
2.   We want to be a certain sort of person.  Someone floating in a tank is an indeterminate blob.  Courageous? Kind? Intelligent? Loving?
3.   Limited to a man-made reality.  No contact with any deeper reality.

“Without elaborating on the implications of this, which I believe connect surprisingly with issues about free will…we need merely note the intricacy of the question of what matters for people other than their experiences.”
 

Successful?  Against which theory of good?
 

Smart’s act-utilitarian doctrine:

“…the only reason for performing an action A rather than an alternative action B is that doing A will make [humankind] (or, perhaps, all sentient beings) happier than will doing B…”
 

Not necessarily a calculation:

“Envisage the total consequences of A, and think them over carefully and imaginatively.  Now envisage the total consequences of B, and think them over carefully.  As a benevolent and humane [person], and thinking of yourself as just one [person] among others, would you prefer the consequences of A or those of B?”

Puzzles:

· Everyone a little happy vs. some very happy, others slightly less happy.
· Highly probable some made a little happier vs. smaller probability that everyone made very much happier
· Everyone happy in a pig-like way (e.g. Brave New World) vs. some happy in complex ways.
 

“So, in most practical cases, a disagreement about what should be done will be an empirical disagreement about what total situation is likely to be brought about by an action, and will not be a disagreement about which total situation is preferable”
 

Trade-offs:

· Equality vs. Efficacy in Health Care

· Equality vs. Flourishing in Education

· Competitive Teams/Clubs vs. All Inclusive
 

· Use of video surveillance cameras in public areas
 

 
Criterion of Rational Choice

Vs. habituation, rules of thumb.