# Is utilitarianism too demanding > A summary of the discussion of "Is utilitarianism too demanding?" in Utilitarianism: A Short Introduction, together with my own views. A summary of the discussion of "Is utilitarianism too demanding?" in [Utilitarianism: A Short Introduction](https://wiki.g15e.com/pages/Utilitarianism%20-%20A%20very%20short%20introduction.txt), together with my own views. ## Summary and Notes Traditional moral concepts list actions one must not do (do not kill, do not steal, etc.), and if one lives while keeping these, that is regarded as a moral life. By contrast, [utilitarianism](https://wiki.g15e.com/pages/Utilitarianism.txt) argues that it is not enough simply to refrain from certain things; rather, one "must" do the actions that produce the best results for them to be right. For example, if one donates the money for a vacation, 600 people could receive vaccinations for 3 years. Therefore, according to utilitarianism, one could argue that going on vacation is immoral. But does that make sense? Is utilitarianism a moral norm that an ordinary human being simply cannot possibly follow? The moderate answer is this. If one does not go on vacation, there is a risk of , making it difficult to continue doing good steadily and over the long term. Therefore, going on vacation helps with sustained good deeds. If one thinks this way, utilitarianism may not be as excessive as it seems. Even so, an honest person would probably still have to admit that they are not doing enough good. The hardline answer is this. The reason [utilitarianism](https://wiki.g15e.com/pages/Utilitarianism.txt) seems excessive may be that there are that many problems in the world. In the modern world, the gap between rich and poor is excessively large, so utilitarianism's natural demands may merely appear excessive. *(If you are someone comfortably reading about what utilitarianism is in a country where you do not go hungry and do not worry about , that thought feels all the more compelling. --ak)* Since most people living affluent lives are not saints, most of us, according to utilitarianism, are living lives that are not faithful to our moral duties. *(Almost everyone who does not go hungry and can easily access the is living an affluent life. --ak)* When one fails to fulfill one's moral duties, the usual response is blame. But utilitarians approach blame and praise differently. A utilitarian distinguishes between 'what is the right action' and 'which actions of people should be praised or blamed.' That is because the act of blaming someone for not doing what they ought to have done is itself also subject to utilitarian evaluation. *(That is, one needs to consider whether morally blaming others improves utility, or whether it is merely self-satisfying venting. --ak)* One approach is to think of the rightness or wrongness of an act not as an absolute standard, but as a matter of the degree to which it departs from current standard norms. One can approach not only praise and blame but all ethical judgments in this way. Instead of the [dichotomy](https://wiki.g15e.com/en/pages/Dichotomy.txt) of right-or-wrong, one can think in terms of more right or less right. This is called scalar utilitarianism. According to the scalar view, if anyone donates 10 won more than they do now, that is a 'slightly more right' action. *(That is, I understood it to mean that instead of a standard like, "You must donate at least 10% of your income," one should think, "Whatever you are donating now, if you donate 10 won more than that, that is a correspondingly more right action." I myself have decided to live by using as a standard whether today's me is trying to be a relatively better person than yesterday's me, and I think this also fits well with that attitude. --ak)*