o ethically, as it breaks a utilitarian rule.Sober, however, is not convinced that Rule Utilitarianism presents a convincing Utilitarian response to the case of the lonesome stranger. Sober argues that in the lonesome stranger case, the sheriff must decide whether it is a better rule to punish the innocent when it is convenient, or to never punish the innocent. Sober agrees that a general consensus would agree that, "Never punish the innocent," is a better rule. However, Sober goes on to present a third alternative, "Don’t punish the innocent, unless doing so will maximize utility." He states that a Rule Utilitarian must accept this rule, as it is a more utilitarian rule than, "Never punish the innocent." Utilitarianism, by definition, is concerned with the greatest good for the greatest number. Therefore, it would seem that if punishing an innocent man would create the greatest good for the greatest number, a utilitarian would have to support that action. However, I would argue that Sober is mistaken in claiming that a utilitarian would have to agree that, "Don’t punish the innocent, unless doing so will maximize utility," is a superior rule. The very reason that Rule Utilitarianism evolved was because certain situations exist that would create the most good for the most people from an unethical action. Rule Utilitarianism developed in order to create basic rules to guide society based on Utilitarian principles, so that these principles would not be violated by extreme circumstances. Sober is asking the rule utilitarian to accept a rule with a "clause" in it that completely undermines the reasons behind the foundation of Rule Utilitarianism. Rule Utilitarianism states that a general action – for example, punishing the innocent – should be examined and determined whether doing so is ethical or unethical. As a result of that analysis, a rule is formed to govern whether or not people should do that acti...
