Is utilitarianism capable of accounting for the importance of justice and honesty? Be sure to discuss both rule and act utilitarianism. Do either of these accounts work? Explain your answer.Justice and Honesty: The Rules of Utilitarianism ReconsideredUtilitarianism, with the utility principle or greatest happiness principle at its core, is a consequentialist theory that attaches the greatest importance to the consequences of every action. Although acting justly and honestly does not always result in the best consequences, some criticize conflicts between traditional moral rules or virtues, such as justice and honesty. To respond to this challenge, it is essential to distinguish two types of utilitarianism, one being act utilitarianism. and the other being rule utilitarianism. In order to focus on the question of the relationship between the two moral rules and utilitarianism, I will not compare which type of utilitarianism is more compelling. Rather, I argue that both types of utilitarianism could avoid the conflicts mentioned above and explain the importance of justice and honesty. It is appropriate to define justice and honesty before evaluating the utilitarianism of the act and the utilitarianism of the rule. According to our common understanding, justice means that people should get what is owed to them (Audi), while honesty requires telling the truth and being trustworthy. Although in extreme situations the limits imposed by justice and honesty can be reasonably crossed, it is still widely accepted that these types of limits must be well respected (Deigh 102). In short, justice and honesty are moral rules that can rarely be violated. In this article I would like to highlight the fact that utilitarianism could justify why justice...... middle of article...... role of this essay aims to assess the extent to which both types of utilitarianism defend their positions on the importance of justice and honesty. (Words count: 1476) Works cited1. Audi, Robert. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print.2. Chen, Te. “Utilitarianism of rules and utilitarianism of actions”. The theory of interpretation of ethics. 2 ed. Taipei: Dong da, 200901. 92 - 112. Print.3. Deigh, John. "Utilitarianism." An introduction to ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999. 102. Print.4. Deigh, John. "Utilitarianism." An introduction to ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. 101. Print.5. Rawls, John. “Two concepts of rules”. The Philosophical Review 64.1 (1955): 3-32. Print.6. Smart, JJC. “Extreme and restricted utilitarianism”. The Philosophical Quarterly 6.25 (1956): 344-354. Print.