For example, rule utilitarianism was criticized for implying that in some cases an individual should pursue a course of action that would obviously not maximise utility.
Conversely, act utilitarianism was criticized for not allowing for a 'human element' in its calculations, i.e. it is sometimes too difficult (or impossible) for an ordinary person.
[7] It is worth noting that it is not Hare's intention to divide up the entire human race into either archangels or proles; according to his theory each person shares the traits of both to limited and varying extents at different times.
Such a person would not need a set of intuitive moral rules, as he/she would be able to decide the correct response to any possible situation by reason alone.
He/she must rely upon intuitions and sound prima facie principles all of the time, as he is incapable of critical thought.
One objection is that two-level utilitarianism undermines an agent's commitment to act in accordance with his or her moral principles.
David McNaughton argues that, even if the agent's commitment to his/her principles is not undermined, two-level utilitarianism does not succeed in its goal of showing, "how, on utilitarian principles, it is a good idea to think and reason in a pluralist and non-consequentialist manner.