would give us nothing but the overall best consequences. Further, utilitarianism explains why we should treat people justly, not violate their rights and keep our promises. Because doing so promotes good consequences. Far from being incompatible with common sense, utilitarianism is common sense. In chapter 8 of Rachels’ book he had replied that sometimes ignoring moral common sense does bring about good results and so utilitarianism sometimes does disrupt common sense.
The version of utilitarianism claims that right acts are those that follow the set of rules whose existence would maximize happiness overall. The rule of utilitarianism can easily reply to the anti-utilitarian arguments.
Which rule would bring about more happiness overall: Sentencing and punishing innocent people or a rule that prohibits that? Since it is clearly the second rule, then the right act is to follow that rule. There are times where the justice system doesn’t follow that rule. Does a rule allowing the violation of people's rights bring about more happiness than a rule prohibiting actions that violate people's rights? No, so follow the rule prohibiting the violation of people's rights. Rules against lying, and in favor of loyalty (favoritism) to friends/family would also promote the greatest happiness and so following those rules is