Mill's utilitarianism differs from the more general form of utilitarianism, which states that one should evaluate people, actions, and institutions based on how well they promote human happiness. Mill builds on this basic explanation by interpreting the misconceptions of utilitarianism into utility. This utility is something in opposition to pleasure. Simply put, mill utilitarianism utility is the ultimate happiness principle. Pursuing the ultimate goal according to the principle of maximum happiness is an existence as free from pain as possible, and as rich as possible in enjoyment, both in terms of quantity and quantity. and quality; the test of quality, and the rule for measuring it over quantity, is the preference felt by those who in their opportunities of experience, to which must be added their habits of self-consciousness and self-observation, are best equipped with the means of comparison . This, being, according to the utilitarian opinion, the aim of human action, is necessarily also the criterion of morality. Which by definition are rules and precepts for human conduct, through the observance of what exists, described to the maximum extent possible and guaranteed to all humanity and nature. Mills has a part in the book where he states, “it's better to be a dissatisfied human being than a satisfied pig. Coming from mills that appear to be very hedonistic. In addition to this statement, Mills confirms it by implying that all or almost all people prefer one “way of existing”. This mode of existence, so to speak, employs superior faculties than a mode of existence that does not. With the emphasis on “all or most,” those familiar with pleasures employing higher faculties agree that they are preferable……middle of paper……g over the rights of some or some group. So, if a few have to suffer for the needs of the many, this can turn out to be very bad because the moral obligations that entail rights in this case are serious. Finally, the reason I find this theory unappealing is the fact that utilitarianism seems to see people as bringers of pleasure and pain rather than as persons. Mills might answer the case of “framing an innocent person if doing so seems like it will maximize happiness.” Whether or not all of us can achieve the greatest happiness. To do the right thing in this situation, we don't need to be constantly motivated from concern for general happiness. The great majority of actions are intended for the good of individuals rather than for the good of the world. Likewise, the good of the world is in direct correlation with the good of the individuals who constitute it.