Classical utilitarianism, the theory described by the 17th century philosopher John Stuart Mill, states that the only thing that matters is the happiness and unhappiness that are created as a consequence of an action; those actions must be judged right or wrong solely by virtue of their consequences, everything else is irrelevant. The theory also states that each person's happiness is equally important. According to Mill, right actions are those that produce the greatest possible balance between happiness and unhappiness. Although the theory of utilitarianism is widely accepted, it is not without very critical and persuasive objections. I will examine and analyze the “pig doctrine” and “lack of time” objections to utilitarianism along with Mill's response to these claims. Utilitarianism emphasizes the importance of the resulting happiness of an action. However, the “pig doctrine” objection to humanity states that since all that matters is pleasure and happiness, then our values ​​must be deemed unworthy of living. An example that illustrates this notion is the experience machine: Let's define A as: A dictator issues an edict that forces everyone to use machines that produce pleasant experiences (magnitude knobs set to maximum). U(A) = +1000 Let B be defined as: the dictator does not issue edicts. U(B) = +5001. If utilitarianism is true, then the dictator is morally obligated to do A2. It is not true that the dictator is morally obliged to do A3. Therefore, utilitarianism is false. Ordering everyone to be connected to the machine would certainly maximize utility, but people's lives would become no better than a pig's life. The premise of one of the objections is true... middle of paper. .....transport. He should not think twice about his course of action because of his past experiences in life. I also believe the "lack of time" objection is false. According to utilitarianism, any action that fails to produce maximum utility is morally wrong. Using the pram example, if Jim were to stop and think about his options, it would undoubtedly produce less happiness than saving the baby. That said, the first premise becomes false because utilitarianism does not require us to think about our actions. Therefore, the objection of lack of time is invalid and therefore unfounded. Even if the “pig doctrine” argument and the “lack of time” argument all turn out to be unfounded, both objections exemplify the flaws of utilitarianism. And although Mill tries to reason about every topic, he succeeds only in some cases.