The purpose of this essay is to critically compare Jeremy Bentham's work on act utilitarianism, which states that we should live our lives in such a way as to achieve the greatest possible happiness. possible with the rule utilitarianism of John Mill. This is to say that we must follow the best set of rules that will ultimately lead to the greatest possible happiness. This composition will begin by explaining why the agreed upon validity shared by Bentham and Mill is that utility should be understood hedonistically, it will then explore the major issues and connections to consequentialism and rule utilitarianism using the Great Fire of 1666 with a hypothetical thought. experiment from 1973, to show that although Act and Rule utilitarianism have its positive aspects, they both raise problems that are difficult to resolve with the characteristics of utilitarianism. Ultimately, this essay will show that the main problem in all cases is morality. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Complexity of Similarities and Differences Between Act and Rule of Utilitarianism Jeremy Bentham's utilitarianism is a theory of morality and a combination of consequentialism and hedonism. This means that we are morally obligated to live our lives in a way that would create the greatest possible happiness, if one situation were better than another, resulting in general happiness and freedom from pain for all humans. . However, although Bentham and Mill have different ideas about the nature of pleasure and pain, they agree and believe that moral and political justification should be judged fairly. They also agreed that the focus should be on gains and losses for utilities. Therefore, since it is possible to integrate both qualitative and quantitative hedonism into act and rule utilitarianism, Bentham and Mill established that utility must be implicit in a hedonistic approach. This is not to say that hedonism is without flaws since it is selfish in nature. For example, Barber explains that a Christian martyr thrown to the lions in the Roman Colosseum might have suffered ten thousand times more agony than anyone in the crowd, but if there were eighty thousand spectators, the The victim's agony would be reversed. The utility of society takes precedence over that of the individual. Bentham sought to get science to grapple with moral questions, transforming them into empirical questions and conceptualizing pleasure and pain only with reference to intensity and duration. Although Bentham's Utilitarian Act has its advantages, such as being able to provide a solution to difficult situations, and is designed to extend to all beings capable of experiencing pleasure and pain, Bentham asserts that first, what all laws “should have in common” is to discourage negative behavior. He believes this will result in an overall happier society. The problem we have with consequentialism is that it conflicts with our everyday morality. Consequentialism tells us that in any situation, the right thing to do is the action most likely to produce the best consequences. There are many problems with this, and Bentham seems to contradict himself a bit when he states that even though punishment is inherently evil, resulting in pain, it should only be used to "exclude a greater evil." More importantly, this is necessary to discourage society from disorderly behavior and reprimand.