Letusfirstrecallthedistinctionpreviouslynoticedbetweendutyascommonlyconceived，——thattowhichamanisboundorobliged——，andpraiseworthyorexcellentconduct；since，inconsideringtherelationofUtilitarianismtothemoraljudgmentsofCommonSense，itwillbeconvenienttobeginwiththeformerelementofcurrentmorality，asthemoreimportantandindispensable；i。e。withtheensembleofrulesimposedbycommonopinioninanysociety，whichformakindofunwrittenlegislation，supplementarytoLawproper，andenforcedbythepenaltiesofsocialdisfavourandcontempt。Thislegislation，asitdoesnotemanatefromadefinitebodyofpersonsactinginacorporatecapacity，cannotbealteredbyanyformaldeliberationsandresolutionsofthepersonsonwhoseconsensusitrests；anychangeinitmustthereforeresultfromtheprivateactionofindividuals，whetherdeterminedbyUtilitarianconsiderationsorotherwise。Asweshallpresentlysee，thepracticalUtilitarianproblemisliabletobecomplicatedbytheconflictanddivergencewhichisfoundtosomeextentinallsocietiesbetweenthemoralopinionsofdifferentsectionsofthecommunity:butitwillbeconvenienttoconfineourattentioninthefirstinstancetothecaseofrulesofdutyclearlysupportedby`commonconsent’。Letussupposethenthatafterconsideringtheconsequencesofanysuchrule，aUtilitariancomestotheconclusionthatadifferentrulewouldbemoreconducivetothegeneralhappiness，ifsimilarlyestablishedinasocietyremaininginotherrespectsthesameasatpresent——orinoneslightlydifferentinsofarasourforecastofsocialchangescanbemadesufficientlycleartofurnishanybasisforpractice。Andfirstwewillsupposethatthisnewrulediffersfromtheoldonenotonlypositivelybutnegatively；thatitdoesnotmerelygobeyondandincludeit，butactuallyconflictswithit。Beforehecandecidethatitisrightforhimi。e。conducivetothegeneralhappiness
　　tosupportthenewruleagainsttheold，byexampleandprecept，heoughttoestimatetheforceofcertaindisadvantagesnecessarilyattendantuponsuchinnovations，whichmayconvenientlybearrangedunderthefollowingheads。
　　Inthefirstplace，ashisownhappinessandthatofothersconnectedwithhimformapartoftheuniversalendatwhichheaims，hemustconsidertheimportancetohimselfandthemofthepenaltiesofsocialdisapprobationwhichhewillincur:takingintoaccount，besidestheimmediatepainofthisdisapprobation，itsindirecteffectindiminishinghispowerofservingsocietyandpromotingthegeneralhappinessinotherways。Theprospectofsuchpainandlossis，ofcourse，notdecisiveagainsttheinnovation；sinceitmusttosomeextentberegardedastheregularpricethathastobepaidfortheadvantageofthiskindofreformincurrentmorality。Buthere，asinmanyUtilitariancalculations，everythingdependsonthequantityoftheeffectsproduced；whichinthecasesupposedmayvaryverymuch，fromslightdistrustanddisfavourtoseverecondemnationandsocialexclusion。Itoftenseemsthatbyattemptingchangeprematurelyaninnovatormayincurtheseverestformofthemoralpenalty，whereasifhehadwaitedafewyearshewouldhavebeenletoffwiththemildest。
　　Fortheholdwhichamoralrulehasoverthegeneralmindcommonlybeginstodecayfromthetimethatitisseentobeopposedtothecalculationsofexpediency:anditmaybebetterforthecommunityaswellasfortheindividualthatitshouldnotbeopenlyattacked，untilthisprocessofdecayhasreachedacertainpoint。
　　Itis，however，ofmoreimportancetopointoutcertaingeneralreasonsfordoubtingwhetheranapparentimprovementwillreallyhaveabeneficialeffectonothers。Itispossiblethatthenewrule，thoughitwouldbemorefelicificthantheoldone，ifitcouldgetitselfequallyestablished，maybenotsolikelytobeadopted，orifadopted，notsolikelytobeobeyed，bythemassofthecommunityinwhichitisproposedtoinnovate。Itmaybetoosubtleandrefined，ortoocomplexandelaborate:itmayrequireagreaterintellectualdevelopment，orahigherdegreeofself-control，thanistobefoundinanaveragememberofthecommunity，oranexceptionalqualityorbalanceoffeelings。Norcanitbesaidinreply，thatbythehypothesistheinnovator’sexamplemustbegoodtowhateverextentit，operates，sinceprotantoittendstosubstituteabetterruleforaworse。Forexperienceseemstoshowthatanexampleofthiskindismorelikelytobepotentnegativelythanpositively；thathere，aselsewhereinhumanaffairs，itiseasiertopulldownthantobuildup；easiertoweakenordestroytherestrainingforcethatamoralrule，habituallyandgenerallyobeyed，hasovermen’sminds，thantosubstituteforitanewrestraininghabit，notsimilarlysustainedbytraditionandcustom。Hencetheeffectofanexampleintrinsicallygoodmaybeonthewholebad，becauseitsdestructiveoperationprovestobemorevigorousthanitsconstructive。Andagain，suchdestructiveeffectmustbeconsiderednotonlyinrespectoftheparticularruleviolated，butofallotherrules。Forjustasthebreakingofanypositivelawhasaninevitabletendencytoencouragelawlessnessgenerally，sotheviolationofanygenerallyrecognisedmoralruleseemstogiveacertainaidtotheforcesthatarealwaystendingtowardsmoralanarchyinanysociety。
　　Normustweneglectthereactionwhichanybreachwithcustomarymoralitywillhaveontheagent’sownmind。Fortheregulativehabitsandsentimentswhicheachmanhasreceivedbyinheritanceortrainingconstituteanimportantforceimpellinghiswill，inthemain，toconductsuchashisreasonwoulddictate；anaturalauxiliary，asitwere，toReasoninitsconflictwithseductivepassionsandappetites；anditmaybepracticallydangeroustoimpairthestrengthoftheseauxiliaries。Ontheotherhand，itwouldseemthatthehabitofactingrationallyisthebestofallhabits，andthatitoughttobetheaimofareasonablebeingtobringallhisimpulsesandsentimentsintomoreandmoreperfectharmonywithReason。
　　Andindeedwhenamanhasearnestlyacceptedanymoralprinciple，thoseofhispre-existingregulativehabitsandsentimentsthatarenotinharmonywiththisprincipletendnaturallytodecayanddisappear；anditwouldperhapsbescarcelyworthwhiletotakethemintoaccount，exceptforthesupportthattheyderivefromthesympathyofothers。
　　Butthislastisaconsiderationofgreatimportance。
　　Forthemoralimpulsesofeachindividualcommonlydrawalargepartoftheireffectiveforcefromthesympathyofotherhumanbeings。Idonotmerelymeanthatthepleasuresandpainswhicheachderivessympatheticallyfromthemorallikingsandaversionsofothersareimportantasmotivestofelicificconductnolessthanaselementsoftheindividual’shappiness:
　　Imeanfurtherthatthedirectsympatheticechoineachmanofthejudgmentsandsentimentsofothersconcerningconductsustainshisownsimilarjudgmentsandsentiments。Throughthistwofoldoperationofsympathyitbecomespracticallymucheasierformostmentoconformtoamoralruleestablishedinthesocietytowhichtheybelongthantoonemadebythemselves。Andanyactbywhichamanweakenstheeffectonhimselfofthisgeneralmoralsympathytendsprotantotomaketheperformanceofdutymoredifficultforhim。Ontheotherhand，wehavetotakeintoaccount——besidestheintrinsicgainoftheparticularchange——thegeneraladvantageofofferingtomankindastrikingexampleofconsistentUtilitarianism；since，inthiscaseasinothers，amangivesastrongerproofofgenuineconvictionbyconductinoppositiontopublicopinionthanhecanbyconformity。Inorder，however，thatthiseffectmaybeproduced，itisalmostnecessarythatthenon-conformityshouldnotpromotetheinnovator’spersonalconvenience；forinthatcaseitwillalmostcertainlybeattributedtoegoisticmotives，howeverplausibletheUtilitariandeductionofitsrightnessmayseem。
　　Theexactforceofthesevariousconsiderationswilldifferindefinitelyindifferentcases；anditdoesnotseemprofitabletoattemptanygeneralestimateofthem:butonthewhole，itwouldseemthatthegeneralargumentswhichwehavenoticedconstituteanimportantrationalcheckuponsuchUtilitarianinnovationsonCommon-Sensemoralityasareofthenegativeordestructivekind。
　　Ifnowweconsidersuchinnovationsasaremerelypositiveandsupplementary，andconsistinaddinganewruletothosealreadyestablishedbyCommonSense；itwillappearthatthereisreallynocollisionofmethods，sofarastheUtilitarian’sownobservanceofthenewruleisconcerned。For，aseverysuchruleis，exhypothesi，believedbyhimtobeconducivetothecommongood，heismerelygivingaspecialandstricterinterpretationtothegeneraldutyofUniversalBenevolence，whereCommonSenseleavesitlooseandindeterminate。Hencetherestrainingconsiderationsaboveenumerateddonotapplytothiscase。Andwhateveritisrightforhimtodohimself，itisobviouslyrightforhimtoapproveandrecommendtootherpersonsinsimilarcircumstances。Butitisadifferentquestionwhetherheoughttoseektoimposehisnewruleonothers，byexpresscondemnationofallwhoarenotpreparedtoadoptit；asthisinvolvesnotonlytheimmediateeviloftheannoyancegiventoothers，butalsothefurtherdangerofweakeningthegeneralgoodeffectofhismoralexample，throughthereactionprovokedbythisaggressiveattitude。Onthispointhisdecisionwilllargelydependontheprospect，asfarashecanestimateit，thathisinnovationwillmeetwithsupportandsympathyfromothers。
　　Itshouldbeobserved，however，thatagreatpartofthereforminpopularmorality，whichaconsistentUtilitarianwilltrytointroduce，willprobablylienotsomuchinestablishingnewruleswhetherconflictingwiththeoldormerelysupplementaryasinenforcingoldones。Forthereisalwaysaconsiderablepartofmoralityintheconditionofreceivingformalrespectandacceptance，whileyetitisnotreallysustainedbyanyeffectiveforceofpublicopinion:andthedifferencebetweenthemoralitiesofanytwosocietiesisoftenmorestrikinglyexhibitedinthedifferentemphasisattachedtovariousportionsofthemoralcodeineach，thanindisagreementastotheruleswhichthecodeshouldinclude。
　　Inthecaseweareconsidering，itischieflyconductwhichshowsawantofcomprehensivesympathyorofpublicspirit，towhichtheUtilitarianwilldesiretoattachaseverercondemnationthanisatpresentdirectedagainstit。Thereismuchconductofthissort，ofwhichtheimmediateeffectistogiveobviouspleasuretoindividualswhilethefargreateramountofharmthatitmoreremotelyandindirectlycausesisbutdimlyrecognisedbyCommonSense。Suchconduct，therefore，evenwhenitisallowedtobewrong，isverymildlytreatedbycommonopinion；especiallywhenitispromptedbysomeimpulsenotself-regarding。Still，inallsuchcases，wedonotrequirethepromulgationofanynewmoraldoctrine，butmerelyabracingandsharpeningofthemoralsentimentsofsociety，tobringthemintoharmonywiththegreatercomprehensivenessofviewandthemoreimpartialconcernforhumanhappinesswhichcharacterisetheUtilitariansystem。
　　Wehavehithertosupposedthattheinnovatorisendeavouringtointroduceanewruleofconduct，notforhimselfonly，butforothersalso，asmoreconducivetothegeneralhappinessthantherulerecognisedbyCommonSense。ItmayperhapsbethoughtthatthisisnottheissuemostcommonlyraisedbetweenUtilitarianismandCommonSense:
　　butratherwhetherexceptionsshouldbeallowedtoruleswhichbothsidesacceptasgenerallyvalid。Fornoonedoubtsthatitis，generallyspeaking，conducivetothecommonhappinessthatmenshouldbeveracious，faithfultopromises，obedienttolaw，disposedtosatisfythenormalexpectationsofothers，havingtheirmalevolentimpulsesandtheirsensualappetitesunderstrictcontrol:butitisthoughtthatanexclusiveregardtopleasurableandpainfulconsequenceswouldfrequentlyadmitexceptionstoruleswhichCommonSenseimposesasabsolute。Itshould，however，beobservedthattheadmissionofanexceptionongeneralgroundsismerelytheestablishmentofamorecomplexanddelicaterule，insteadofonethatisbroaderandsimpler；forifitisconducivetothegeneralgoodthatsuchanexceptionbeadmittedinonecase，itwillbeequallysoinallsimilarcases。Supposee。g。thataUtilitarianthinksitongeneralgroundsrighttoanswerfalselyaquestionastothemannerinwhichbehasvotedatapoliticalelectionwherethevotingisbysecretballot。HisreasonswillprobablybethattheUtilitarianprohibitionoffalsehoodisbasedon1theharmdonebymisleadingparticularindividuals，and2thetendencyoffalsestatementstodiminishthemutualconfidencethatmenoughttohaveineachother’sassertions:andthatinthisexceptionalcaseitis1expedientthatthequestionershouldbemisled；while2，insofarasthefalsehoodtendstoproduceageneraldistrustofallassertionsastothemannerinwhichamanhasvoted，itonlyfurtherstheendforwhichvotinghasbeenmadesecret。Itisevident，thatifthesereasonsarevalidforanyperson，theyarevalidforallpersons；infact，thattheyestablishtheexpediencyofanewgeneralruleinrespectoftruthandfalsehood，morecomplicatedthantheoldone；arulewhichtheUtilitarian，assuch，shoulddesiretobeuniversallyobeyed。
　　Thereare，ofcourse，somekindsofmoralinnovationwhich，fromthenatureofthecase，arenotlikelytooccurfrequently；
　　aswhereUtilitarianreasoningleadsamantotakepartinapoliticalrevolution，ortosupportapublicmeasureinoppositiontowhatCommonSenseregardsasJusticeorGoodFaith。Still，insuchcasesarationalUtilitarianwillusuallyproceedongeneralprinciples，whichhewoulddesireallpersonsinsimilarcircumstancestocarryintoeffect。
　　Wehave，however，toconsideranotherkindofexceptions，differingfundamentallyfromthis，whichUtilitarianismseemstoadmit；
　　wheretheagentdoesnotthinkitexpedientthattheruleonwhichhehimselfactsshouldbeuniversallyadopted，andyetmaintainsthathisindividualactisright，asproducingagreaterbalanceofpleasureoverpainthananyotherconductopentohimwouldproduce。
　　Nowwecannotfairlyarguethat，becausealargeaggregateofactswouldcausemoreharmthangood，thereforeanysingleactofthekindwillproducethiseffect。Itmayevenbeastrainingoflanguagetosaythatithasatendencytoproduceit:noonee。g。
　　wouldsaythatbecauseanarmywalkingoverabridgewouldbreakitdown’
　　thereforethecrossingofasingletravellerhasatendencytodestroyit。Andjustasaprudentphysicianingivingrulesofdietrecommendsanoccasionaldeviationfromthem，asmoreconducivetothehealthofthebodythanabsoluteregularity；sotheremayberulesofsocialbehaviourofwhichthegeneralobservanceisnecessarytothewell-beingofthecommunity，whileyetacertainamountofnon-observanceisratheradvantageousthanotherwise。
　　Here，however，weseembroughtintoconflictwithKant’sfundamentalprinciple，thatarightactionmustbeoneofwhichtheagentcould``willthemaximtobelawuniversal’’。[1]