Or acts that go beyond the call of duty? Are there acts that would promote utility and are praiseworthy but not required? You could argue that people can't be truly impartial and give equal weight to themselves, their family, and strangers. But if they can't do it, then it's not required by utilitarianism since utilitarianism requires that we promote as much happiness as possible (i.e., as we can). In practice, though, I could see everyone saying that the acts they simply don't want to do are superorogatory.

Supererogation doesn't fit into consequentialism. You technically could have it as some sort of tie breaker when each choice is otherwise exactly as good, but this will almost never come up. I mean this in the mathematical sense. The probability of this mattering for a given choice is zero percent.

In practice, though, I could see everyone saying that the acts they simply don't want to do are superorogatory.

I think it's a bit more sophisticated than that. There are acts which everyone who is not a criminal must do, such as pay taxes and refrain from hurting others. There are also acts that altruists are expected to do. This splits society into three classes: criminals, normal people, and altruists. If you don't fulfill normal duties you're a criminal. If you fulfill duties, but not supererogation, you're normal. If you fulfill both, you're an altruist. If you break normal duties to fulfill supererogation, you're still a criminal.

This is all an oversimplification. It's more of a sliding scale. The point is that your position is based largely on the worst things you do, rather than averaging it out. You can't kill someone and then save a life and have it balance it.

LJM1979 wrote:But if they can't do it, then it's not required by utilitarianism since utilitarianism requires that we promote as much happiness as possible (i.e., as we can).

I can speak only for myself, but the way I see it, "required by utilitarianism" is a category error. Utilitarianism is not an authority, a moral obligation (*), or a physical necessity - and only those can "require" anything.

Utilitarianism is a framework to rank acts on a continuous better vs. worse scale, not a required vs. non-required dichotomy.

(*) I think moral obligations are fiction.

DanielLC wrote:There are acts which everyone who is not a criminal must do, such as pay taxes and refrain from hurting others.

It's interesting that you count hurting others as a criminal activity; in fact, hurting others is often legal and performed by government itself (and not only in a manner optimal to promote utility).

in fact, hurting others is often legal and performed by government itself

Every rule has exceptions. In general, those are things everyone who is not a criminal must do.