Britannica Sources used in this answer

Why do critics argue that utilitarianism can sometimes permit lying or breaking promises?

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.

Critics argue that utilitarianism can permit lying or breaking promises because the theory evaluates the morality of an action based solely on its consequences. If an individual lie or a broken promise produces a better overall outcome—such as avoiding embarrassment or achieving a greater balance of happiness—a strict "act" utilitarian framework might deem that specific action permissible or even required.12

Opponents contend that this approach conflicts with moral intuitions, as it suggests that fundamental duties like honesty and keeping one's word are secondary to the calculation of utility. While utilitarians often counter that the widespread practice of lying or breaking promises would ultimately erode social trust and security—thereby producing negative consequences—the potential for an "occasional" exception remains a point of contention.31

To address these concerns, some philosophers have adopted rule utilitarianism. This modification judges the morality of an act based on whether it conforms to a general rule that, if practiced consistently, would lead to the best consequences for society. By prioritizing useful rules over individual acts, this approach seeks to align utilitarianism more closely with common moral expectations.13