In this article I will introduce and critically evaluate the concept of the utility principle as given by John Stuart Mill. In the essay “What Utilitarianism Is” #, Mill presents the theory of utilitarianism, which he summarizes in its “utility” or “greatest happiness principle” # (Mill 89). Mill's emphasis is based on "happiness", # pleasure and the absence of pain, or "unhappiness", discomfort and the non-existence of contentment, rather than on the intentions involved (Mill 89). After evaluating Mill's principle, I will end this essay by discussing my personal opinion on the doctrine and how I think it can be modified to better suit real-life situations. The principle of utility is based on the greatest amount of happiness that an action results in. to the greatest number of people who are affected by the consequences (Mill 89). Mill believes that people should sacrifice their own possible happiness as much as possible so that more people can obtain equal and sufficient happiness. In doing so, those who help others create a society of ultimate happiness where everyone is content. Thus, Mill argues for quantity over quality to the extent that everyone has just enough contentment to feel neither pain nor deprivation. For example, according to the principle, if in the future there is an impartial computerized system for selecting organ donors, those who are selected to donate their organs to two or more people will be obliged to do so. In doing so, a single individual saves the lives of more people and thus creates more happiness than if he or she lived alone and two or more people died. In discussing whether people would be motivated to give up their own prosperity to help o...... middle of paper ...... there are more flaws than he mentioned . I accept the principle of utility relating to maximizing happiness for as many people as possible. However, regarding my example of the computerized system sacrificing a healthy person to save the lives of others, using this principle would be morally and ethically wrong. Although people have the choice to become organ donors, in this example the computer would kill someone instead of using the organs of an already deceased person to save another person's life. This question is an example of the differences between Kant and Mill, which I think, if combined, can make Mill's theory better suited to real-world situations. Intentions are not always the most important factor, just like results. Therefore, combining certain aspects of Kant's theory with Mill's would make Mill's work more appropriate..