Britannica Sources used in this answer

How do utilitarians answer the objection that occasional lying could have good consequences?

Created from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.

Jeremy Bentham: auto-icon — Utilitarianism English philosopher and economist Jeremy Bentham's preserved skeleton in his own clothes and surmounted by a wax head, at University College London.

Utilitarians address the objection that an occasional lie might produce good consequences by emphasizing the broader impact of such actions on society. While a single lie might seem beneficial in isolation, utilitarians argue that the widespread practice of lying would erode social trust and security, ultimately resulting in negative consequences for everyone.1

To reconcile this, some philosophers advocate for rule utilitarianism. This approach evaluates the morality of an action based on whether it conforms to a useful general rule, rather than calculating the consequences of each individual act. Because the general practice of honesty is essential for maintaining a stable and happy society, lying is generally considered wrong.1

John Stuart Mill further argued that utilitarians should not attempt to calculate the utility of every specific action. Instead, they should be guided by established moral principles, such as truthfulness, because adhering to these rules consistently tends to increase overall happiness. Exceptions are only considered under special circumstances where the rule itself may not apply.2