Mills states that it "… is not the agent's own greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether…". This leaves no room for opinion because then the greater number would not be contemplated. So who does Mills leave to decide to whom may plan what the greater happiness is? It would be left up to people with lots of knowledge and wisdom. Mills thinks that the so-called experts would be able to decide the greatest happiness. But must be " strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator ". At some point his idea makes sense. To live in a strict utilitarian society you would need someone to decide what the greater good would be for all. I would to some extent agree with him on that point. But the truth is we don't live in a utilitarian society. Well, I like making my own decisions and deciding what will make me happy who cares if everyone else is happy if it's going to keep me from being my own person. I think Rachel's article brings up good point on how Utilitarianism can and can't work. He agrees with it in general with the basic principals in theory for example that consequences are what matter most. He also gives his reasons on why not to trust our common sense. Rachel believes the (act) utilitarianism is legitimate because it focuses on the consequences of the individual acts to deem what is right and wrong. For this Rachel has pointed out that this proves that common sense is not to be trusted. According to Rachel, common sense includes prejudices that we have brought to the situation. If pure utilitarianism is applied, there is no room for the prejudices to corrupt our thoughts and our decisions will be based on only the consequences. This idea had a lot of validity to it, but I don't know how practical it is. To ignore what your common sense tells you to do or at least to put it aside while making the decision would be a hard thing to do. I don't think a whole lot of peo...
