The principle of Utilitarianism is broad, in which the definition is good if it increases happiness. In such away the fundamental of overall Happiness will benefit from the moral act. In this chapter Mills argues about the moral opportunity that is done in public and private that will increases the overall happiness.
The following is an example of the public moral opportunity:
President Bush rescued a kitty cat from being killed.
A similar moral act was done by another person in A different place in the same situation.
The question is whether President Bush is many times more moral than a regular person in that they both did the same moral action? However, because President Bush is WELL-KNOWN and in the public eye, his moral action. Probably resulted increasing OVERALL happiness.
On the other hand, a regular person who had the opportunity and did the same moral action influences less people, BECAUSE less people would know about it. Therefore, the effect would be limited to increasing his or her or her private happiness known only to his or her immediate circle of friends and family.
The act is the same and should result in the same amount of happiness; However, it is not because The president has more influence to affect peoples’ lives. Seems that is very wrong and conflictive.
Obeying the Utilitarianism it would be require to the wrong thing. When in reality moral conduct should be equality divide regardless how conductthe action. I guess we are living in the Utilitarianism world.
