Utilitarianism is a moral calculation – dependent on a cost-benefit analysis – whose function is to maximize utility, which distinguishes right from wrong. Jeremy Bentham, who argued that the highest principle of morality is to maximize happiness, founded this doctrine; therefore, according to him, the right thing to do is whatever maximizes utility. Furthermore, Bentham argued against opponents of the utility principle that every moral argument must implicitly draw on the idea of ​​happiness maximization. «When a man tries to fight the principle of utility, he does so with reasons drawn, without his knowledge, from the principle itself» (35). Consequently, all moral arguments, if properly understood, are disagreements about the application of the principle in question. There is one difference, I think, that is worth mentioning. This difference is between the consistent Bentham and the more humane John Stuart Mill, who arrived a generation later. Mill, who wrote On Liberty, the classic defense of individual liberty, argues that people should be free to do what they want, as long as they do not harm others. This implies that the government should not interfere with the freedom of individuals, nor impose on them the beliefs of the majority regarding the best “way” to live. However, the notion of individual freedom and protection from the will of the majority appear to be at odds with the principle of utility, which again represents the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, and which critics argue violates the rights of the individual. So how can you not impose the will of the majority if doing so will maximize utility? For Mill the answer is easy: respect for individual freedom is necessary for utility to be perpetuated - this of com...... middle of paper ...... instead his will is morally wrong. The second objection concerns the common currency, which the consistent Bentham recognizes as quantitative and not qualitative. Opponents argue that values ​​cannot be translated into monetary terms. Utilitarians refer to the “ticking bomb case” to demonstrate that, after all, morality is a cost-benefit analysis and that human life has a price, whether we recognize it or not. Finally, I agree with the consistent Bentham, that moral quarrels, if correctly understood, include to a large extent the application of the principle itself. However, I also like to think that morality, or the right thing to do, is more than a cost-benefit analysis. Unfortunately, the consequences/state of affairs approach to justice has become prevalent in today's society, especially in my field of study: economics.