Response To Mill's 'Principle Of Utility'

Response to Mill’s “Principle of Utility” John Stuart Mill writes that the Principle of Utility is the placement of happiness, of the individual, but mostly of society as a whole, ought to be the ultimate end in intentions and actions. These considerations weigh the consequences of what the outcome could be, to produce the most beneficial outcome for everyone. The most beneficial outcome according to Utilitarianism is the one which maximizes everyone’s happiness overall by weighing the sum of the happiness now to that of later. He describes this duty to happiness is more easily learned than the duty to virtue. As “moral feelings are not innate, but acquired,” and happiness is experienced by all peoples, Utilitarianism can be understood and adopted by many, thus creating a society where the happiest outcome is achieved. This general goodwill of man can be experienced is society on a large scale, yet can never be achieved on society as a whole due to the nature of man not to seek unity with (so which Mill claims), but to dominate others.
He starts this by asserting that like every form of system of morals, utilitarian morals are still subject to sanctions. He further discusses sanctions as being both external, being an obligation to the general happiness, enforceable by God or society, as well as Internal. Internal sanctions he describes as duty, or the pain that occurs from the violation of duty. Internal sanctions, he argues, are built up over time through experiences of love, fear, religious feeling and so on. These are described as a feeling of how difficult it is to break an internal