The purpose of this essay is to critically compare Jeremy Bentham's production of Act Utilitarianism, which claims that we should live our lives in a way that can achieve the greatest amount of happiness possible with John Mill's rule utilitarianism. This is to say that we should follow the best set of rules that would ultimately lead to the greatest possible happiness. This composition will begin by touching on why the agreed upon validity shared by Bentham and Mill is that utility should be understood hedonistically, then explore the major problems and connections with rule consequentialism and utilitarianism using the Great Fire of 1666 with a hypothetical thought experiment from 1973, to demonstrate that, although act and rule utilitarianism have their positive aspects, both involve difficult-to-solve problems with the characteristics of utilitarianism. Ultimately, this essay will show that the main issue in any case is morality. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original Essay Complexity of Similarities and Differences Between Act and Rule Utilitarianism Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarianism is a theory of morality and a combination of consequentialism and hedonism. This is to say that we are morally obligated to live our lives in a way that creates the greatest happiness possible, if one situation were better than another, which would result in general happiness and the absence of pain for all human beings. However, although Bentham and Mill had different ideas about the nature of pleasure and pain, they agreed that moral and political justification should be judged equally. They also agreed that the focus should be on the gains and losses for utilities. Consequently, since it is possible to integrate both qualitative and quantitative hedonism into act-and-rule utilitarianism, Bentham and Mill established that utility should be implicit in a hedonistic approach. This is not to say that hedonism is without flaws as it is selfish in nature. For example, Barber explains that a Christian martyr thrown to the lions in the Roman Colosseum may have suffered ten thousand times the agony of anyone else in the crowd, but if there were eighty thousand spectators, the victim's agony would be nullified. The utility of society exceeds that of the individual. Bentham sought to bring science to bear on moral questions, converting them into empirical questions and conceptualizing pleasure and pain exclusively with reference to intensity and duration. Although Bentham's Act Utilitarianism has its advantages, such as being able to provide a solution to difficult situations and being able to extend to all beings capable of experiencing pleasure and pain, Bentham states that first and foremost what all laws "should have in common" is to discourage negative behavior. According to him, this will result in an overall happier society. The problem we have with consequentialism is that it conflicts with our everyday morality. Consequentialism tells us that in any situation the right thing to do is the action that is most likely to produce the best consequences. This presents many problems and Bentham seems to contradict himself quite a bit as he states that although punishment is intrinsically evil, because it causes pain, it should only be used to "exclude some greater evil". Above all, it is necessary to discourage society from disorderly behavior and reprimand the guilty for their wrong actions. Using the Great Fire of 1666 as an example, Alex Barber demonstrated that, despite.