Abstract

Since the total utility of an action A, U, is taken as the decisive criterion for the moral quality of A in the sense that A1 is morally better than A2 iff U > U, utilitarian ethics usually requires that we should always chose that action A* by which the total utility is maximized. This requirement, however, is fundamentally mistaken since it entails that any morally good action A1 is forbidden as long as there exists another alternative A2 which is better than A1. In other words: utilitarianism leaves no room for supererogation since it is always our duty to do the best! In the present paper the historical roots of this utilitarian misconception of moral permissibility are investigated