Act utilitarianism, as Smart defended in 'Utilitarianism: For and Against,' imposes no dependence on contingent institutional facts and therefore remains action-guiding even in societies with corrupt or suboptimal sanction systems.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Action-guiding(as used in ethics): Capable of actually helping someone decide what to do in a real situation, rather than being purely theoretical.
Contingent institutional facts(as obstacles that don't affect utilitarianism): Details about how a society's systems (like laws, courts, or punishments) are actually organized—things that could be different but happen to be the way they are.
Sanction systems(as an example of institutional systems that might be corrupt): The way a society enforces rules through rewards and punishments (like fines, imprisonment, or social disapproval).
Smart (J.J.C. Smart)(as a philosopher referenced in this statement): A 20th-century philosopher famous for arguing that mental states are really just brain states, and for identifying the mistake of confusing how something feels with what it actually is.

Based on where you are in your exploration