Utilitarianism has the reputation of being a theory with considerable intuitive appeal. Some are attracted to it merely by its simplicity, but there is more to its appeal than simplicity, as is shown by the fact that those who defend pluralistic ethical theories almost always include some kind of utilitarian principle among the things they value or regard as duties. While it is common for writers in ethics to deny that utilitarian considerations are the only valid moral considerations, it is quite rare for them to deny utilitarian considerations any place at all in their moral systems. For instance, intuitionists like W. D. Ross and H. J. McCloskey are strong critics of utilitarianism; but they both include duties of beneficence—promoting happiness and relieving suffering—in their list of prima facie duties. This, I suggest, is evidence that utilitarianism has a kind of appeal unique in moral theory. There is no other theory of value, or of duty, that receives this form of partial recognition from its opponents. (There can be no other, since utilitarians do not recognize any nonutilitarian values or duties.)
(Peter Singer, "A Utilitarian Population Principle," chap. 5 in Ethics and Population, ed. Michael D. Bayles [Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company, 1976], 81-99, at 85 [endnote omitted])
Note from KBJ: Many people find utilitarianism appalling rather than appealing. Here is a partial list of philosophers who reject it: John Rawls, Thomas Nagel, Immanuel Kant, Robert Nozick, Ronald Dworkin, Charles Fried, G. E. M. Anscombe, Peter Geach, Bernard Williams, John Finnis, Alan Donagan, Stuart Hampshire, Joel Feinberg, J. L. Mackie, Bernard Gert, Judith Jarvis Thomson, Thomas Scanlon, Samuel Scheffler, William Frankena, H. J. McCloskey, W. D. Ross, Roger Scruton, H. A. Prichard, and Robert P. George. If that sounds like a Who's Who of moral philosophy, it is!
Note 2 from KBJ: Singer is being disingenuous when he says that intuitionists (i.e., deontologists) such as Ross and McCloskey give "utilitarian considerations" a place in their moral systems. They do no such thing. Utilitarians say that there is only one duty: beneficence. Ross and McCloskey say that beneficence is one duty among many, and that in particular cases it can be outweighed by other considerations, such as the duty to keep promises, the duty to refrain from doing harm, and the duty to do justice. This is a flat-out rejection of utilitarianism. Utilitarians take a good thing—beneficence—and make it the only good thing. This isn't simplicity; it's simplemindedness.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 