Mill avoids the paradox of hedonism by explaining how the intent of utility isn’t merely to obtain self happiness—but to prevent and reduce the opposite counterpart. Mill dismisses the idea of a life continuously filled with euphoria as well, because it’s impossible. Occasional bursts of happiness are more realistic, varying in duration. Roller coasters are similar to life, since it contains a buildup of excitement, and then a release of euphoria, all the while experiencing some feelings of unhappiness here and there. It can also be viewed as how its structure contains ups and downs, much like the duration of life.

Besides, utility exercises the notion of viewing our own happiness as an equal with the rest of the community as well. Rationally speaking, we have the capability of committing selfless acts for others—having formed the knowledge and judgement that it’s the desired motive. With the world being as fascinating as it is, with countless possibilities in store, any rational being is capable of achieving a somewhat good life, assuming the person had a middle class socioeconomic upbringing with no unfortunate hindrances. 

Depending on the circumstance, self-sacrifice is viewed by utilitarianism as righteous—in fact, Mill considers it to be “the highest virtue which can be found in man” (p.7). To be prepared and willing enough to forsake one’s own main desire in exchange for others is what makes it so.  However, it solely depends on the consequence of the self-sacrifice, with the preferred outcome being that their sacrifice would be beneficial for the rest of the people, such as sacrificing yourself when someone is holding a group of people at gunpoint. As long as a person’s self-sacrifice includes refusing the joys of self happiness, along with increasing the amount of happiness among the community, then it would be considered a virtue. 

Utilitarianism demands impartiality, for the good of one’s self and others around as equals. The concept actually defines the ideal morality of a utilitarian. As Mill puts it, “ To do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbour as yourself” (p.8). In doing so, a person would be capable of achieving the highest happiness for everyone as well. He suggests that we all should put our interests hand in hand with everyone else’s, such that the two appear to be permanently associated with each other. With rationality and education, people should consider helping others as a major aspect of their life, serving as second nature. 

I honestly don’t agree with utilitarianism, except for certain principles within it, specifically the golden rule of treating others as you would if it were yourself—in the sense of loving others and not abusing one another. But to suggest for people to treat their interests equally compared to everyone else is quite ridiculous. Mill even admitted that people are likely to have unequal desires when seeking good for the general public. A current example would be people hoarding tons of supplies like toilet paper and water due to COVID-19. Filled with fear and worry for the future, people are unnecessarily stocking up, leaving the rest to fend for themselves. 

Although we’re social creatures, we tend to be selfish, especially in dire times—which is when we need each other the most. Though it makes sense how happiness seems to be the end goal, the fact that consequences dictate whether the act is moral or not is also quite unreliable and unnerving. It’s out of our control, so there’s no reason that the outcome should define our actions. With impartiality playing a substantial role in utilitarianism, it’s unrealistic for people to follow it since humans specifically have their own opinions and biases, robots are probably the only closest functioning and rational thing that have the capability of being completely impartial. Though I do understand where Mill is coming from, to successfully practice this belief seems to me like some wishful thinking. 

(650 words)