In this article I will present and critically evaluate the concept of the utility principle as provided by John Stuart Mill. In the essay “What is Utilitarianism” #, Mill presents the theory of utilitarianism, which he summarizes in his “principle of utility” or “principle of greatest happiness” # (Mill 89). Mill's focus is on "happiness", # pleasure and the absence of pain, or "unhappiness", # the discomfort and non-existence of contentment resulting from an action, rather than on the intentions involved ( Mill 89). After evaluating Mill's principle, I will conclude this essay by discussing my personal opinion on the doctrine and how I believe it can be modified to better fit real-life situations. The principle of utility is based on the maximum amount of happiness that results from an action. to the greatest number of people who suffer its consequences (Mill 89). Mill believes that people should sacrifice as much of their own happiness as possible so that more people can achieve equal happiness that is sufficient. By doing so, those who help others create a society of absolute happiness in which everyone is happy. Therefore, Mill advocates quantity rather than quality to the extent that everyone has enough satisfaction not to experience pain or deprivation. For example, according to the principle, if there was an impartial computerized system for selecting organ donors in the future, those who are selected to donate their organs to two or more people are obliged to do so. In this way, the single individual saves the lives of a greater number of people, and therefore creates more happiness than if he lived alone and two or more people died. In debating whether people would be motivated to give up their own prosperity to help or… middle of the paper… there are more flaws than I mentioned. I agree with the utility principle of maximizing happiness for as many people as possible. However, regarding my example about the computer system sacrificing a healthy person to save the lives of others, using the principle would be morally and ethically wrong. Although people have the choice to become organ donors, in the example, the computer would kill someone instead of using the organs of an already deceased person to save the life of another. This problem is an example of the differences between Kant and Mill, which I believe if combined can make Mill's theory more suitable for real-life situations. Intentions are not always the most significant factors, nor are outcomes. Therefore, combining some aspects of Kant's theory with Mill's would make Mill's work more appropriate.