Act Consequentialism focuses on the consequences of a specific action, rather than the consequences of a set of rules or the intentions of the agent.

Rule Consequentialism evaluates the rightness or wrongness of an action based on the consequences of following a rule that permits the action, rather than the consequences of the action itself.

A key difference between Act Consequentialism and Rule Consequentialism is that Act Consequentialism evaluates the rightness or wrongness of individual actions, while Rule Consequentialism evaluates the rightness or wrongness of general rules.

Act Consequentialism is often criticized for leading to moral dilemmas, moral uncertainty, and moral relativism, as it can be difficult to determine the consequences of an action in all cases and to balance the consequences of different actions.

Rule Consequentialism is often criticized for being too rigid, inflexible, and abstract, as it can lead to situations where following a rule may have negative consequences, even if breaking the rule would have led to better consequences.

This argument exemplifies Act Consequentialism, as it considers the consequences of a specific action (lying) in a particular situation (saving a life) and concludes that the action may be permissible in that context.

This argument exemplifies Rule Consequentialism, as it asserts that lying is always wrong, regardless of the consequences in a particular situation. It focuses on the consequences of following a general rule against lying.

Act Consequentialism is often criticized for all of these reasons, as it can be challenging to accurately predict the consequences of an action, it can lead to situations where different actions have conflicting consequences, and it can create uncertainty about the rightness or wrongness of an action.

Rule Consequentialism is often criticized for all of these reasons, as it can lead to situations where following a rule may have negative consequences, it can be too rigid and inflexible to accommodate exceptional circumstances, and it can be difficult to apply in practice due to its abstract nature.

John Stuart Mill is a prominent philosopher associated with Act Consequentialism. He argued that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined solely by its consequences.

Immanuel Kant is a prominent philosopher associated with Rule Consequentialism. He argued that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by whether it conforms to a universal moral rule.

Act Consequentialism is sometimes referred to as Teleological Ethics because it focuses on the consequences of actions as the primary determinant of their rightness or wrongness.

Rule Consequentialism is sometimes referred to as Deontological Ethics because it focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions based on their conformity to moral rules, rather than their consequences.

Act Consequentialism and Deontological Ethics differ in their focus on consequences vs. intentions, individual actions vs. general rules, and the allowance for exceptions to rules.

Rule Consequentialism and Virtue Ethics differ in their focus on consequences vs. character, general rules vs. individual actions, and the allowance for exceptions to rules.