What are the differences between the "act utilitarianism" and "rule utilitarianism" theories of ethical thought?

What will be an ideal response?

Act utilitarians determine if an action is right or wrong on the basis of whether that individual act alone brings net happiness to society, as opposed to whether other alternatives would bring more or less net happiness. Rule utilitarians argue that an act is ethically right if the performance of similar acts by all similar agents would produce the best results in society or has done so in the past. Rule utilitarians take the position that whatever applicable rule has been established by political representatives must be followed and should serve as a standard in the evaluation of similar acts. If payment of bribes has been determined by the society to bring net happiness, and a rule allowing bribes exists, then rule utilitarians would allow the bribe. In contrast, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended in 1988, which forbids paying bribes to foreign government officials to get business that would not have been obtained without such a payment, is an example of a standard that rule utilitarians would argue must be followed but that would lead to a different result.