Act utilitarianism states that in all cases the morally right action is the one which produces the most pleasure, whereas rule utilitarianism states that the morally right action is the one that is in accordance with a moral rule whose general observance would create the most happiness.
Did Wittgenstein ask Popper for an example of a moral rule?
Not only is it allowable to inflict pain on a person who has broken a moral rule; it is wrong not to, to "let them get away with it".
"For this book, I really have the feeling of having transgressed not only a ban from my family, but also a moral rule by which I normally abide," he explains.
To see how social situations affect honesty, they created tests that made it easy to cheat, then looked at what happened if they reminded people right before the test of a moral rule.
The squabble took place in 1946 in a Cambridge tutorial room, where Wittgenstein either did or did not threaten Popper with a poker and Popper either did or did not, when asked by Wittgenstein to give an instance of a moral rule, say, "Not to threaten visiting lecturers with pokers".
Popper recalled that Wittgenstein 'had been nervously playing with the poker', which he used 'like a conductor's baton to emphasize his assertions', and when a question came up about the status of ethics, Wittgenstein challenged him to give an example of a moral rule.
He develops a list of features relevant to whether the violation of a moral rule should be generally allowed.
An individual may know and may even accept a moral rule, such as, say, it is wrong to cheat the customs.
Since response to a moral rule is ultimately an individual or private affair, the notion of tiboa (conscience) is of great importance to our moral life.
So a moral rule can be justified by showing that it rules out only choices that presuppose something false about the basic goods.
