and interpretations of morality, there has been the presupposition that takes place to initialize the concept. Mill’s Utilitarianism presupposes that human beings do have a concept for general well being, and that is genuinely by nature good and willfully ethical. It is this generalization that spawns for these sanctions that he has addressed, and it is the role of the good nature of man that determines the worth of his actions. This is also the pivot in Mill’s mechanics that is probably most argued upon. Kant, Neibhor, and Plato would have had much to say on Mill’s assumption of the natural goodness of mankind and his given instinct to do good. If impartiality and equity are what good will and duty bring forth, Mill has provided a basis within utilitarianism that reinforces this.Aside from distinct sanctions, many other aspects of Utility lead to the notion that impartiality and equity are set boldly within the framework of Mill’s interpretation. According to Mill, all people are, ethically speaking, equal in all situations. When considering the value of happiness from one individual to another, the issue is proposed to be a straight line representing the equality the value from individual to individual. One person’s happiness is just as important as another’s. With this in mind, there is no such reason to even consider a biased view on the distribution of happiness, for in the beholder’s eyes, it is nothing but equal. Utility also states that the greater number that acquires happiness is most desired, so there is no real reason to consider any other way to distribute it but evenly. A biased approach would prove inefficient, and with the concept in mind that Mill is only concerned with the results of ones actions, not the intention, it would only make sense to be impartial. How is impartiality and equity in utility possible? First and foremost, are no ethical principles that are ag...
