Utilitarianism doesn't say that you can store up moral chits and then cash them in to do some evil. It says an act should be judged by its net consequences. Bas

Utilitarianism doesn't say that you can store up moral chits and then cash them in to do some evil. It says an act should be judged by its net consequences. Basically, it says you can do some evil if, of the choice available to you in some context, it results in the most good (or the least evil, if no choice results in good). The evil in other words is inextricable from the good. It isn't just a lark you can engage in after you banked some good. Jabbing someone with a needle to administer a vaccine is allowed. Jabbing them with a needle after you gave them a cookie is not. So no, whatever you think of utilitarianism, this is not its problem.