Utilitarianism has more strengths than weaknesses. Evaluate the view include Bentham and Mill. Utilitarianism can be defined in several ways; the definition is effectively that an action is deemed morally correct if it produces more happiness of all affected by it than any other alternative and wrong if it does not. Utilitarianism provides a clear method for deciding on a course of action that disregards personal confusion. Bentham and Mill both argue different ways in which Utilitarianism can be applied in order to bring about happiness to an individual. However, Utilitarianism on its own has some strengths and weakness. One can argue that it has more strengths than weaknesses, yet in my opinion, it has more weaknesses than strengths. On one hand, Utilitarianism has it strengths that back up the reasons as to why one’s action can bring about pleasure. One main strength is that it gives happiness an intrinsic value. Moreover utilitarianism seems to be in line with our intuitions that harming people is intrinsically wrong. It makes sense that the right course of action is the one that leads to the most happiness and least harm. Bentham’s theory on utilitarianism looks to the consequences of one’s actions, it also is a guarding principle that does not allow discrimination, mainly in the principle of commensurability; in other words it is an equalitarian. In addition it is also not religious; in the modern, multicultural society with a range of religious beliefs and a growing number of atheists, a secular theory is most useful. However, Mill answered a valid criticism of Bentham’s theory, that the pleasure of sadistic torturers is not good. He said the quality of pleasure was important an improvement to the theory. Utilitarianism is easy to use as it weighs up the positive and negative effects of our actions. It is straightforward because we learn to do this from