INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS

Since time immemorial, moral philosophers have been drawn to the idea that morality is justified by its social benefits. The idea surfaces in many forms. Some, for example, have suggested that a society's morality is a system of rules adopted by the society for the purpose of coordinating the behavior of the members; if the members obey the rules, the society as a whole will be best off. Such views are versions of the Principle of Moral Harmony, or “PMH.” My aim in this essay is to show that such principles are false.

PMH has special relevance to utilitarianism because an advocate of act utilitarianism might appeal to PMH in an effort to justify act utilitarianism. The reasoning might go like this: If everyone in a group were to act in accord with the demands of act utilitarianism, the group would be best off. No other normative theory can in this way guarantee to maximize group benefits. In other words, act utilitarianism is the only normative theory that generates obligations sure to conform with PMH. Therefore, there is a reason to advocate and believe in act utilitarianism above all other normative theories.

However popular such thinking might be, I am convinced that it is deeply misguided. The greatest mistake, as I see it, is the assumption that a normative theory needs or could be given this sort of justification.