Final answer:
The statement is True; rule-utilitarianism assesses the morality of rules based on the happiness they produce if consistently followed, unlike act utilitarianism, which looks at the consequences of each individual action.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that rule-utilitarianism offers a litmus test only for the morality of moral rules, such as "stealing is wrong," and not for each particular action is True. Rule utilitarianism is a form of utilitarianism that proposes we should use the greatest happiness principle to determine the morality of rules of conduct intended to maximize happiness if consistently followed over time. By contrast, act utilitarianism assesses each individual action based on the outcome of that specific scenario to maximize utility.
Rule utilitarianism puts forth the idea that instead of looking at the consequences of each isolated act, we should adopt moral rules that would lead to the greatest good if followed generally. By doing so, this approach accounts for the cumulative effect of actions and aims to prevent the negative outcomes that might arise from everyone following a utility-maximizing act in isolation, which could have harmful long-term consequences.