Comparison of Direct and Indirect Utilitarianism

Comparing Direct and Indirect Utilitarianism British philosopher, John Stuart Mill, served many years as a member of parliament and worked diligently to bring forth liberal ideas. Amongst these ideas was the distinction of utilitarianism, or the act of doing what is right for the greatest number of people. Yet, just discussing the idea of right versus wrong for the masses was not enough, Mill’s determined there were two forms of utilitarianism; act, the direct form, or sanction, the indirect form. Much like formal logic with deductive and inductive reasoning, act and sanction utilitarianism strive for the same goal but have different ways of reaching it. Both forms of utilitarianism are seeking to find the best possible outcome for the largest number of people and using that as a measure of right versus wrong, yet by examining the differences of act utilitarianism and sanction utilitarianism, it will become clear that sanction utilitarianism is superior and more easily attainable. Focusing on act utilitarianism, this direct form works in maxims, expanding the contrast between right and wrong. “An act is right and just in its consequences for human happiness are at least good as any alternative available to the agent” (9). Thus, it is your duty to do the optimal act in a situation because anything other than the best act is a wrong act. Furthermore, Mills also comments that it is considered a “righteous” act if the consequences are just as good or better than any other action. Staying within the ideas of right or wrong, or when decisions seem to commonly be referred to as “black or white,” there is also an ideal of proportions to consider. Remember that the act is right is if brings happiness to the most people, but one is incapable of pleasing every person in every situation. Thus, Mills refers to the “Proportionality Doctrine” to tell what makes an act right or wrong. The Proportionality Doctrine states that acts are right if they promote happiness, or