The answer that sat best with me draws on the classic Kant and Constant debate on lying to the murderer at the door.
It explains that, there's no fixed point, because the question assumes they're separate things that trade off. Often they aren't. Real righteousness tends to produce happiness over time. When they seem to conflict, usually the "general happiness" being weighed is short-term, partial, or measured badly. Someone's utility always gets left out of the sum.
That said, genuine edge cases exist. Lie to the murderer at the door about where his victim is hiding. Most people say the lie is justified. But notice: righteousness wasn't abandoned. It was outweighed by a deeper righteousness, the duty to protect the innocent. The rule bent so the principle could stand.
So the real question isn't "when does righteousness lose to utility." It's "when does a rule lose to the reason the rule exists." And the danger is that everyone thinks they can see that clearly. "For the greater good" is the oldest sentence in the book.
This topic is interesting.
The answer that sat best with me draws on the classic Kant and Constant debate on lying to the murderer at the door.
It explains that, there's no fixed point, because the question assumes they're separate things that trade off. Often they aren't. Real righteousness tends to produce happiness over time. When they seem to conflict, usually the "general happiness" being weighed is short-term, partial, or measured badly. Someone's utility always gets left out of the sum.