What is the conclusion of rule-utilitarianism? How is it different from act-utilitarianism (i. e. J. S. Mill's theory)? (Explain in your own words) Hospers says that rule-utilitarianism can solve the problems of act-utilitarianism. To what problems is he referring? Explain one of his examples (i. e., the District Attorney, the grade change, the petty thief, etc.)?
Scenario: Let's consider Smith for a second. Smith is a well-known mob boss who has nevertheless managed to evade the law so far. He always makes sure there is no direct evidence linking him to a crime. Finally, though, he is arrested on a gambling and corruption charge. Unfortunately, the district attorney in charge of prosecuting him finds information that proves that Smith is actually innocent this time! However, Smith is a career criminal. He has gone free for other crimes and will likely continue to commit crimes if set free now .
What considerations would an act-utilitarian District Attorney take into account when considering what the morally right thing to do is in the case above? Would an act-utilitarian district attorney sit on the evidence and let Smith be convicted, knowing that Smith is not guilty of this crime? Explain.
What considerations would a rule-utilitarian District Attorney take into account when considering what the morally right thing to do is? Would a rule-utilitarian district attorney sit on the evidence and let Smith be convicted, knowing that Smith is not guilty of this crime? Explain.