In time, everything in the universe will eventually be affected by even the smallest action. Trying to estimate ALL the consequences of ALL the possible outcomes of ALL the possible actions in a situation is too complex and time consuming. Anyone who tried to actually use Precedent Utilitarianism as stated would end up sitting thinking, doing nothing. Since sitting thinking does not produce the most utility, the theory itself advocates that we should use some other ethical theory to make our decisions instead. It is therefore inconsistent.

Any theory of ethics that is universally true should hold as well for small blue furry creatures from Alpha Centauri as it does for humans. It therefore cannot be specific to human physiology, psychology or social resonances. Precedent Utilitarianism states what the most accurate approximation of the merit of actions would be, not that humans are capable of achieving this for their every action in daily life. Applying Precedent Utilitarianism to the question "How should humans make ethical decisions in their daily lives?" tell us not that perfection is unachievable and should therefore be entirely discarded, but that we can use it as a yard stick to measure other faster but less accurate approximations, and that in more important situations (such as when a country's leader makes decisions significantly affecting the nation's wealth, lives and laws) it is worth using slower but more accurate ones.

What is utility? Is it pleasure? Pleasure and absence of pain? Is it freedom, happiness, self-fulfilment, or some combination thereof? Do animals experience pleasure and happiness? Do they experience it the same as humans? Do humans experience it the same as each other? Even babies? How do you stick a number on it so you can compare the net utility of 100 slightly happy people with that of 99 very happy people and one dead person? Who decides?

Precedent Utilitarians believe that what is worthwhile can be summarised by a single quantity (call it "utility"), and that decisions about actions can be based on the estimates of the effects of actions upon this quantity. Beyond this, on the exact details of what utility actually is, there is some disagreement. However, applying Precedent Utilitarianism to the question "If two definitions of utility are sufficiently close in practice that the resulting estimations are indistinguishable within the bounds of uncertainty due to imperfect information, does it make a difference which one you use?" gives the answer, "No". Utility can be thought of as "retroactive preference" - what you would have chosen for yourself with perfect rationality and hindsight. That may seem complex, but hospitals do similar calculations all the time when making decision about organ donation based on the expected increase of "quality life years" for different recipients. While people differ in theory on how important self-awareness is, to a first approximation people generally consider humans to be equally capable of experiencing utility, with cats, dogs, dolphins, elephants, whales and chimps on some lower level. At the basic level humans actually have a fairly high level of agreement, even between cultures, that certain types of malicious act are bad and certain types of altruistic act are good. And individuals, at any particular moment, never end between three options, preferring A to B, B to C and C to A. In other words, in mathematical terms, utility can be represented by a single ordered quantity, and whether it can be defined in words or not, it is well understood enough to be used in practice.

Precedent Utilitarianism does not distinguish between action and inaction. Except for the precedent set, it makes no distinction between actively murdering 100 babies and letting 100 babies die because you didn't give up your marriage and dedicate your life to sending all your money to famine relief efforts. It has no concept of "good enough" and expects you to do your best 100% of the time. No human can live up to that. It just causes needless guilt.

Precedent Utilitarianism has no concept of a good or bad person. It makes no judgement about whether a person who on one occasion deliberately chooses a slightly less that optimal course of action is worthy or sinful. That's a concept built into human psychology, that has no place in a truly universalisable ethical theory. You can applying Precedent Utilitarianism to the question "How should I try to live my life?" and it may give different answers for different people. Some people are likely to produce the most utility with their life if they strive for perfection at all times and feel guilt when they fail. Others will work best when aiming for something achievable. Others still might work best with other possible mental attitudes, such as striving for inner harmony of purpose.

The largest group of objections to Utilitarianism come under this category. The general form of such objections is "Here's a carefully constructed isolated situation. In this situation, I think that Utilitarianism tells me I ought to do X. I think that doing X, under any circumstances is wrong or likely to cause bad consequences if everyone did it or was known to do it. Therefore Utilitarianism is wrong."

The list of such actions normally raised includes:

The general response to most of these objections is that it ignores the precedent set, and that in any real situation the Precedent Utilitarian would in fact not do X, because doing so would tend to make for a society that was very low in utility. Some of these do, however, raise other interesting points, and we will be discussing them in some detail. First, though, an exercise for the student:

FOR EACH OF THE ABOVE COUNTER INTUITIVE ACTIONS, TRY TO THINK UP A SITUATION IN WHICH TAKING THAT ACTION IS THE TEMPTING OPTION, THEN TRY TO ANALYSE THE SITUATION FROM A PRECEDENT UTILITARIAN PERSPECTICE.

Try this now, before reading on.