Mill says in keeping with the best happiness principle, the last word ends with relation to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable whether of ourselves or of others is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain and as rich as possible in enjoyment both in point of quality and quality. in a very very imperfect state of the world’s arrangements that anyone can best serve the happiness of others by absolutely the sacrifice of his own, Mill recognizes the readiness to form such a sacrifice because of the highest virtue in man. The utilitarian morality does recognize in individuals the facility of sacrificing their own greatest good for the great of others but refuses to admit it as an honest. It doesn’t glorify the sacrifices pretty much as good nor applaud it as this sacrifice doesn’t increase the accumulation of happiness i.e. the ratio becomes 0:1 which is taken into account a d wasted. the sole self-renunciation applauds is devotion to the happiness The utilitarian standard for what’s right conduct isn’t the agent’s own happiness which of others. Utilitarianism requires us to be an as strictly impartial and as disinterested and benevolent spectator

Mill’s Greatest Happiness Principle (Principle of Utility) establishes that happiness is that the ultimate criterion to ascertain what’s moral and what’s not, i.e., the best moral society is that the one where everybody is happy and everybody is freed from pain. Such an inspiration, however, can be problematic, since it’s a fact of life that the happiness of people sometimes conflicts. for example, if individual A thinks that cash may be a fundamental means of accelerating his/her happiness and decreasing his/her suffering and decides to steal from B he/she will, then, be probably happier after he/she has successfully concluded the robbery. the matter is that B is going to be probably less happy and suffering more after being robbed and, thus, if the criterion of utility were based only on the happiness of every individual, it might be completely useless to guide people’s actions, especially those where there’s a conflict of interests. Mill was cognizant of this, which is why he makes it clear that the utilitarian standard isn’t the agent’s own happiness, but the best amount of happiness altogether.2

But what does “the greatest amount of happiness altogether” mean? It seems that Mill provides a solution to the current question when he attempts to prove the principle of utility in chapter 4 of “Utilitarianism”. He says:3

No reason is often given why the overall happiness is desirable, except that every person, thus far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness. This, however, is a fact, we’ve got not only all the proof which the case admits of, but all which it’s possible to need, that happiness is good; that every person’s happiness could be a good to it personally, and also the general happiness, therefore, a decent to the combination of all persons. within the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth “To do as you’d be done by”and to like your neighbor as you’d love yourself.