In the textbook Questions that Matter: An Invitation to Philosophy, utilitarianism is defined as “The ethical doctrine that an action is right if, and only if, it promotes the maxim happiness for the greatest number of people” (Miller and Jensen 376). There are two distinguishable positions within utilitarianism: rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism tries to find which rule should be applied to a situation to bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people, while action utilitarianism tries to find which action should be applied to bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. In this article I will argue that rule utilitarianism is the more plausible of the two positions because society cannot function without established rules of conduct. In his article, Extreme and Bounded Utilitarianism, JJC Smart renames act utilitarianism as extreme utilitarianism and describes it thus: “According to this doctrine we evaluate individual actions according to their consequences, and general rules, such as 'keeping promises.' , [sic] are simple rules of thumb which we use only to avoid the need to estimate the probable consequences of our actions at each step” (Smart 344). Smart is saying that extreme utilitarianism evaluates actions based on their possible consequences, so if breaking a rule results in greater happiness than following the rule, the rule must be broken. Smart suggests that extreme utilitarianism is more closely aligned with the views of Jeremy Bentham, the founder of modern utilitarianism (Miller and Jensen 380). Bentham argued that the process of making a moral decision involved weighing all the possible solutions and then deciding which would produce the most… halves of paper… more than any society could tolerate. doctrine as the exclusive basis of social action” (Kaplan 228). This statement is important because it distracts from Smart's claims. Smart tries to demonstrate that extreme utilitarianism is superior to narrow utilitarianism and wants to demonstrate that the latter is irrational. Smart tries to argue that extreme utilitarians regard the principle of utility as the most important principle. Therefore, in Smart's argument, utility is of the utmost importance and is the deciding factor in determining which view is superior. The problem I see with Smart's statement is that it causes act utilitarianism to remain inconsistent and impractical. How can we be sure that the weighted utility of each action is actually the best course of action for most people rather than just the best course of action for ourselves??