Paul Stewart

PHI 375
Short Paper I
March 29, 2012

Act Utilitarianism vs. Acceptance Rule Utilitarianism

In the Desert Island Promise, Smart makes a promise to a dying man on a desert island to give

the dying man's horde of gold to a jockey club. After being rescued, Smart instead gives the gold to a

hospital, where it may be supposed that the hospital badly needs new equipment, with which it will

save many lives. Further, it is presupposed that donating to the hospital and breaking the promise is the

overall happiness maximizing course of action. Act utilitarianism is a system of ethics in which an

action is considered moral if that action leads to the greatest amount of happiness in the world, so

clearly an act utilitarian would chose to break his promise to the dying man and donate to the hospital.

Because it is the happiness maximizing action, it is the moral course of action according to act

utilitarianism. However, the happiness maximizing course of action is not always clear; one issue that

act utilitarians face is that they can often suffer from a lack of information that would paralyze the

ability to make a decision regarding what the correct course of action is in any given situation. The

desire to avoid this paralysis in decision making motivates the development of acceptance rule

utilitarianism. Under acceptance rule utilitarianism, a set of rules that, provided that everyone follows

them, generally (but not always) leads to the happiness maximizing course of action is developed.

These rules are not secondary rules or a set of procedural guidelines, but the criteria for right and

wrong. The consequences of following the rules are not considered in individual cases because the

rules are formulated to generally lead to the happiness maximizing courses of action in most cases. If

“always keep promises” is a rule for the acceptance rule utilitarianism in the circumstances described

by the desert island promise, then the moral course of action for the acceptance rule utilitarian is to

keep his promise and donate the gold to the jockey club. Although keeping the promise in this

1/3
particular case is not the happiness maximizing action, it is still the moral action to take.

Now, suppose that there is an omnipotent demon called Demon 1 who decides it will inflict

unprecedented suffering on all human beings unless they are brought up to internalize the moral

principle “Never break a promise under any conditions.” Again examining the Desert Island Promise

scenario, the act utilitarian is compelled to change his response under these conditions. In the initial

case, breaking the promise causes some unhappiness to the members of the jockey club, but a much

higher amount of happiness for the people served by the hospital. Under the altered conditions,

breaking the promise would cause unhappiness to the members of the jockey club and happiness for the

people served by the hospital, but great misery for all of humanity which includes both the members of

the jockey club and the patients of the hospital. By keeping his promise, the act utilitarian would cause

happiness for the jockey club, some amount of unhappiness for the people of the hospital, but would

prevent widespread unhappiness and suffering inflicted by the demon. The balance of happiness is then

greatest in the case where the act utilitarian keeps his promise.

The existence of Demon 1 doesn't change the course of action for the acceptance rule

utilitarianism. As noted previously, the acceptance rule utilitarian already operates under the principle

that (s)he always keeps his or her promises because the rule 'always keep promises' serves as a criteria

for what is morally right. Demon 1 only inflicts suffering when people fail to internalize the rule that

they never break promises and acceptance rule utilitarians have already internalized that rule as a

matter of course.

Alternatively, suppose that there is a different omnipotent demon, Demon 2, who will inflict

great suffering on human beings if they fail to internalize the rule 'Always do the action that produces

the most overall happiness.' In the case of the Desert Island Promise, the act utilitarian is now back to

the original course of action, i.e., breaking his promise and donating the horde of gold to the hospital

rather than the jockey club since this is the course of action that maximizes overall happiness. Indeed,

2/3
Demon 2 forces everyone to be an act utilitarian or suffer grievous consequences.

The existence of Demon 2 posses a significant problem for the acceptance rule utilitarian

because the set of internalized rules that serve as criteria for right and wrong come into conflict. The

first rule, 'always keep promises,' dictates that it is morally wrong to renege on the promise to the dying

man to donate his horde of gold to the jockey club. The second rule 'always do the action that

maximizes overall happiness,' dictates that it is morally wrong to keep the promise to the dying man

because breaking the promise and donating to the hospital is the happiness maximizing action.

Disregarding the consequences of either choice, it would appear that there is no morally right choice

that the acceptance rule utilitarian can make in these circumstances. However, this dilemma can be

solved if the acceptance rule utilitarian has internalized a rule that allows for exceptional cases, e.g.,

'Break the rules if doing so will prevent a disaster.' If this rule has been internalized, then the

acceptance rule utilitarian can break the 'always keep promises' rule in favor of the 'always do the

action that maximizes overall happiness' rule since it prevents the disastrous consequences that Demon

2 has promised to inflict. But the existence of a disaster exception rule poses two problems. First, the

concept of disaster is vague, possibly to the point of undermining the motivation for acceptance rule

utilitarianism. If 'disaster' is not clearly defined, then determining what constitutes a disaster is

arbitrary. Secondly, and more importantly, if such a demon existed then acceptance rule utilitarianism

would collapse into act utilitarianism in every case where following the rules did not lead to the

happiness maximizing action. The acceptance rule utilitarian would be morally obligated to break the

rules in every case where following the rules did not lead to the greatest overall happiness. Since

following the rules generally leads to the happiness maximizing actions except in certain cases, and the

acceptance rule utilitarian is obligated to break the rules in the cases where the rules do not lead to the

happiness maximizing action, there would be no need whatsoever for any rules except for 'do whatever

maximizes overall happiness.'

3/3