🎯 What is the Greatest Happiness Principle Quote? (2026)

Ever wonder who actually coined the phrase “the greatest happiness for the greatest number”? Most people point a finger at Jeremy Bentham, but the real story is a bit more twisted—and far more interesting. While Bentham built the engine of Utilitarianism, it was Francis Hutcheson who first wrote the words in 1726, sparking a philosophical revolution that still dictates our moral compass today. But here is the kicker: the quote you think you know is only half the story. The other half involves a radical twist by John Stuart Mill, who argued that not all happiness is created equal, turning a simple math problem into a complex hierarchy of human joy.

In this deep dive, we aren’t just reciting dusty definitions; we are dissecting the Greatest Happiness Principle to see how it holds up against modern dilemmas like the infamous Trolley Problem. We’ll explore why a dissatisfied Socrates is better off than a satisfied fool, how to calculate the “moral math” of your daily choices, and whether you can truly be a disinterested spectator in a world that demands you care. By the end, you’ll have the tools to navigate ethical gray areas with confidence, understanding exactly why this 30-year-old quote remains the ultimate guide for a meaningful life.

Key Takeaways

  • The True Origin: The famous phrase “the greatest happiness for the greatest number” was first formulated by Francis Hutcheson in 1726, not Jeremy Bentham.
  • Quality Over Quantity: John Stuart Mill revolutionized the principle by distinguishing between higher pleasures (intelectual, moral) and lower pleasures (sensory), arguing that quality matters more than mere intensity.
  • Impartiality is Key: The core of the principle demands disinterestedness, requiring us to weigh our own happiness no more heavily than that of a stranger.
  • Practical Application: From the Trolley Problem to everyday charity, the principle serves as a utilitarian calculus to maximize overall well-being, though it faces challenges regarding individual rights and the burden of constant calculation.

Table of Contents

⚡️ Quick Tips and Facts

Before we dive into the deep end of philosophical swimming pools, let’s grab a life preserver of Quick Tips and Facts to keep you afloat. The “Greatest Happiness Principle” isn’t just a dusty quote from a 19th-century textbook; it’s a living, breathing framework that shapes how we make decisions from the grocery store aisle to global policy.

Here is the TL;DR version of the Greatest Happiness Principle:

  • The Core Idea: Actions are right if they promote happiness; wrong if they produce the reverse. It’s the ultimate “do the most good” rule.
  • The Origin Story: While Jeremy Bentham popularized it, Francis Hutcheson actually coined the phrase “greatest happiness for the greatest number” back in 1726.
  • The Quality Check: John Stuart Mill added a crucial twist: not all happiness is created equal. Reading Shakespeare is “higher” than watching mindless TikToks, even if the latter feels good in the moment.
  • The Math: It’s a compound ratio of the quantity of good and the number of people enjoying it.
  • The Trap: Don’t confuse contentment (being satisfied with little) with happiness (the flourishing of higher faculties).

If you are looking for a mindful quote about happiness that encapsulates this balance, check out our deep dive on What is a mindful quote about happiness? to see how ancient wisdom meets modern ethics.

Feature Bentham’s View (Quantitative) Mill’s View (Qualitative)
Focus Intensity, duration, certainty of pleasure Quality of pleasure (Higher vs. Lower)
Famous Quote “Pushpin is as good as poetry” “Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied”
Calculation Hedonic Calculus (7 factors) Competent Judge Test
Human Nature Humans are pleasure-seeking machines Humans have “higher faculties”

📜 The Origins: Unearthing the Greatest Happiness Principle Quote


Video: John Mill and the Greatest Happiness Principle.








Let’s play a game of philosophical detective. You might have heard the phrase “the greatest happiness of the greatest number” and immediately thought of Jeremy Bentham, the bearded, spectacled grandfather of Utilitarianism. And you’d be half-right! But the actual quote? That belongs to a Scottish philosopher named Francis Hutcheson.

In 1726, Hutcheson wrote in his Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue:

“That action is best, which procures the greatest happiness for the greatest numbers; and that, worst, which, in like manner, occasions misery.”

Fast forward a few decades, and Jeremy Bentham picked up this torch, running with it to build the foundation of modern Utilitarianism. Bentham was obsessed with mathematics and morality. He believed that if we could just measure pleasure and pain accurately, we could solve every moral dilemma in the world. He famously said, “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.”

But here is where the plot thickens. Bentham’s version was a bit… blunt. It treated all pleasures as equal. If a child playing a game of pushpin (an old game like marbles) got as much joy as a poet reading Shakespeare, Bentham argued they were of equal value.

Enter John Stuart Mill, Bentham’s intellectual successor and friend. Mill looked at this and said, “Hold your horses! There’s a difference between the joy of a pig eating slop and the joy of a human reading philosophy.” Mill refined the principle, adding quality to the equation. He argued that higher pleasures (intelectual, moral, aesthetic) are superior to lower pleasures (physical, sensory), even if the lower ones are more intense.

This evolution from Hutcheson’s formulation to Bentham’s calculus, and finally to Mill’s qualitative refinement, is the story of how we got the Greatest Happiness Principle as we know it today. It’s not just about maximizing numbers; it’s about maximizing meaningful joy.

🧠 Defining the Core: What Exactly is the Greatest Happiness Principle?


Video: What is Mill’s greatest happiness principle? | Philosophy.








So, what is the Greatest Happiness Principle really? At its heart, it is the central dogma of Utilitarianism. It states that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility, which is defined as happiness or pleasure minus pain.

The Formula:

Right Action = Maximizes Happiness for the Greatest Number
Wrong Action = Minimizes Happiness or Maximizes Pain

But wait, it’s not just about your happiness. This is where the principle gets its “greatest” tag. It demands impartiality. As John Stuart Mill wrote in Utilitarianism:

“The happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct, is not the agent’s own happiness, but that of all concerned. As between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator.”

Imagine you are a judge. You have to decide a case. If you let your personal friendship with the defendant sway you, you’ve failed the test. The Greatest Happiness Principle asks you to be that disinterested spectator. Your own happiness counts, but only as one among many.

The “Disinterested” Spectator

This concept of being disinterested doesn’t mean you don’t care; it means you don’t have a conflict of interest. You are calculating the net happiness of the entire community, not just your slice of the pie.

  • Bentham’s View: Every person counts as one. Nobody counts for more than one.
  • Mill’s View: Everyone’s happiness matters, but the quality of that happiness varies based on human faculties.

This principle is the backbone of modern public policy, healthcare triage, and even charity effectiveness. When a government decides to build a hospital in a crowded city rather than a private park for the wealthy, they are (theoretically) applying the Greatest Happiness Principle.

🎢 The Moral Math: How to Calculate the Greatest Good


Video: The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation: meaning.








If you think ethics is just about feelings, think again. For Jeremy Bentham, it was all about the Hedonic Calculus. He believed we could mathematically calculate the moral value of an action by weighing seven factors:

  1. Intensity: How strong is the pleasure?
  2. Duration: How long will it last?
  3. Certainty: How likely is it to happen?
  4. Propinquity: How soon will it happen?
  5. Fecundity: Will it lead to more pleasure?
  6. Purity: Will it be followed by pain?
  7. Extent: How many people are affected?

The Calculation:
$$ \text{Total Utility} = (\text{Intensity} \times \text{Duration} \times \text{Extent}) – \text{Pain} $$

Mill’s Critique:
Mill agreed with the math but hated the variables. He argued that quality trumps quantity. You can’t just multiply “pushpin pleasure” by a million people and expect it to equal the value of one person reading Hamlet.

The Competent Judge Test:
How do we know which pleasure is better? Mill proposed a simple test:

“Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure.”

If you’ve ever tried to choose between a sugary donut and a deep conversation with a friend, and you realize the conversation leaves you feeling more fulfilled (even if the donut was tastier in the moment), you are acting as a competent judge.

🤔 Warm-Up: The Trolley Problem and Utilitarian Dilemmas


Video: What is Utilitarianism? | John Stuart Mill on Utilitarianism.








Okay, let’s get our hands dirty. You’re walking along a railway track when you see a runaway trolley barreling down the line. Ahead, there are five people tied to the track. You are standing next to a lever. If you pull it, the trolley switches to a side track where there is only one person tied up.

Do you pull the lever?

  • Option A: Do nothing. Five people die.
  • Option B: Pull the lever. One person dies.

For a strict Utilitarian, the answer is obvious. 1 < 5. You pull the lever. The math is simple: saving five lives creates more total happiness (and less total pain) than saving one.

But here is the twist that keeps philosophers up at night: The Fat Man Variant.
Imagine there is no lever. The trolley is heading toward five people. You are standing on a bridge next to a very large man. If you push him off the bridge, his body will stop the trolley, saving the five. He will die, but the five will live.

Do you push the fat man?

Most people say no. But why? The math is the same: 1 death vs. 5 deaths.
This is where the Greatest Happiness Principle faces its first major hurdle. Is it ever okay to use a person as a means to an end? Imanuel Kant would say never. But Mill and Bentham might argue that if the outcome is the same, the action is morally equivalent.

This dilemma highlights the tension between consequentialism (the end justifies the means) and deontology (certain rules must never be broken). We will return to this later to see how Mill tries to resolve it.

🏛️ Breaking Down the Definition: Disinterestedness and Impartiality


Video: John Stuart Mill – Utilitarianism Maximizing Happ.







Let’s zoom in on a word we mentioned earlier: Disinterested. In common parlance, “disinterested” often means “bored” or “uninvolved.” But in philosophy, it means impartial.

When John Stuart Mill says we must be “as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator,” he is asking us to step out of our own shoes. We are naturally biased. We love our families, our friends, and ourselves. The Greatest Happiness Principle demands that we treat our own happiness as having no more weight than the happiness of a stranger.

The “Benevolent Spectator” Metaphor:
Imagine you are a god-like observer floating above the Earth. You see a tragedy unfolding. You don’t have a skin in the game. You don’t care if the victim is your brother or a stranger. You only care about the net balance of happiness.

Why is this so hard?
Because we are biologically wired for tribalism. Our brains are designed to protect our kin. The Greatest Happiness Principle asks us to override millions of years of evolution with a cold, hard calculation.

Real-World Application:

  • Charity: Should you buy a new iPhone or donate that money to save a child’s life in a developing country? A disinterested spectator would say the child’s life has more weight.
  • Politics: Should a government spend billions on a space program that benefits a few scientists, or on healthcare that benefits millions? The Greatest Happiness Principle leans heavily toward healthcare.

🌈 What Counts as Happiness? Soma, Pleasure, and Human Flourishing


Video: The Greatest Happiness Principle : Living a Fulfilled Life with Utilitarianism.







Here is the million-dollar question: What is happiness?
Is it a dopamine hit? Is it a life of purpose? Is it the absence of pain?

The “Soma” Trap:
In Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, citizens take a drug called Soma that gives them instant, perfect happiness without any downsides. They are never sad, never angry, never in pain. But are they happy? Or are they just content?

Mill’s Distinction:
Mill argues that happiness is not just the absence of pain or the presence of pleasure. It is human flourishing. It involves the exercise of our higher faculties: reason, imagination, moral conscience, and creativity.

  • Soma Happiness: Passive, chemical, low-quality.
  • Human Happiness: Active, earned, high-quality.

The Paradox of Contentment:
A pig can be fully satisfied with slop. A human, with their complex mind, can never be fully satisfied because they always want more, they always question, they always strive.

“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”

This quote is the cornerstone of Mill’s argument. It tells us that dignity is a prerequisite for true happiness. If you have to sacrifice your dignity to be happy, you aren’t really happy; you’re just content.

🦁 Human vs. Beastly Pleasure: The Hierarchy of Joy


Video: The Greatest Happiness Principle.







Let’s get specific. What makes a pleasure “higher”?
Mill categorizes pleasures into two tiers:

1. Lower Pleasures (Beastly)

  • Source: Physical senses (eating, drinking, sex, sleep).
  • Characteristics: Intense, immediate, but fleeting.
  • Example: Eating a giant pizza, binge-watching a mindless show.
  • Critique: These are necessary for survival, but not sufficient for a good life.

2. Higher Pleasures (Human)

  • Source: Intelect, emotion, imagination, moral sentiment.
  • Characteristics: Less intense physically, but deeper, longer-lasting, and more meaningful.
  • Example: Reading a great novel, solving a complex math problem, helping a stranger, creating art.
  • Critique: These require effort and education, but they define our humanity.

The “Competent Judge” Test in Action:
How do we know which is better? Ask someone who has experienced both.

  • Would you trade your ability to read, think, and love for a lifetime of eating pizza?
  • Would you trade your conscience for a life of pure physical pleasure?

Mill’s answer is a resounding no. “Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals.” This preference proves the superiority of higher pleasures.

Table: Comparing Pleasure Types

Feature Lower Pleasures Higher Pleasures
Source Body/Senses Mind/Soul
Duration Short-term Long-term
Requirement None (instinctual) Education/Effort
Risk Addiction, Boredom Discontent, Anxiety
Value Instrumental (means to end) Intrinsic (end in itself)

🌍 Who is in Your Moral Circle? Equal Consideration of Interests


Video: The Key to a Happy Society: Jeremy Bentham’s Greatest Happiness Principle.








The Greatest Happiness Principle doesn’t just apply to humans. Jeremy Bentham famously asked:

“The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?“

This expands the moral circle to include all sentient beings. If a dog can feel pain, its pain counts in the utilitarian calculus. If a cow can feel fear, its fear matters.

Peter Singer’s Expansion:
Modern philosopher Peter Singer takes this further, arguing that speciesism (discriminating based on species) is as morally indefensible as racism or sexism.

  • The Principle: An interest is an interest, whoever’s interest it may be.
  • The Application: If we can prevent suffering in animal without sacrificing something of comparable moral importance, we ought to do it.

The Challenge:
This creates a massive dilemma for our daily lives.

  • Diet: Eating meat causes immense suffering to billions of animals. Does the pleasure of a burger outweigh the pain of the cow?
  • Fashion: Using leather or fur?
  • Testing: Cosmetic testing on animals?

For a strict utilitarian, the answer is often no. The pleasure of a human is not inherently more valuable than the pain of animal, unless the human’s higher faculties are at stake.

⚖️ The Biased Calculator: Overcoming Selfishness in Utilitarian Math


Video: Utilitarianism | Philosophy, Neuroscience, and the Greatest Happiness Principle.







We know the math. We know the principle. But we are human. And humans are selfish.

The Selfishness Objection:
“We are naturally wired to prioritize ourselves and our families. How can we possibly be impartial?”

Mill’s Response:
Mill admits that we are selfish by nature. But he argues that education and socialization can change us.

“The utilitarian morality does recognize in human beings the power of sacrificing their own greatest good for the good of others. It only refuses to admit that the sacrifice is itself a good.”

The Role of Sympathy:
Mill believes that humans have a natural capacity for sympathy. We can feel the pain of others. The goal of the Greatest Happiness Principle is to cultivate this sympathy until it becomes a habit.

Practical Steps to Overcome Bias:

  1. Awareness: Recognize your biases.
  2. Imagination: Try to imagine yourself in the other person’s shoes.
  3. Education: Learn about the suffering of others (animals, distant strangers).
  4. Practice: Start small. Donate a little. Help a stranger.

🚫 Three Major Objections to the Greatest Happiness Principle


Video: Greatest Happiness Principle Dissected (Part 1) – Chapter 2.








Despite its elegance, the Greatest Happiness Principle faces three massive objections. Let’s tackle them head-on.

1. Is Utilitarianism Too High a Burden for Ordinary Humans?

The Objection: Utilitarianism asks us to be saints. It demands that we sacrifice our own happiness for the greater good. Is it fair to ask ordinary people to live like this?
The Response: Mill argues that it doesn’t require moral perfection, just moral improvement. We don’t have to give away everything we own, but we should give up things that are not essential to our own happiness.

“Utilitarianism does not require that we should always act for the general good, but that we should not act against it.”

2. Does Doing All This Calculating Take Too Much Time?

The Objection: We can’t stop and calculate the utility of every action (e.g., “Should I hold the door?”). It’s impractical.
The Response: Mill agrees. We don’t need to calculate every time. We rely on secondary principles (rules of thumb) that have been proven to maximize happiness over time.

  • Rule: “Do not steal.”
  • Why? Because stealing generally causes more pain than pleasure.
  • Exception: In extreme cases (e.g., stealing bread to save a starving child), the rule can be broken if the utility is higher.

3. Are We Too Naturally Selfish to Be Truly Utilitarian?

The Objection: Humans are selfish. We will always prioritize ourselves.
The Response: This is a descriptive claim (how we are), not a normative one (how we should be). Just because we are selfish doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to be less so. Education and social pressure can shift our motivations.

🔄 Return to the Trolley Problem: Applying the Principle in Real Time


Video: Utilitarianism: Crash Course Philosophy #36.








Let’s go back to the Trolley Problem.

  • The Lever: Pulling the lever saves 5 lives at the cost of 1. The net utility is +4 lives. Action: Pull the lever.
  • The Fat Man: Pushing the man saves 5 lives at the cost of 1. The net utility is +4 lives. Action: Push the man?

The Utilitarian Answer: Yes. If the outcome is the same, the action is the same.
The Intuitive Answer: No. Pushing feels like murder.

Mill’s Resolution:
Mill might argue that while the outcome is the same, the secondary principles matter.

  • Principle: “Do not kill innocent people.”
  • Why? Because in the long run, a society where people can be pushed off bridges is less happy than one where they can’t.
  • Conclusion: In the Fat Man scenario, the long-term consequences of breaking the rule “do not kill” might outweigh the immediate saving of 5 lives.

This shows that Utilitarianism is not just about act-by-act calculation, but about rule-utilitarianism in many cases.

🗳️ Quick Poll! Would You Switch the Track or Push the Fat Man?


Video: Mill – Greatest Happiness Principle.







Before we wrap up, we want to hear from you.

  • Scenario A: Pull the lever. 1 dies, 5 live.
  • Scenario B: Push the fat man. 1 dies, 5 live.

Would you do it?

  • ✅ Yes, I would pull the lever. (Utilitarian logic)
  • ❌ No, I wouldn’t pull the lever. (Deontological logic)
  • ✅ Yes, I would push the fat man. (Strict Utilitarian logic)
  • ❌ No, I wouldn’t push the fat man. (Intuitive/Deontological logic)

Most people say Yes to the lever and No to the fat man. Why? Because the means matter to us, even if the ends are the same. This tension is the heart of the Greatest Happiness Principle debate.

💡 Key Takeaways and Final Thoughts

We’ve covered a lot of ground, from Hutcheson’s 1726 formulation to Mill’s qualitative refinement, and from the Hedonic Calculus to the Trolley Problem.

Here is what you need to remember:

  1. The Principle: Maximize happiness for the greatest number.
  2. The Quality: Higher pleasures (intelectual, moral) are better than lower pleasures (physical).
  3. The Impartiality: Everyone counts as one. No special treatment.
  4. The Challenge: It’s hard to be selfless, but it’s necessary for a just society.
  5. The Nuance: Rules of thumb help us apply the principle without constant calculation.

The Greatest Happiness Principle is not a perfect system. It has flaws. It can be demanding. It can be cold. But it offers a compass for navigating the moral maze of life. It asks us to look beyond ourselves and consider the whole.

As you go about your day, ask yourself: Am I acting in a way that promotes the greatest happiness? It might not be easy, but it’s worth the effort.

Conclusion

a sign that says when someone else changes is your happiness that is now

We’ve journeyed from the dusty halls of 18th-century Scotland to the modern ethical dilemmas of the 21st century. The Greatest Happiness Principle is more than just a quote; it’s a call to action. It challenges us to be disinterested spectators, to value higher pleasures, and to consider the well-being of all sentient beings.

Positives of the Greatest Happiness Principle:

  • ✅ Clarity: Provides a clear metric for moral decision-making.
  • ✅ Impartiality: Treats everyone equally, regardless of status.
  • ✅ Practicality: Can be applied to public policy and personal choices.
  • ✅ Humanity: Recognizes the value of higher faculties and dignity.

Negatives of the Greatest Happiness Principle:

  • ❌ Demanding: Can require significant personal sacrifice.
  • ❌ Complexity: Calculating utility is difficult and subjective.
  • ❌ Rights: Can potentially justify violating individual rights for the greater good.
  • ❌ Selfishness: Ignores our natural tendency toward self-interest.

Our Recommendation:
While no ethical system is perfect, the Greatest Happiness Principle remains one of the most powerful tools we have for creating a better world. It doesn’t ask for perfection, but for progress. It asks us to be kind, impartial, and thoughtful.

So, the next time you face a moral dilemma, remember Mill’s words: “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.” Choose the path that leads to higher happiness, even if it’s the harder one.

Final Thought:
The question isn’t just “What is the greatest happiness principle quote?” It’s “How will you live it?”

If you want to dive deeper into the world of Utilitarianism and Mindful Happiness, check out these resources:

❓ FAQ: Your Burning Questions About the Greatest Happiness Principle

Young woman with arms raised on a sandy beach.

How do mindfulness and gratitude practices contribute to a greater sense of happiness and fulfillment?

Mindfulness and gratitude practices align surprisingly well with the Greatest Happiness Principle. By practicing mindfulness, you become more aware of your own higher pleasures and less driven by lower, impulsive desires. Gratitude shifts your focus from what you lack to what you have, increasing your net happiness without requiring external resources. This internal shift can lead to a more sustainable and meaningful form of happiness, which Mill would argue is superior to fleeting pleasure.

What are some inspirational quotes about happiness that can help me stay motivated and focused?

Here are a few quotes that capture the essence of the Greatest Happiness Principle:

  • “The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation.” — Jeremy Bentham
  • “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” — John Stuart Mill
  • “Happiness is not something ready made. It comes from your own actions.” — Dalai Lama
  • “The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.” — Albert Camus (A reminder that true happiness often requires higher faculties).

How can I apply the principles of happiness to my daily life and increase well-being?

  1. Practice Impartiality: Try to consider the needs of others as equal to your own.
  2. Seek Higher Pleasures: Engage in activities that stimulate your mind and spirit, not just your senses.
  3. Cultivate Gratitude: Regularly reflect on the good in your life and the lives of others.
  4. Make Ethical Choices: When faced with a decision, ask: “Does this promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number?”
  5. Be a Disinterested Spectator: Step back from your biases and look at the big picture.

What is the key to achieving lasting happiness according to mindful philosophies?

According to mindful philosophies, lasting happiness comes from inner peace and connection, not external validation or material gain. It involves accepting the present moment, cultivating compassion for all beings, and engaging in meaningful activities. This aligns with Mill’s idea of higher pleasures and the importance of dignity.

What is the greatest happiness principle in utilitarianism?

The Greatest Happiness Principle states that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, and wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. Happiness is defined as pleasure and the absence of pain. The goal is to maximize the total happiness of all sentient beings.

Who originally said the greatest happiness principle quote?

The phrase “the greatest happiness for the greatest number” was first coined by Francis Hutcheson in 1726. Jeremy Bentham later popularized it, and John Stuart Mill refined it with the concept of higher and lower pleasures.

How does the greatest happiness principle apply to daily mindfulness?

Daily mindfulness involves being present and aware of your thoughts and actions. The Greatest Happiness Principle encourages you to use this awareness to make choices that benefit not just yourself, but others. It turns mindfulness into a moral practice, where every moment is an opportunity to increase overall well-being.

Read more about “What Are Good Short Quotes? ✨ 100+ Gems to Inspire & Delight (2026)”

What is the difference between the greatest happiness principle and hedonism?

Hedonism is the belief that pleasure is the only intrinsic good. The Greatest Happiness Principle is a form of utilitarianism that focuses on maximizing happiness (which includes pleasure) for the greatest number. While hedonism can be selfish, the Greatest Happiness Principle is impartial and considers the quality of pleasure (higher vs. lower).

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *