Consider the case in question $8$ again. How would a rule utilitarian assess the moral status of John's false promise to his brother?$($a$)$ John did the wrong thing by making the false promise to his brother. If everyone made false promises whenever they needed something that they couldn't repay, then no one would trust anyone in society and this would lead to more unhappiness in society than if no one made false promises. So$,$ John did not follow the right rule by making a false promise to his brother.$($b$)$ John did the wrong thing by making the false promise to his brother. The maxim of his action was 'make a false promise whenever in need of something that I can't repay. However, John could not rationally want the world to be one where everyone followed this maxim like it were a law of nature, because in such a world, there would be no practice of making promises and John would not be able to get money by making a false promise. Hence, John is acting on a maxim that he cannot rationally will to be a universal law of nature.$($c$)$ John did the right thing by making the false promise to his brother. John had two courses of actions available to him: $(1)$ make a false promise to his brother or $(2)$ not pay the loan sharks and have his legs broken $($or worse$).$ Action $(1)$ led to less pain and suffering in the world than action $(2).$ Hence, John did the right thing in doing $(1).($d$)$ John did the wrong thing by making the false promise to his brother. By making the false promise, John withheld relevant information from his brother, preventing his brother from making an informed,