Hare's Theory of Indirect Act Utilitarianism

In this paper, I shall demonstrate how Hare's theory of indirect act utilitarianism is able to avoid the most critical difficulty of the direct theory (which I will identify and explain in the following paragraph) and then proceed to argue that although Hare is successful in overcoming the greatest obstacle of the direct theory, his solution inevitably entangles him in some other serious problems.

The direct act utilitarian theory requires us to take into consideration all available methods of tackling a particular situation and assess the value of the consequences that will follow each option before selecting the best one that would maximize the greatest good for the greatest number of people on that one occasion. The most critical difficulty confronting the direct theory is the constraint of time and information in every uncertain situation encountered. There is a great possibility that we will not have the time to predict, evaluate, and compare the many different consequences that will result from each of the different available methods. And when there is a time constraint, it is very difficult to get the information that we need in order to make the best possible judgments and thus, best decisions. We can be mistaken about our judgments due to fallacious information and therefore, the evaluations that we make to the supposed consequences of each approach may be very inaccurate (we cannot trust our own critical thinking in this case).

Fortunately, Hare's indirect theory manages to avoid this problem by only requiring us to act upon our virtuous character traits and prima facie principles when deliberating. These character traits and moral principles have already been tested, assessed, and validated by critical thinking.# Although the direct theory and indirect theory both aim for the same goals, the direct theory causes us to waste a lot of time predicting and evaluating all the potential consequences of the available acts. As a result, we may end up not being able to achieve our goals at all, since the opportunity to act may have passed us by already. Hare's indirect theory is much more (time-) efficient, and if we can tackle situations more efficiently, better consequences will result.

Although Hare succeeds in overcoming the greatest obstacle confronting the direct theory, his solution evokes other problems. The first problem is that it is possible for prima facie principles to conflict with each other. For instance, the principle of nonmaleficence (requiring us to do others no harm) and the principle of honesty (requiring us to tell the truth) may clash when you deliberate about whether you should inform your friend that her husband is cheating on her or not. If you tell her, she becomes hysterical and confronts her husband about his infidelity. Since everything is now out on the open, her husband