Alternative Routes to General Happiness

In this section of Method of Ethics, Sidgwick posses the idea that a Utilitarian can come up with a rule which leads to a more general happiness but this rule differs from the rules which follow “common sense.” The new rule which can lead to general happiness has both positive and negative differences. He says in order for this new rule to work, he must “estimate the force of certain disadvantages necessarily attendant upon such innovations” (476). Sidgwick says that since one’s own happiness is a part of the universal end, he must consider the effects this new rule may have on him as well as others closely related to him.
Many calculations are needed for the Utilitarian in order to see if it is a good idea to implement the new rule in favor of the generally accepted rule. He warns however, that many people who are the first to try and make a change fail and if they wait for the change to happen gradually it will be more welcomed by others. He also warns that if this new rule is established it may not be initially followed by everyone. Sidgwick says, it is “easier to weaken or destroy the restraining force that a moral rule, habitually and generally obeyed, has over men’s minds than to substitute for it a new restraining habit, not similarly sustained by tradition and custom” (477). He is emphasizing that it is much easier to possibly modify or completely dispel a rule, rather than create a new rule which conflicts with common sense. Along with the negative differences the new rule may bring, it will also bring positive differences as well, such as providing a more “stricter interpretation to the general duty of General Benevolence, where Common sense leaves it loose and indeterminate”(479). He is saying that whatever is right for him to do, he can recommend to another person to do the same thing because it is leading to a general universal happiness.
Sidgwick brings up the point that maybe the main issue does not circle around whether or not following Utilitarian ways leads to a more general happiness, than following common sense, but should exceptions be allowed to rules which both sides consider valid? This is an interesting point which I think changes his entire argument. Before he was arguing that there are instances in which Utilitarian’s create new rules, which differ from rules followed by common sense, and lead to a more general happiness. But now he is saying that maybe each side is arguing over making exceptions to the rules rather than implementing a new rule. The question I would pose is which would ultimately provide an easier route to establishing a more general happiness, creating a new rule or making exceptions to ones already established? I think Sidgwick would say that making exceptions or modifications would be an easier and more effective way of attaining a general happiness. I think he would say this because he stated it was much harder for everyone to buy into a newly implemented rule, rather than just conforming to the slight modifications to a rule. The exceptions would be a slight adjustment to the rules for which everyone would be able to follow. Another question arises is are the exceptions the same for everyone or do they change depending on the circumstances?