ABSTRACT
Nonconsequentialism (deontology) says that some kinds of action are wrong in themselves. While lacking consequentialism's tight systematic unity, nonconsequentialism better fits our ordinary thinking about ethics. Ima Utilitarian would explain such exceptions in terms of maximizing good consequences. Utilitarians say it's all right to break a promise whenever doing so has slightly better consequences. Utilitarianism says they should give the money to the poor, since this maximizes good consequences; the fact that they promised carries no special moral weight. So keeping promises is an independent duty, not just a "rule of thumb" to maximize good consequences. Personal relationship can lead to special duties. Utilitarianism wrongly sees such relationships as morally irrelevant: our only duty is to maximize good consequences. Rule utilitarians could accept Ross's three norms as useful rules for maximizing good consequences. A virtuous person would also take promises seriously, and wouldn't break a promise just because this is thought to have slightly better consequences.
