AyeIntroduction Utilitarianism is “a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number” Merriam-Webster. I argue that the principle of utility can be proper to set for specific rules that benefit all society and improper when ruling for general issues. To prove my argument, I will show what Bentham and Mill ideas of the principle of Utility. I will use Rule-utilitarianism and Act-utilitarianism to further my analysis of the principle of utility in matters of laws and policy. Comment by Kevin McGravey: Try to use a definition from an author or your own. Comment by Kevin McGravey: Awk. Comment by Kevin McGravey: Good –explain here exactly how you’ll do this. Bentham & Mill Bentham's Principle of Utility have four components. First, is to recognize the main role of pain and pleasure in people’s lives. Second, favors or condemns an action on the basis of the amount of pain or pleasure brought to people for example, consequences. Third, he associates good with pleasure and evil with pain. Last, he asserts that pleasure and pain are measurable. Comment by Kevin McGravey: has Comment by Kevin McGravey: You want to cite Bentham here. Mill adjusted the more hedonistic views in Bentham's philosophy by emphasizing, it is not the quantity of pleasure, but the quality of happiness that is central to utilitarianism. This analysis is unreasonable according to Mill, qualities cannot be quantified, and there is a distinction between higher and lower pleasures. Utilitarianism refers to the Greatest Happiness Principle it seeks to promote the ability of achieving happiness like higher pleasures for the most amount of people. Comment by Kevin McGravey: Again, cite Mill here so that you can explore the view in more depth. Rule & Act Utilitarianism Rule-utilitarianism is the principle of utility which is used to determine the validity of rules of conduct or moral principles. Rule utilitarianism sounds paradoxical because it says that we can have better results if we follow the rules than by always performing individual actions whose consequences are good as possible in that situation. The rule-utilitarian approach to morality can be shown by considering the rules of the road. Driving the general utilitarian principle can be very broad and open-ended like “drive safely” where rule utilitarianism is more specific like “stop at red lights.” The reasoning behind a more inflexible rule-based system leads to greater overall utility is that people have poor judgment when driving. Having specific rules minimizes the dangers of having too broad of rules. A rule-utilitarian can be shown by seeing the difference between stop signs and yield signs. Stop signs stop drivers from crossing an intersection at all times, even if the driver sees that there are no cars approaching and therefore no danger in not stopping. A yield sign allows drivers to go through without stopping, unless.

1. AyeIntroduction
Utilitarianism is “a theory that the aim of action should be the
largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest
happiness of the greatest number” Merriam-Webster. I argue
that the principle of utility can be proper to set for specific
rules that benefit all society and improper when ruling for
general issues. To prove my argument, I will show what
Bentham and Mill ideas of the principle of Utility. I will use
Rule-utilitarianism and Act-utilitarianism to further my analysis
of the principle of utility in matters of laws and policy.
Comment by Kevin McGravey: Try to use a definition
from an author or your own. Comment by Kevin McGravey:
Awk. Comment by Kevin McGravey: Good –explain here
exactly how you’ll do this. Bentham & Mill
Bentham's Principle of Utility have four components. First,
is to recognize the main role of pain and pleasure in people’s
lives. Second, favors or condemns an action on the basis of the
amount of pain or pleasure brought to people for example,
consequences. Third, he associates good with pleasure and evil
with pain. Last, he asserts that pleasure and pain are
measurable. Comment by Kevin McGravey: has Comment by
Kevin McGravey: You want to cite Bentham here.
Mill adjusted the more hedonistic views in Bentham's
philosophy by emphasizing, it is not the quantity of pleasure,
but the quality of happiness that is central to utilitarianism.
This analysis is unreasonable according to Mill, qualities cannot
be quantified, and there is a distinction between higher and
lower pleasures. Utilitarianism refers to the Greatest Happiness
Principle it seeks to promote the ability of achieving happiness
like higher pleasures for the most amount of people.
Comment by Kevin McGravey: Again, cite Mill here so
that you can explore the view in more depth.

2. Rule & Act Utilitarianism
Rule-utilitarianism is the principle of utility which is used to
determine the validity of rules of conduct or moral principles.
Rule utilitarianism sounds paradoxical because it says that we
can have better results if we follow the rules than by always
performing individual actions whose consequences are good as
possible in that situation.
The rule-utilitarian approach to morality can be shown by
considering the rules of the road. Driving the general utilitarian
principle can be very broad and open-ended like “drive safely”
where rule utilitarianism is more specific like “stop at red
lights.”
The reasoning behind a more inflexible rule-based system leads
to greater overall utility is that people have poor judgment when
driving. Having specific rules minimizes the dangers of having
too broad of rules.
A rule-utilitarian can be shown by seeing the difference
between stop signs and yield signs. Stop signs stop drivers from
crossing an intersection at all times, even if the driver sees that
there are no cars approaching and therefore no danger in not
stopping. A yield sign allows drivers to go through without
stopping, unless they judge that approaching car, making it
unsafe to drive through the intersection. The crucial difference
here between these signs is how much discretion is given to the
driver.
The stop sign is like the rule-utilitarian approach. It tells
drivers to stop and does not allow them to determine whether it
would be better to stop or keep driving.
The yield sign is like Act-Utilitarianism, which is a believe that
whenever we are deciding what to do, we should perform the
action that will create the greatest net utility. It permits drivers
to decide whether there is a need to stop. Act-utilitarianism sees
the stop sign as too unreasonable because it requires drivers to
stop even when nothing bad will be prevented. The result, act-
utilitarians say, is a loss of utility each time a driver stops at a
stop sign when there is no danger from oncoming cars.

3. Rule-utilitarian principle would sound more like that it would
reject the yield sign rule. If people could be counted on to drive
carefully, there would be less harm and less accidents on the
road. People often drive too fast and are distracted while
driving because they are texting. It’s difficult to trust people to
make good utilitarian judgments about how to drive safely.
This does not mean that rule utilitarianism always support rigid
rules without exceptions. In emergency medical situations, for
example, a driver may justifiably go through a red light or stop
sign based on the driver’s own assessment that when two
conditions apply. First, this can be done safely. Second, the
situation is one in which even a short delay might cause dire
harms. So the accurate rule need not be “never go through a
stop sign” but rather can be something like “never go through a
stop sign except in cases where these conditions apply”. In
addition, there will remain many things about driving or other
behaviors that can be left to people’s discretion. For example,
the rules of the road do not tell drivers when to drive or what
their destination should be.
Act-utilitarians criticizes rule-utilitarianism that it worships the
rules. They argue that by over-riding the rules sometimes can do
more good than harm especially when there is no time to
deliberate for instance, emergency on the road. Comment by
Kevin McGravey: This is a nice description of these two views
but you want to 1) connect to Mill and Bentham and 2) start
here, in the abstract, to connect to your general argument about
policy more fully.
Another example is Edward Snowden, he released confidential
information about the NSA mass surveillance on civilians. His
actions could be considered as Act-utilitarianist where he broke
the rules to bring more pleasure than harm. While Rule-
utilitarians would argue that in the name of safety and security
these NSA programs should be warranted. Also, that he broke
the rules and should be condemned. Also, Snowden, the NSA,

4. and the public, clearly that there was no was pleased of this
outcome. The NSA came under fire, Snowden had to run
because he would go to jail, and people were filled paranoia and
anger about the NSA and Snowden. This case demonstrate that
the lines are blurred when talking about what is harm and what
is pleasurable to people. Comment by Kevin McGravey: Try to
work more fully through this interesting example to show how
this relates to more general questions about the proper approach
to public policy.
Generally, rule utilitarianism allow individuals to use the rules
to their own discretion. These discretionary actions are
allowable because by having a rule in these cases does not
maximize utility. The best rule may impose limitations on how
people act while, still allowing discretion in deciding what to
do.Conclusion
I argued that the principle of utility can be proper to set for
specific rules that benefit all society and improper when ruling
for general issue. To prove my argument I show what Bentham
and Mill idea of the principle of Utility. I use Rule-
utilitarianism and Act-utilitarianism to further my analysis of
the principle of utility in matters of laws and policy. Using the
rules of the road to demonstrate where these laws can be applied
and Snowden to demonstrate that the lines are blurred when
making laws. Comment by Kevin McGravey: Aye,
Thanks for a very interesting paper. You do a nice job, in
particular, of laying out act vs. rule utilitarianism and have an
interesting example in Snowden. The main way in which your
paper could be even better is threefold. First, you should
connect your discussion of Mill and Bentham more fully to the
act/rule distinction. Doing so would serve to better connect your
thesis to most of your analysis. Try to show why one approach
connects or further Bentham or Mill’s ideas and how we can use
it to form policy. This would help you as well to, second, make
your own argument more clear and explicit. You have some nice
analysis here but it isn’t quite clear to the reader precisely what

5. view you are advancing as you proceed. State this clearly up
front and return to it throughout. Finally, your example of
Snowden is an interesting one, but you want to connect to more
fully to your thesis. What does this tell us about how we should
proceed? In other words, work to abstract from your specific
example.
Nice job here, Aye.
B+/B
References
Nathanson, Stephen. “Act and Rule Utilitarianism.” Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, www.iep.utm.edu/util-a-r.
Merriam-Webster.com
“Utilitarian Theories.” Online Guide to Ethics and Moral
Philosophy, 2002,
caae.phil.cmu.edu/cavalier/80130/part2/sect9.html.
Paper 2 Topics and Guidelines Introduction to Political Theory
1. Do you deserve to keep wealth that you inherit? Discuss with
reference to Rawls, Friedman,
Nozick and the idea of an estate tax.
2. Between Nozick, Rawls and Marx which theorist gives the
best account of distributive
justice?
3. What is the proper normative approach to punishment?
4. Does equality require an approach that is conscious of past
injustice or one that is blind to

6. past injustice and treats persons equally in current moment.
Discuss with reference to
Grutter v. Bollinger, Okin and/or the Casey Martin decision.
5. Should morality be central to political decision-making? Or
should politics adhere only to
rational, empirical argument?
6. Can citizens be free when they are bound by laws? Are there
approaches to creating
laws that allow citizens to both be “in chains” and be free?
7. Are property rights problematically violated by eminent
domain?
8. Develop your own question in consultation with me.
Reminder of Paper Guidelines Fall 2018 Merrimack College
Your final paper should be 2000-3000 words and will be turned
in on Google Classroom and by hard
copy. We will continue to work to develop your argument over
the next few weeks. Please, too,
consider the comments you received on your first paper.
Here is a reminder of the general paper writing guidelines:
A general note – the use of the first person (I argue, I shall
show) is allowed and
ENCOURAGED.
Thesis: Your paper should begin with a strong thesis or
argument. This argument is
the answer to the question you have chosen. It has a two-part
structure and happens
in 1-2 sentences. You should state first your answer and second

7. a reason for your
answer. Strive for an original and interesting thesis. You’ll
want an argument that is
both theoretically sound and grounded in logical support.
Roadmap: In 2-3 sentences outline precisely how you will
reason for your
argument. You might use language such as “ To prove my
argument, first I will show
X. Next, I consider Y...” where X and Y are parts of your
argument.
Argument: Proceed to argue for your point. Highlight examples
that support your
point and give a clear explanation of the views of the authors
with which you are
engaging. When/If you introduce an example, be sure to explain
how it fits with
your argument. Pay particular attention here to creating a
logical order for your
points and using good topic sentences that tell the reader why,
for your argument,
the paragraph matters.
Consideration of an Objection: In the course of your paper you
should consider an
objection to your view. In a short paper this may take place in a
single paragraph.
Consider the strongest possible challenge to your view. Your
objection may come
from an author you’ve read in class or you may come up with it
on your own.

8. Conclusion: Restate your thesis clearly and summarize how you
have shown the
persuasiveness of your view.
Citation – For your response paper, you may simply cite the text
from your book
parenthetically (Rawls, 100). There is no need for a
bibliography or full notation. If and when you cite
material outside of the textbook, please do provide a full
citation and/or bibliography.