On this theory, an action is not right or wrong because of its own consequences; rather, it is right or wrong depending on whether it violates the collective rules that would have the best consequences. If the bad consequences are greater, then the action is morally improper.
That seems implausible to many utilitarians. And what moves you to spend an hour with your friend or spouse or child should not be impartial calculations about the overall impact on the world at large.
Furthermore, a utilitarian criterion of right implies that it would not be morally right to use the principle of utility as a decision procedure in cases where it would not maximize utility to try to calculate utilities before acting.
Moreover, according to those who prefer a broader definition of consequentialism, the narrower definition conflates independent claims and obscures a crucial commonality between agent-neutral consequentialism and other moral theories that focus exclusively on consequences, such as moral egoism and recent self-styled consequentialists who allow agent-relativity into their theories of value SenBroomePortmore Foot, Philippa.
On the principle of utilitarianism, she must consider the consequences for both herself and the victim. Persistent opponents posed plenty of problems for classic utilitarianism.
Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company,