Which makes more sense? No "both", no "neither",

It seems like they're trying to address fundamentally different issues.

Rule utilitarianism, obviously.

Fuck you if you think I'm about to type out a justification, though.

>>2172408

The image is actually misleading. Benthamite utilitarianism definitely takes a social-ends perspective and is geared toward social engineering at the macro level.

>>2172392


There exists an impression of the world and its events, or those events possibilities in consideration, in the mind, but these thoughts are not the world, they are just our 'logical space'.

In that, any 'rule' that is to govern our actions must be first made in propositions about the nature of the universe and its changing qualities. I imagine, and observe, that this impression of existence and its happening parts, always falls short, understanding or knowing those other unseen parts positions in space-time. In that, we know only our known-knowns.

The mind, and its logical space, are not for carrying rules and beliefs - not in ways that keep it from thriving. The mind, after all, is an emergent part of our material being, which we understand only in academia and practice based on consequences and congruence with our logic.

Rules maintain an order among humans, they don't apply to the material world, they just coincide in existence as we do with the rest of existence.

Why?

Well, is it not obvious that the problems with static-conceptual rules and a consequential/material universe, those problems that create legal paradox or precedence, are not more than an inability to use our flexible TOOL like minds to problem-solve our every moments, rather than guide out lives.
Therefore, Act Utilitarianism is superior to the purpose of the mind acting as a being. It serves a more congruent purpose to the individuals use of mind.

Rule utilitarianism only serves social order, which is necessary for social continuity and harmony. Where as, act utilitarianism seems to promote ethical thriving and possibly a more congruent survival.

Why are you forcing this dilemma? Isn't this the whole reason two-level utilitarianism exists in the first place?
2/10 for making me reply

>>2172392
Neither, utilitarianism is evil.

>consequentialism
ANGLOS GET OUT REEEEEEEEEEE