t. For instance, based on maximising wellbeing if doctors took decisions to use one persons organs to save five other people that would cause people to not trust care givers. There would be no trust that people are obeying rules if the comman man would just make decisions that allowed any kind of violations of law or cheating for sake of maximising good.

Bernard Williams argued consequentialism required impartiality which focuses on consequences of action and this requirement deprives an individual of their own integrity because the concept of utilitarianism doesn’t differentiate in a person themselves bringing about an outcome vs someone else producing an outcome.

Practically rule consequentialism proves to maximise utility in situations such as traffic rules. It would be safer if everyone followed rules like ‘no drunk driving or speed limit.’ Hence its safer to follow rule utility over act utility in such cases. Act utility would give room for individuals to determine the best action.

A rule based system leads to greater overall utility because people are capable of having bad judgement. Having specific rules to follow maximizes utility by not relying on the drivers’ judgments that could possibly endanger others or themselves too. For instance, based on an individual drivers’ judgements not following the road stop signs over some emergency could endanger many. The stop sign would distinctly set the rule and tell drivers to stop and does not allow them to calculate whether it would be better to stop or not.

Rule consequentialism avoids criticisms of act consequentialism. According to critics, act consequentialism approves of actions that can be wrong, undermine justice, undermine basic trust among people, and its demanding because it requires people to make sacrifices.

Rule consequentialists avoids underming trust because they do not evaluate individual actions