Is it necessary or useful to randomize
N his 'Rule-Utilitarianism and Randomization' (ANALYSIS, January 1965) David P. Gauthier imagines a conversation between an actutilitarian and a rule-utilitarian on the rightness of keeping a deathbed promise to found a home for stray cats. It appears that neither can, acting on his own principles, achieve a state of affairs in which welfare is maximized. For the act-utilitarian would break such a promise and, being moral, would want everyone in his situation to do so--which would destroy the general practice of keeping deathbed promises. And the rule-utilitarian would never permit such a promise to be broken and would thus forfeit the admittedly good consequences of sometimes breaking such promises. At this point the 'theory of gamesman' solves the problem by suggesting a rule which will ensure that such promises will generally be kept but occasionally will be broken: from an ordinary deck of bridge cards choose a card at random and if the card is an ace, break the promise. Gauthier's act-utilitarian can get out of the rule-utilitarian's trap. The trap is: 'If it is right for you to break your promise, it is right for everyone similarly situated to break his promise. And so it is right for everyone similarly situated to break his promise. But we agree that this would have bad consequences, and so it isn't right'. And this is what the act-utilitarian should have answered: What