Restricted Utilitarianism Analysis

In his piece, “Extreme and Restricted Utilitarianism” J. J. C. Smart illustrated just how different extreme utilitarianism and restricted utilitarianism are from each other and which one is more realistic to follow. Smart developed this idea by supplying his readers with various examples on each side and explaining them thoroughly. Smart’s objective from presenting this piece is to show just how unreasonable restricted utilitarianism is in most, if not all situations. He also explains why people should live their lives the way an extreme utilitarian would. Through the course of this paper there will be multiple examples of each kind of utilitarianism, restricted and extreme, and Smart’s opinions on the matter. While some examples will support
With restricted utilitarianism, there is one major condition that rule utilitarians put more than anything else and that is, under no circumstances, break the rules. Technically, there is two circumstances that would make a rule utilitarian tests an individual action is when one of two things happen, first, the action falls under two different rules and they collide with each other. The other circumstance is when there is no rule that can make the decision for them.
Smart’s first explanation detailed the contrast between the two types of utilitarianism by having his readers imagine a scenario where a person saves a man from drowning in the year, 1938. Typically, whenever a person saves the life of another we would be proud of their actions and be happy that that life was saved. But, in this case, the man that was saved turned out to be Adolf Hitler, one of the world’s most powerful dictators at the time. If the man would have left Hitler alone to die, millions of lives would be saved from the horrors of his reign. First, Smart does not
The first objection made against Smart’s views was the saving the infamous dictator, Adolf Hitler. The restricted utilitarians believe that is was not “wrong” for them to save Hitler because in all cases a rule utilitarian would save anyone from death. The problem with using ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ instead of using ‘rational’ and ‘irrational’ is, according to Smart, right and wrong have “the meaning praiseworthy and not praiseworthy” (86). Both sides have agreed that it is rational to praise the rescuer of Hitler. What seems to be the conflicting matter of the situation is whether it would be ‘wrong’ to let Hitler drown. A restricted utilitarian would say, yes, it is wrong to let a drowning man die, even if it was Hitler. But, the problem with using the word wrong is that is coincides with the phrase not praiseworthy. This is where things get a bit tricky, an act utilitarian believes the rational thing to do is let Hitler die, if the rescuer had time to think through the results of the action he was about to commit. Smart has made it clear that if there was time to think it through, he would think it rational leave Hitler to drown and praise whoever did so. But, if someone were to save him, he would still praise the rescuer for being heroic. With the restricted view, they would not praise someone for letting Hitler die like this. But why? Smarts rebuttal to such a claim is simple.