Utilitarianism says that the test of an action is, not whether it is on the list of forbidden (or alternatively of permitted or enjoined) actions—for there is no such list; it is whether it is likely to contribute to the social good. When I am obliged to decide for or against some act, I must ask myself, not: 'Is this type of action (say adultery, confiscation, deprivation of liberty, deception, etc.) permitted or not?' nor even: 'Is it good in itself?' but: 'Will it do people more good than would any possible alternative?' Or, in other words, it says that morality consists, not in keeping within the list of right actions, but in having the right policy, namely that of doing people more good than harm; and that that policy, like all policies, will be expressed, in different circumstances, by a different type of action, so that theoretically there is no sort of action whatever which could not, in suitable circumstances, become the expression of the right policy; for it is policies, not types of action, which count.
(I. M. Crombie, "Social Clockwork and Utilitarian Morality," in Christian Faith and Communist Faith: A Series of Studies by Members of the Anglican Communion, ed. D. M. MacKinnon [London: Macmillan & Company, 1953], 98-113, at 108-9 [italics in original])
Note from KBJ: Crombie has identified the main divide in normative ethical theory. Deontologists affirm, while consequentialists (e.g., utilitarians) deny, that there are intrinsically wrong acts. That is to say, deontologists affirm, while consequentialists deny, that there is a presumption against certain types of act, such as torturing, killing innocent human beings, and lying. To a consequentialist, any act, of any type, can be justified if enough good would be done (or evil prevented) thereby. Deontologists divide into two categories: absolutists and moderates. Absolutist deontologists hold that intrinsically wrong acts cannot be justified. Fiat justitia, ruat cœlum. Moderate deontologists hold that intrinsically wrong acts can be justified. Bentham was a consequentialist. Kant was an absolutist deontologist. Ross was a moderate deontologist.
Note 2 from KBJ: Let us take torture as our example. The absolutist deontologist says that the presumption against torture is irrebuttable (i.e., conclusive). The moderate deontologist says that the presumption against torture is rebuttable (i.e., inconclusive). The consequentialist says that there is no presumption against torture.
Note 3 from KBJ: Suppose I can save two innocent human beings, but only by killing a third innocent human being. The motto of the absolutist deontologist, who opposes the killing, is "Better two deaths than one murder." The motto of the moderate deontologist, who supports the killing, is "Better one murder than two deaths." The motto of the consequentialist, who supports the killing, is "Better one death than two deaths." (I assume, for the sake of discussion, that the moderate deontologist has a low threshold. If the threshold were higher, say, 50 innocent lives at stake rather than two, the moderate deontologist's motto would be "Better one murder than 50 deaths.")
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 