Hence, in this given situation, ending the life of an inmate to save the life of an innocent is seen as the morally superior action. In the view of a rule utilitarian however, ending the life of any human being, whether a criminal or an innocent, is inherently wrong due to the very nature of this action. In this example act utilitarianism can be argued to be the more sound argument since people naturally seek out the action resulting in the greatest pleasure or happiness, which in this case involves the sacrifice of criminals to save the lives of innocent citizens.
Hence, if we take into account the example of the patient and the inmate, as well as the principle that act utilitarianism is dependent on the guaranteed uniqueness of any given situation; the strongest objection to this theory may be that it is too permissible. That is, it provides an extremely blurry line between what is acceptable and unacceptable, since decision of action ultimately depends on what the individual interprets as morally right or wrong. Individuals may then also be able to extend this principle in order to justify any action or crime, even to the point where it becomes obligatory. Another strong objection is that act utilitarianism seems better in theory as compared to in real life application since there is no way of accurately predicting the consequences of an act. Furthermore, prior to performing the act it is impossible to compare and assess every alternate act on their possible outcomes in a timeframe that would make this theory realistically applicable.
If presented with this set of objections an act utilitarian would respond with reason defending their view, one possibility of which will now be discussed. The objection that the theory is too permissible, and thus that anyone could justify any action, would be seen by an act utilitarian as irrelevant, because the initial contention of act utilitarianism is that the rightness or wrongness of an action is to be judged by its consequences in the context in which it is performed.
