Act Vs. Rule Utilitarianism

First, utilitarianism needs to be defined.

Utlitarianism is a moral theory which incorporates welfarism and consequentialism. Welfarists believe that the only thing that matters toward the goodness of an outcome is well-being(happiness), and consequentialists believe that only goodness of the results of an action are morally relevant, not the action which led to those results. So combine the two and you have a utilitarian, someone who believes that the goodness of an action is determined by the amount of well-being it produces for the greatest number as a result. So killing one to save two would be the morally right decision, no matter if it is contradictory to your intuition.

Now a definition of the two primary sects of utilitarianism, act and rule.

The act-utilitarian will measure the consequences of a single act to determine the rightness or wrongness of a course of action, and there is only one rule: “maximize probable benefit”. He will say there is nothing of greater value than utility(greatest well-being for the most), and will try to take the course of action which produces the most utility in all circumstances, even if that means breaking the rules(laws, social contracts, etc.).
Whereas the rule-utilitarian will measure the consequences of a rule, or code of conduct, or universal law, if it is repeated over and over. The rule utilitarian will say that the goodness or badness of the consequences don’t actually matter, but that the rightness or wrongness of a particular course of action can be judged on if you followed the “rule” that generally produces good results.

I would argue in favor of act-utilitarianism compared to rule-utilitarianism. The strongest argument in my opinion, against “actual rule” rule-utlitarians is that if you are going to worship following a generally beneficial rule in all circumstances, even when the consequences will not produce the greatest happiness, rather than being concerned with utility, that is bull-headed and irrational. “Do not lie” seems like a good rule until Nazis knock at the door and ask if there are any Jewish people hiding in the attic. There are always exceptions to the rules, and if a utilitarian could promote the good even if it means breaking the rules, it seems absurd not to.

An argument against the more lax “possible rule” or Kantian-utilitarianism, is that the concept will ultimately collapse into act-utilitarianism. If followers of this method of living alter rules to fit different circumstances, there would be so many sub-categories of rules that they would be measuring the rightness or wrongness of an action based on its consequences. Kantian-utilitarianism is just an overly complicated form of act-utilitarianism.

This is why, in my opinion, act-utilitarianism makes a better argument towards utilitarianism as a moral philosophy. It aims to produce the greatest well-being for the greatest number without all-encompassing rules which could harm well-being.