In this case, Mary would have acted precisely as she did, that is, pursuing her personal happiness and acting according to a pattern she had established before, that of being virtuous and always acting morally. In this case, the decision is plain and easy to take: Mary has to be virtuous so as to satisfy her own moral demands and ensure her emotional and spiritual comfort. Thus, she acts according to her pre-established set of rules. Thus, Mary acts primarily, as she herself argues, so as not to 'soil' the beginning of her life. She feels that taking the money would save the old man because his own happiness and personal interest would be in giving the money away to anyone else besides his family: "I will not let the close of your life soil the beginning of mine. I will not touch your iron chest or your will."(Eliot, 411) Mary's remark is thus very pertinent because she keenly observes her own satisfaction in this case would also mean that the old man would not get his own interest. According to my pre-theoretical judgment, I would have acted as Mary did, since that would have also accorded to my standards and my principles. In act utilitarianism, the agent follows the immediate prospect of his happiness which may vary according to the circumstances. This makes the individual be less virtuous and more likely to pursue immediate, self-interested pleasure: "The same may be said of the majority of the great objects of human life -- power, for example, or fame; except that to each of these there is a certain amount of immediate pleasure annexed, which has at least the semblance of being naturally inherent in them."(Mill, 55)

According to the doctrine of rule utilitarianism, Mary...

She refuses the money and behaves morally and virtuously, a pattern that she always pursues in her actions. Thus, it is obvious that rule utilitarianism is the most pertinent form of utilitarianism, and the one that seems to agree the most with the idea that people do not pursue strictly their pleasure but each of the virtues or pleasures as a means in itself: "The principle of utility does not mean that any given pleasure, as music, for instance, or any given exemption from pain, as for example, health, are to be looked upon as means to a collective something termed happiness, and to be desired on that account. They are desired and desirable in and for themselves..."(Mill, 54)
According to Mill, even money, which is central to the case debated here, is not desirable for the sake of an end, but as part of an end: "Yet the love of money is not only one of the strongest moving forces of human life, but money is, in many cases, desired in and for itself; the desire to possess it is often stronger than the desire to use it, and goes on increasing when all the desires which point to ends beyond it, to be compassed by it, are falling off. It may then be said truly, that money is desired not for the sake of an end, but as part of the end."(Mill, 55)

Thus, of the forms of utilitarianism, the most pertinent and the one which seems to agree with the general pattern of human behavior is rule utilitarianism. The human beings behave in a certain way so as to ensure their happiness, but the rules they follow to do that also ensure that they behave in a virtuous and coherent way.