Final answer:
Act-utilitarianism indeed prioritizes the net happiness that comes directly from performing an action over following a general rule, which is true. It emphasizes case-by-case evaluations to maximize happiness. In contrast, rule-utilitarianism focuses on following pre-established rules known to generally maximize happiness.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement asks whether in act-utilitarianism the net happiness resulting directly from an action is what matters most, rather than following a rule that applies to such actions.
This is true. In act-utilitarianism, the focus is on assessing each individual action based on the extent to which it maximizes happiness and minimizes pain, regardless of predefined rules or principles.
The emphasis is on the consequences of the specific action, which means each situation must be evaluated on its own merits to determine the right thing to do, thus aiming to achieve the greatest net happiness.
Conversely, rule-utilitarianism is concerned with establishing a set of rules that generally tend to maximize happiness.
According to rule-utilitarianism, individual actions should comply with these rules that have been vetted to ensure they produce more overall happiness. These rules are subject to revision as they are re-evaluated against the greatest happiness principle.
Both act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism seek to apply the greatest happiness principle articulated by philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, which suggests actions are right if they tend to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
However, they differ on the method of applying this principle—with act-utilitarianism looking at the immediate consequences of individual actions and rule-utilitarianism focusing on adhering to rules that are designed to produce the greatest happiness in the long run.