Opponents of act utilitarianism attempt to argue that act utilitarianism (hereafter AU) does not take justice into account when applied to dilemmas ethical. It is the author's opinion that these statements are factually incorrect and this essay will attempt to demonstrate this through analysis of common arguments against AU and modifying AU to allow for an easier explanation of justice. AU is an ethical theory attributed largely to Jeremy Bentham. AU attempts to assign each action a value or utility. The principle of utility means the “principle which approves or disapproves of any action, whatever it may be, according to the tendency it appears to have to increase or decrease the happiness of the party whose interest is in question” (Bentham,1781). the utility of an act x is equal to the total amount of pain that would result from act x, subtracted from the total amount of pleasure that would result if x were performed. A positive utility value would indicate that an act produced more pleasure than pain and, conversely, a negative utility value would show that an act produced more pain than pleasure. According to AU, an act x is said to maximize utility if act x produces at least as much utility as any alternative to x. This shows that AU simply states that an act x is morally right if and only if x maximizes utility, or no alternative to x would produce a greater amount of pleasure less pain than x would produce. AU therefore treats all agents equally and seeks only the maximum amount of pleasure, or good, to be found in each situation. Critics of act utilitarianism argue that AU cannot be a correct ethical theory, since it may present unjust answers to ethical dilemmas, which a rational being may see as wrong and incorrect... middle of paper... and the Common arguments against AU are inherently flawed. For this reason, it is the author's opinion that AU provides a good standard for ethical thinking. Works Cited V. Druidessa. 2009. Organ Donor, Fat Man, and Sophisticated Act Utilitarianism. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.oocities.org/musician_in_residence/SAU.html. [Accessed 26 May 14].Heathwood, C., 2012. A response to the organ harvesting argument. Philosophy 1100: Ethics, [Online]. 1, 5-11. Available at: http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/phil1100/lec11_againstAU.pdf [Accessed 22 May 2014].Neilsen, K., 1995. Against Moral Conservatism,. 1st ed. United States: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Thomson, J.J., 1976. Kill, let die, and the trolley problem. 1st ed. United States: The Monist.Bentham, J., 1789. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. 1st ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.