In this article I will argue that John Stuart Mill, the presenter of the most compelling theory of act utilitarianism (AU), ultimately fails to address the moral complexities that they affect man's virtues and their effect on his motivations for certain actions. John Stuart Mill's main arguments follow and counter many theories established by Jeremy Bentham. Combining the idea of ​​consequentialism, according to which the consequences of actions are the only factor in moral evaluation, and hedonism – which states that pleasure is the only factor in considering the value of the overall intrinsic good – AU argues that a An action is right if its consequences produce a positive effect. maximum amount of happiness for general well-being. More precisely, Mill believes that the concept of morality consists of two main utilities in the Greatest Happiness Principle: man's pursuit of the intrinsic good of pleasure and his willingness to prevent or alleviate pain in achieving his ends. All other desires arise from man's attempt to satisfy these goals which ultimately determine his actions. He recognizes that the seemingly acute simplicity of the Happiness Principle may on the surface infer that human happiness is no more sophisticated than that of pigs. However, he supports this by pointing out that “pigs” can only experience simple pleasures while human consciousness allows for a “higher” and more sophisticated mechanism for experiencing mental pleasures. Diverging from traditional AU theory, Mills places much emphasis on the quality of pleasure and happiness of particular individuals above their duties to have motivations that serve the “quantity” of more people. One argument presented is that if a particular group of people were exposed to both pleasures A and B, if the general c... center of paper... position on the complementary relationship between pleasure, happiness, and being virtuous appears to have a certain level of credibility. While the ideal would be for these three ideals to have a synonymous meaning within all of society, the gaps found in the examination of “humanitarians” and their justifications that fall within the accepted guidelines of Mill's AU doctrine are alarming. Therefore, while it is difficult to ignore the fact that some men are driven by intrinsically evil evil intentions, from the perspective of moral theory the AU should be seen as an essential stepping stone towards modern Rossian pluralism. By introducing the idea that we must consider and balance specific moral duties, including the duty to obey laws and not lie in reaching an overall moral judgment, it is undeniable that RP has plugged the holes in the UA ship's leaks. virtue.