Principle of the Greatest Number

Equating happiness with pleasure does not aim to describe the utilitarian moral agent alone and
independently from others. This is not only about our individual pleasures, regardless of how high,
intellectual, or in other ways nobl3 it is, but it is also about the pleasure of the greatest number affected
by the consequences of our actions. Mill explains:

I have dwelt on this point, as being part of a perfectly just conception of utility or happiness, considered
as the directive rule of human conduct. But is by no means as indispensable condition to the acceptance
of the utilitarian standard; for that standard is not the agent's own greatest happoness, but the greatest
amount of happiness altogether; and if it may possibly be doubted whether a noble character is always
the happier for its nobleness, there can be no doubt that it makes other people happier, and that the
world in general is immediately a gainer by it. Utilitarianism, therefore, could only attain its end by the
general cultivation of nobleness of others, and his own, so far as happiness is concerned, were a sheer
deduction from the benefit. But the bare enunciation of such an absurdity as this last, renders
refutations superfluous.

Utilitarianism cannot lead to selfish acts. It is neither about our pleasure nor happiness alone; it cannot
be all about us. If we are the only ones satisfied by our actions, it does not constitute a moral good. If we
are the only ones who are made happy by our actions, then we cannot be morally good. In this sense,
utilitarianism is not dismissive of sacrifices that procure more happiness for others.

Therefore, it is necessary for us to consider everyone's happiness, including our own, as the standard by
which to evaluate what is moral. Also, it implies taht utilitarianism is not at all separate from liberal social
practices that aim to imorove the quality of life for all persons. Utilitarianism is interested with
everyone's happiness, in fact, the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Mill identifies the
eradication of disease, using technology, and other practical ways as examples of utilitarianism.
Consequently, utilitarianism maximizes the total amount of pleasure over displeasure for the greatest
number. Because of the premium given to the consequences of actions. Mill oushes for the moral
irrelevance of motive in evaluating actions.

He who saves a fellow creature from drowning does what is morally right, whether his motive be duty or
the hope of being paid for his trouble; he who betrays the friend that trusts him, is guilty of a crime,
even if his object to be serve another friend to whom he is under greater obligations. But to speak only
of actions done from the motive of duty, and in direct obedience to principle: it is a misapprehension of
the utilitarian mode of thought, to conceive it as implying that people should fix their minds upon so
wide a generality as the world, or society at large. The great majority of good actions are intended, not
for the benefit of the world, but for that of individuals, of which the good of the world is made up; and
the thoughts of the most virtuous man need not on these occasions travel beyond the particular persons
concerned, except so far as is necessary to assure himself that in benefiting them he is not violating the
rights -- that is, the legitimate and authorized expectations--of anyone else.

Utilitarianism is interested with the best consequence for the highest number of people. It is not
interested with the intention or motivation of the person doing the act; it is based solely and exclusively
on the difference it makes on the world's total amount of pleasure and pain. This lead us to question
utilitarianism's take of moral rights.