Erkenntnis

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 25–53 | Cite as

Rule utilitarianism and decision theory

  • John C. Harsanyi
Articles

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to show how some of the controversial questions concerning utilitarianism can be clarified by the modelling techniques and the other analytical tools of decision theory (and, sometimes, of game theory). It is suggested that the moral rules of utilitarian ethics have a logical status similar to that of the normative rules (theorems) of such formal normative disciplines as decision theory and game theory.

The paper argues that social utility should be defined, not in hedonistic or in ideal-utilitarian terms, but rather in terms of individual preferences, in accordance with the author's equiprobability model of moral value judgments.

After describing the difficulties of act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism is discussed as a possibly superior alternative. Brandt and Lyons have tried to show that these two forms of utilitarianism are actually equivalent. To test Brandt's and Lyons's equivalence thesis, a decision-theoretical model for utilitarian theory is proposed. The model shows that the thesis is definitely false. The basic difference between the two theories results from the expectation effect and the incentive effect, which, surprisingly enough, have been almost completely neglected in the philosophical literature. The paper illustrates these two effects in connection with the moral duty of promise keeping.

Yet, even if we do neglect the expectation and the incentive effects, and concentrate on the coordination effect, as most of the philosophical literature does, it can be shown that rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism have very different practical implications. This is demonstrated by analysis of three voting situations. Hence, the equivalence thesis fails even under the assumptions most favorable to it.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baier, K. E. M.: 1958, The Moral Point of View, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.Y.Google Scholar
  2. Brandt, R. B.: 1959, Ethical Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.Google Scholar
  3. Brandt, R. B.: 1963. ‘Toward a Credible Form of Utilitarianism’, in H. N. Castañeda and G. Nakhnikian (eds), Morality and the Language of Conduct, Wayne State University Press, Detroit: pp. 107–143.Google Scholar
  4. Ezorsky, G.: 1968, ‘A Defense of Rule Utilitarianism Against David Lyons’, Journal of Philosophy 65, pp. 533–544.Google Scholar
  5. Gert, B.: 1970, The Moral Rules, Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Gibbard, A. F.: 1965, ”Rule Utilitarianism’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 43, pp. 211–220.Google Scholar
  7. Hare, R. M.: 1952, The Language of Morals, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  8. Hare, R. M.: 1963, Freedom and Reason, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  9. Harrod, R. F.: 1936, ‘Utilitarianism Revised’, Mind, 45, pp. 137–156.Google Scholar
  10. Harsanyi, J. C.: 1953, ‘Cardinal Utility in Welfare Economics and in the Theory of Risk-Taking’, Journal of Political Economy 61, pp. 434–435.Google Scholar
  11. Harsanyi, J. C.: 1955 ‘Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility’, Journal of Political Economy 63, pp. 309–321.Google Scholar
  12. Harsanyi, J. C.: 1958, ‘Ethics in Terms of Hypothetical Imperatives’, Mind 47, pp. 305–316.Google Scholar
  13. Harsanyi, J. C.: 1975, ‘Advances in Understanding Rational Behavior’, Working Paper CP-366, Center for Research in Management Science, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  14. Hodgson, D. H.: 1967, Consequences of Utilitarianism, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  15. Hoerster, N.: 1971, Utilitaristische Ethik und Verallgemeinerung Karl Alber, Freiburg and München.Google Scholar
  16. Lyons, D.: 1965, Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  17. Moore, G. E.: 1903, Principia Ethica, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
  18. Narveson, J.: 1967, Morality and Utility, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland.Google Scholar
  19. Rawls, J.: 1955, ‘Two Concepts of Rules’, Philosophical Review 64, pp. 3–32.Google Scholar
  20. Smart, J. J. C.: 1956, Extreme and Restricted Utilitarianism’, Philosophical Quarterly 6, pp. 344–354.Google Scholar
  21. Smart, J. J. C.: 1961, An Outline of a System of Utilitarian Ethics, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  22. Smart, J. J. C. and B.Williams: 1973, Utilitarianism—for and against, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
  23. Stout, A. K.: 1954, ‘But Suppose Everyone Did the Same’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 32, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar
  24. Williams, B.: 1973. See Smart and Williams (1973).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • John C. Harsanyi

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations