Utilitarianism and J.S.

Mill choice was that which promoted the interests of the

greater number. The utilitarians were progressive in
that they questioned the status quo. They believed
Source: Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues that if, for example, the contemporary punishment
(8TH Edition) by Barbara McKinnon and Andrew system was not working well, then it ought to be
changed. Social programs should be judged by their
Fiala, Cengage Learning: Stamford, 2015, pp. 94- usefulness in promoting the greatest happiness for
101. the greatest number. Observation would determine
whether a project or practice succeeded in this goal.
Thus, utilitarianism is part of the empiricist tradition
in philosophy, which holds that we know what is
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND good only by observation or by appeal to experience.
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill Bentham and Mill were also optimists. They believed
The classical formulation of utilitarian moral theory that human wisdom and science would improve the
is found in the writings of Jeremy Bentham (1748– lot of humanity. Mill wrote in Utilitarianism, “All
1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806–1873). Jeremy the grand sources of human suffering are in a great
Bentham was an English-born student of law and degree, many of them almost entirely, conquerable
the leader of a radical movement for social and legal
reform based on utilitarian principles. His primary by human care and effort.”8
published work was Introduction to the Principles
of Morals and Legislation (1789). The title itself In this chapter, you will learn about the basic
indicates his aim,—namely, to take the same principles principle of utilitarianism and how it is used to make
that provide the basis for morals as a guide for moral judgments in individual cases. You will also
the formation and revision of law. Bentham believed learn something about different forms of utilitarianism.
that the same principles guided both social and personal Finally, you will get a chance to examine a few
morality. criticisms of utilitarianism so as to judge for yourself
James Mill, the father of John Stuart Mill, was an whether it is a reasonable theory.
associate of Bentham’s and a supporter of his views. THE PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY
John Stuart was the eldest of James’s nine children. The basic moral principle of utilitarianism is called
He was educated in the classics and history at home. the principle of utility or the greatest happiness
By the time he was twenty, he had read Bentham principle. As John Stuart Mill explained it (and as
and had become a devoted follower of his philosophy. you will see in the reading that follows) “actions are
The basic ideas of utilitarian moral theory are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness,
summarized in Mill’s short work Utilitarianism, in wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of
which he sought to dispel the misconception that happiness.”
morality has nothing to do with usefulness or utility Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism.
or that morality is opposed to pleasure. Mill was It focuses on the consequences of actions. Egoism is
also a strong supporter of personal liberty, and in his also a form of consequentialism. But unlike egoism,
pamphlet On Liberty he argued that the only reason utilitarianism focuses on the consequences for all
for society to interfere in a person’s life was to prevent persons impacted by an action. Consider the diagram
him or her from doing harm to others. People used to classify moral theories provided in Chapter 1.
might choose wrongly, but he believed that allowing Motive Act Consequences
bad choices was better than government coercion. According to classical utilitarian moral theory,
Liberty to speak one’s own opinion, he believed, when we evaluate human acts or practices, we consider
would benefit all. However, it is not clear that utility neither the nature of the acts or practices nor the motive
is always served by promoting liberty. Nor is it clear for which people do what they do. As Mill
what Mill would say about cases in which liberty put it, “He who saves a fellow creature from drowning
must be restricted to promote the general good, as does what is morally right, whether his motive
in the case of speed limits or airport security rules. be duty or the hope of being paid for his trouble.”9
In his work On the Subjection of Women, Mill also It is the result of one’s action—that a life is saved—
emphasized the general good and criticized those that matters morally. According to utilitarianism,
social treatments of women that did not allow them we ought to decide which action or practice is best
to develop their talents and contribute to the good by considering the likely or actual consequences of
of society. Consistent with these views, he also supported each alternative. For example, over the years people
the right of women to vote. Later in life he married his have called for a suicide barrier on the Golden Gate
longtime companion and fellow liberal, Bridge to prevent people from using it to commit suicide.
Harriet Taylor. Mill also served in the British Parliament More than 1,400 people have jumped from the
from 1865 to 1868. bridge to their deaths.10 Building a suicide barrier on
The original utilitarians were democratic, progressive, a bridge is neither good nor bad in itself, according to
empiricist, and optimistic. They were democratic utilitarianism. Nor is it sufficient that people supporting
in the sense that they believed that social the building of such a barrier be well intentioned.
policy ought to work for the good of all persons, The only thing that matters for the utilitarian is whether, by
not just the upper class. They believed that when erecting such a barrier, we would actually
interests of various persons conflicted, the best increase happiness by preventing suicides.
PLEASURE AND HAPPINESS In Mill’s view, we should consider the range of
Of course, there is an open question about whether types of pleasure in our attempts to decide what
suicide is good or bad. Some will argue that there the best action is. We also ought to consider other
is something inherently or intrinsically wrong with aspects of the pleasurable or happy experience. According
suicide. The deontologist Immanuel Kant provides to the greatest happiness or utility principle,
this sort of argument, as you will see in the next we must measure, count, and compare the pleasurable
chapter, maintaining that suicide is wrong in principle. experiences likely to be produced by various
But utilitarians cannot argue that suicide is alternative actions in order to know which is best.
intrinsically wrong—since they do not focus on the CALCULATING THE GREATEST AMOUNT
intrinsic rightness or wrongness of acts. Instead, OF HAPPINESS
utilitarians have to consider the impact of suicide on Utilitarianism is not an egoistic theory. As we noted
the happiness of all those it affects. in the previous chapter’s presentation on egoism,
Since utilitarians reject the idea that certain those versions of egoism that said we ought to take
acts are intrinsically good or evil, they are open to care of ourselves because this works out better for
experimentation and evidence. And they are open to all in the long run are actually versions of utilitarianism,
various ways of conceiving the goodness of consequences. not egoism. Some philosophers have called
Any sort of consequences might be considered utilitarianism universalistic because it is the happiness
good—for example, power or fame or fortune. or pleasure of all who are affected by an action
However, classical utilitarianism is a pleasure or or practice that is to be considered. We are not just
happiness theory, meaning that it tends to reduce to consider our own good, as in egoism, nor just the
all other goods to some form of pleasure or happiness. good of others, as in altruism. Sacrifice may be good,
Utilitarianism was not the first such theory to but not in itself. As Mill puts it, “A sacrifice which
appear in the history of philosophy. Aristotle’s ethics, does not increase or tend to increase the sum total of
as we shall see in Chapter 8, also focuses on happiness, (utilitarianism) considers as wasted.”12
happiness, although it is different from utilitarianism Everyone affected by some action is to be counted
in its focus on virtue. Closer to utilitarianism is the classical equally. We ourselves hold no privileged place, so our own
theory that has come to be known as happiness counts no more than that of others.
hedonism (from hedon, the Greek word for pleasure) I may be required to do what displeases me but
or Epicureanism (named after Epicurus, pleases others. Thus, in the following scenario, Act
341–270 BCE). Epicurus held that the good life B is a better choice than Act A:
was the pleasant life. For him, this meant avoiding Act A makes me happy and two other people happy.
distress and desires for things beyond one’s basic
Act B makes me unhappy but five others happy.
needs. Bodily pleasure and mental delight and peace
In addition to counting each person equally,
were the goods to be sought in life.
Bentham and his followers identified five elements
Utilitarians believe that pleasure or happiness
that are used to calculate the greatest amount of
is the good to be produced. As Bentham put it,
happiness: the net amount of pleasure or happiness,
“Nature has placed mankind under the governance
its intensity, its duration, its fruitfulness, and the
of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is
likelihood of any act to produce it.13
for them alone to point out what we ought to do,
as well as to determine what we shall do.”11 Things Pleasure Minus Pain Almost every alternative that
such as fame, fortune, education, and freedom may we choose produces unhappiness or pain as well as
be good, but only to the extent that they produce happiness or pleasure for ourselves, if not for others.
pleasure or happiness. In philosophical terms, they Pain is intrinsically bad, and pleasure is intrinsically
are instrumental goods because they are useful for good. Something that produces pain may be accepted,
attaining the goals of happiness and pleasure. but only if it causes more pleasure overall.
Happiness and pleasure are the only intrinsic For instance, if the painfulness of a punishment deters
goods—that is, the only things good in themselves. an unwanted behavior, then we ought to punish
In this explanation of utilitarianism, you may but no more than is necessary or useful. When an
have noticed the seeming identification of pleasure act produces both pleasure or happiness and pain or
and happiness. In classical utilitarianism, there is unhappiness, we can think of each moment of unhappiness
no difference between pleasure and happiness. Both as canceling out a moment of happiness
terms refer to a kind of psychic state of satisfaction. so that what is left to evaluate is the remaining or
However, there are different types of pleasure net happiness or unhappiness. We are also to think of
of which humans are capable. According to Mill, we pleasure and pain as coming in bits or moments.
experience a range of pleasures or satisfactions from We can then calculate this net amount by adding
the physical satisfaction of hunger to the personal and subtracting units of pleasure and displeasure.
satisfaction of a job well done. Aesthetic pleasures, This is a device for calculating the greatest amount
such as the enjoyment of watching a beautiful sunset, of happiness even if we cannot make mathematically
are yet another type of pleasure. We also can exact calculations. The following simplified
experience intellectual pleasures such as the peculiar equation indicates how the net utility for two acts,
satisfaction of making sense out of something. A and B, might be determined. We can think of the
Mill’s theory includes the idea that there are higher, units as either happy persons or days of happiness:
uniquely human pleasures—as we will explain Act A produces twelve units of happiness and six of
below. unhappiness (12 2 6 5 6 units of happiness).
Act B produces ten units of happiness and one of we must estimate the likely results of each before
unhappiness (10 2 1 5 9 units of happiness). we compare their net utility. If we are considering
On this measure, Act B is preferable because it produces whether to go out for some sports competition, for
a greater net amount of happiness, namely, example, we should consider our chances of doing
nine units compared with six for Act A. well. We might have greater hope of success trying
something else. It may turn out that we ought to
Intensity Moments of happiness or pleasure are choose an act with lesser rather than greater beneficial
results if the chances of it happening are better.
not all alike. Some are more intense than others.
It is not only the chances that would count but also
The thrill of some exciting adventure—say, running
the size of the prize. In the following equation, A is
river rapids—may produce a more intense pleasure
preferable to B. In this case, “A bird in the hand is
than the serenity we feel standing before a beautiful
vista. All else being equal, the more intense the worth two in the bush,” as the old saying goes: Act A has a
pleasure, the better. All other factors being equal, if I 90 percent chance of giving eight people
have an apple to give away and am deciding which each five days of pleasure (40 days 3 0.90 5 36 days
of two friends to give it to, I ought to give it to the of pleasure).
friend who will enjoy it most. In calculations involving Act B has a 40 percent chance of giving ten people
intensity of pleasure, a scale is sometimes useful. each seven days of pleasure (70 days 3 0.40 5 28
For example, we could use a positive scale of 1 days of pleasure).
to 10 degrees, from the least pleasurable to the most
pleasurable. In the following scenario, then, Act B
QUANTITY VS. QUALITY OF PLEASURE
is better (all other things being equal) than Act A, Bentham and Mill are in agreement that the more
even though Act A gives pleasure to thirty more pleasure or happiness, the better. However, there is
people; this result is because of the greater intensity one significant difference between them. According
of pleasure produced by Act B: to Bentham, we ought to consider only the quantity
of pleasure or happiness brought about by various
Act A gives forty people each mild pleasure
acts; how much pleasure, to how many people, how
(40 3 2 5 80 degrees of pleasure). intense it is, how long-lasting, how fruitful, and
Act B gives ten people each intense pleasure how likely the desired outcome will occur. Consider
(10 3 10 5 100 degrees of pleasure). Bentham’s own comment on this point: The “quantity
Duration Intensity is not all that matters regarding of pleasure being equal, pushpin (a children’s
pleasure. The more serene pleasure may last longer. game) is as good as poetry.”14 The aesthetic or intellectual
This also must be factored in our calculation. The pleasure that one might derive from reading
longer lasting the pleasure, the better, all else being and understanding a poem is no better in itself than
equal. Thus, in the following scenario, Act A is better the simple pleasure of playing a mindless game.
than Act B because it gives more total days of Mill agreed with Bentham that the greater amount
pleasure or happiness. This is so even though it affects of pleasure and happiness, the better. But Mill also
fewer people (a fact that raises questions about believed that the quality of the pleasure should also
how the number of people counts in comparison to count. In his autobiography, Mill describes a personal
the total amount of happiness): crisis in which he realized that he had not found
Act A gives three people each eight days of happiness sufficient place in his life for aesthetic experiences;
(3 3 8 5 24 days of happiness). he realized that this side of the human personality
Act B gives six people each two days of happiness also needed developing and that these pleasures
(6 3 2 5 12 days of happiness). were significantly different from others. This experience
Fruitfulness A more serene pleasure from contemplating and his thoughts about it may have led him to
nature may or may not be more fruitful focus on the quality of pleasures. Some are intrinsically
than an exciting pleasure such as that derived better than others, he believed. Intellectual
from running rapids. The fruitfulness of experiencing pleasures, for example, are more valuable in themselves
pleasure depends on whether it makes us more capable of than purely sensual pleasures. Although he
experiencing similar or other pleasures. does not tell us how much more valuable they are
For example, the relaxing event may make one person (twice as valuable?), he clearly believed this greater
more capable of experiencing other pleasures of value ought to be factored into our calculation of the
friendship or understanding, whereas the thrilling “greatest amount of happiness.” Although I may
event may do the same for another. The fruitfulness not always be required to choose a book over food
depends not only on the immediate pleasure but (for example, I may now need the food more than
also on the long-term results. Indulging in immediate the book), the intellectual pleasures that might be
pleasure may bring pain later on, as we know derived from reading the book are of a higher quality than
only too well! So also the pain today may be the the pleasures gained from eating.
only way to prevent more pain tomorrow. The dentist’s Mill attempts to prove or show that intellectual
work on our teeth may be painful today, but pleasures are better than sensual ones. We are to
it makes us feel better in the long run by providing ask people who have experienced a range of pleasures
us with pain-free meals and undistracted, enjoyable whether they would prefer to live a life of a
mealtime conversations. human, despite all its disappointments and pains,
or the life of an animal, which is full of pleasures
Likelihood If before acting we are attempting to
but only sensual pleasures. He believes that people
decide between two available alternative actions,
generally would choose the former. They would prefer, theory is simple in its application.
as he puts it, “to be a human being dissatisfied A more difficult problem in how to apply the principle
than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied of utility comes from Mill’s specific formulation
than a fool satisfied.”15 Socrates, as you may of it. It may well be that in some cases, at least,
know, was often frustrated in his attempts to know one cannot both maximize happiness and make the
certain things. He struggled to get a grasp on true greatest number of people happy. Thus, one choice
beauty and true justice. Because human beings have may produce 200 units of happiness—but for just
greater possibilities for knowledge and achievement, one person. The other alternative might produce 150
they also have greater potential for failure, units of happiness, 50 for each of three people. If
pain, and frustration. The point of Mill’s argument is the maximization of overall happiness is taken as
that the only reason we would prefer a life of fewer net primary, then we should go with the first choice; if
pleasures (the dissatisfactions subtracted from the number of people is to take precedence, then we
the total satisfactions of human life) to a life of a should go with the second choice. Most readings of
greater total amount of pleasures (the life of the pig) Mill, however, suggest that he would give preference
is that we value something other than the amount to the overall maximization of utility. In that case,
(quantity) of pleasures; we value the kind (quality) how the happiness was distributed (to one versus
of pleasures as well.16 When considering this argument, three) would not in itself count.
you might ask yourself two questions. First,
would people generally prefer to be Socrates than a Utilitarianism and Personal Integrity
pig? Second, if Mill is correct in his factual assessment, A more substantive criticism of utilitarianism concerns
then what does this fact prove? Could it be its universalist and maximizing agenda; that
that people are mistaken about what kinds of pleasures we should always do that which maximizes overall
are the best, as Socrates himself often implied? happiness. Many critics have noted that utilitarian
This points us back to the question of whether happiness theory does not allow us to privilege our own happiness
is merely a subjective preference or whether over that of others. Nor can we privilege the
happiness resides in a more objective standard. happiness of those we love. In determining what to
EVALUATING UTILITARIANISM do, I can give no more weight to my own projects
The following are just some of the many considerations or my own children than other people’s similar projects
raised by those who wish to determine or others’ children. For some philosophers, the
whether utilitarianism is a valid moral theory. Application idea that I must treat all persons equally is contrary
of the Principle to common sense, which tells us that we ought to
One reaction that students often have to calculating care for our own children more than we care for the
the greatest amount of happiness is that this theory children of distant others. Utilitarians might respond
is too complex. When we consider all of the variables that we should probably give more attention to our
concerning pleasure and happiness that are own projects and our own children, but only because
to be counted when trying to estimate the “greatest this is likely to have better results overall. We know
amount of pleasure or happiness,” the task of doing better how to promote our own projects and have
so looks extremely difficult. We must consider how more motivation to do so. Thus, giving preference to
many people will be affected by alternative actions, ourselves will probably be more effective.
whether they will be pleased or pained by them, how
pleased or pained they will be and for how long, A further objection maintains that there is something
and the likelihood that what we estimate will happen wrong if utilitarianism requires us to not give
will, in fact, come to be. In addition, if we want preference to ourselves and to our own personal
to follow Mill rather than Bentham, we must consider moral commitments. Utilitarianism appears to be an
whether the pleasures will be the more lowly affront to our personal integrity.17 The idea is that
sensual pleasures, the higher types of more intellectual utilitarianism seems to imply that I am not important
pleasures, or something in between. However, from my own point of view. However, a utilitarian
in reality we may at any one time have to consider might respond that it is important that people regard
only a couple of these variables, depending on their themselves as unique and give due consideration to
relevance to the moral question we are considering. their own interests because this will probably have
The point of this criticism is that no one can consider better consequences both for these individuals and
all of the variables that utilitarianism requires the broader society.
us to consider; the probable consequences of our Ends and Means
action to all affected in terms of duration, intensity, A second criticism concerns utilitarianism’s
fruitfulness, likelihood, and type or quality of pleasure. consequentialist
It also requires us to have a common unit of measurement character. You may have heard the phrase
of pleasure. (Elementary units called “The end justifies the means.” People often utter this
hedons have been suggested.) The difficulty is finding phrase with a certain amount of disdain. Utilitarianism,
a way to reduce pleasures of all kinds to some as a consequentialist moral theory, holds that it
common or basic unit of measurement. A utilitarian is the consequences or ends of our actions that determine
could respond to these criticisms by arguing that whether particular means to them are justified.
while this complexity indicates no one can be a perfect This seems to lead to conclusions that are contrary
judge of utility, we do make better judgments to commonsense morality. For example, wouldn’t it
if we are able to consider these variables. No moral justify punishing or torturing an innocent person, a
“scapegoat,” in order to prevent a great evil or to 3-D virtual reality representation of a run-away boxcar
promote a great good? Or could we not justify on that threatened to crash into a group of people.20
utilitarian grounds the killing of some individuals for One issue exposed by these sorts of studies is that
the sake of the good of a greater number, perhaps in people respond differently when confronted with the
the name of population control? Or could I not make an choice of doing something (pulling the lever to divert
exception for myself from obeying a law, alleging the train into the group of people) or not doing something
that it is for some greater long-term good? Utilitarians (allowing the train to crash into the group).
might respond by noting that such actions One conclusion of this sort of research is that sometimes
or practices will probably do more harm than good, there are conflicts in how we actually react and
especially if we take a long-range view. In particular, how we think we should react to morally fraught
they might point out that practices allowing the situations. Other inquiries have considered whether
punishment utilitarian calculation involves a sort of “coldness”
of known innocents would undermine the that runs counter to empathy and other emotional
legitimacy and deterrent effect of the law—and thus responses.21 One recent study (2011) by Daniel
reduce overall utility. Bartels and David Pizarro concludes, “participants
THE TROLLEY PROBLEM who indicated greater endorsement of utilitarian
One particular problem for utilitarianism is exemplified solutions had higher scores on measures of psychopathy,
by what has come to be called the trolley Machiavellianism, and life meaninglessness.”
22 This conclusion appears to follow from the fact that the
problem.18 According to one version of this scenario,
imagine you find yourself beside a train track, utilitarian decision—to kill one in order
on which a trolley is speeding toward a junction. to save others—asks us to overcome an emotional
On the track ahead of the trolley are five workers
who will all be killed if the trolley continues on its current or instinctual aversion to harming others. And yet,
course. You have access to a switch, and if it might be that—from the utilitarian point of view—
you pull it the trolley will be diverted onto another this is exactly what we should do in order to bring
track where it will kill only one worker. According to about greater happiness for the greatest number. The
utilitarianism, if nothing else is relevant, you would psychological research into the dilemmas generated
not only be permitted but required to pull the switch, by utilitarianism is interesting. But the normative
which would result in one death and five lives or moral question remains. Moral philosophy is not
saved. From a utilitarian standpoint, it is obvious merely interested in the psychological question of
that you should pull the switch, since not pulling the how we react in these situations, it is also concerned
switch would result in greater net loss of life. Now with the question of how we ought to react.
compare this scenario with another. In this case, ACT AND RULE UTILITARIANISM
you find yourself on a bridge over a single trolley Utilitarianism may appear to justify any action just
track with the five workers below you. Next to you so long as it has better consequences than other
on the bridge is an enormously fat man. The only available actions. Therefore, cheating, stealing,
way to stop the trolley in this case is to push the lying, and breaking promises may all seem to be justified,
fat man off the bridge and onto the tracks ahead of depending on whether they maximize happiness
the workers. Would you be permitted to do this? In in some particular case. In response to this type
both cases, five lives would be saved and one lost. of criticism, contemporary utilitarians often focus on
But are the cases the same morally? It would seem general rules instead of on individual acts. The version
that according to utilitarianism, in which only the of utilitarianism that focuses on rules is usually
results matter, the cases would morally be the same. called rule utilitarianism. This is contrasted with
However, it is the intuition of most people that the act utilitarianism, which focuses solely on the
second case is significantly different. You can’t kill consequences of specific individual acts.
one person to save five. To take another example,
it seems clear that a doctor who has five patients Both are forms of utilitarianism. They are alike in
needing organ transplants to save their lives should requiring us to produce the greatest amount of happiness
not be permitted to take those organs out of another for the greatest number of people. They differ
healthy patient, causing his death. in what they believe we ought to consider in estimating
It is important to note that versions of the trolley the consequences. Act utilitarianism states
problem have been employed by psychologists that we ought to consider the consequences of each
to probe human decision-making procedures. Some act separately. Rule utilitarianism states that we
of this research examines how different parts of the brain ought to consider the consequences of the act performed
are involved in different ways of making decisions as a general practice.23
that involve moral dilemmas.19 This sort of Take the following example. Sue is considering
research investigates the psychological sources of whether to keep or break her promise to go out to
our decisions—whether emotional responses predominate, dinner with Ken. She believes that if she breaks this
whether we actually do calculate costs promise in order to do something else with other
and benefits, and whether we tend to feel bound to friends, then Ken will be unhappy—but she and the
abstract moral rules. One recent study (2012) used a other friends will be happier. According to act
virtual reality version of the trolley problem to pursue utilitarianism,
this question. It found that 89 percent of people if the consequences of her breaking the
chose the utilitarian option when confronted with at promise are better than keeping it, then she ought
to break it. in certain ways—not what would happen if we acted
Act utilitarianism: Consider the consequences of in certain ways but will not happen because we are
some particular act such as keeping or breaking one’s not going to so act. Rule utilitarians can claim that
promise. acts are similar to one another and so can be thought
of as practices. My lying in one case to get myself
out of a difficulty is similar to others’ lying in other
A rule utilitarian, on the other hand, would tell
cases to get themselves out of difficulties. Because
Sue to consider what the results would be if everyone
we should make the same judgments about similar
broke promises or broke them in similar situations.
cases (for consistency’s sake), we should judge this
The question “What if everyone did that?” is
act by comparing it with the results of the actions of
familiar to us. According to rule utilitarianism, Sue
everyone in similar circumstances. We can thus evaluate
should ask what the results would be if breaking
the general practice of “lying to get oneself out
promises in similar circumstances became a general
of a difficulty.” You can be the judge of which form of
practice or a general rule that people followed.
utilitarian reasoning is more persuasive.
It is likely that trust in promises would be weakened.
This outcome would be bad, she might think,
because if we could not trust one another to keep
promises, then we would generally be less capable
of making plans and relating to one another—two
important sources of human happiness. So, even if
there would be no general breakdown in trust from
just this one instance of promise-breaking, Sue
should still probably keep her promise according to
rule utilitarian thinking.
Rule utilitarianism: Consider the consequences of
some practice or rule of behavior—for example, the
practice of promise-keeping or promise-breaking.

Another way to understand the method of reasoning

used by the rule utilitarian is the following:
I should ask what would be the best practice.
For example, regarding promises, what rule would
have the better results when people followed that
rule? Would it be the rule or practice “Never break
a promise made”? At the other end of the spectrum
would be the rule or practice “Keep promises only if
the results of doing so would be better than breaking
them.” (This actually amounts to a kind of act
utilitarian reasoning.) However, there might be a
better rule yet, such as “Always keep your promise
unless doing so would have very serious harmful
consequences.” If this rule were followed, then
people would generally have the benefits of being
able to say, “I promise,” and have people generally
believe and trust them. The fact that the promise
would not be kept in some limited circumstances
would probably not do great harm to the practice of
making promises.
Some utilitarians go further and ask us to think
about sets of rules. It is not only the practice of
promise-keeping that we should evaluate but also a
broader set of related practices regarding truthfulness

and bravery and care for children (for example).

Moreover, we should think of these rules as forming
a system in which there are rules for priority and
stringency. These rules would tell us which practices
are more important and how important they are compared
to the others. We should then do what the best
system of moral rules dictates, where best is still
defined in terms of the maximization of happiness.24
Which form of utilitarianism is better is a matter
of dispute. Act utilitarians can claim that we ought to
consider only what will or is likely to happen if we act