Utilitarianism
Forget rigid rules - utilitarianism is all about results. This consequentialist theory judges actions purely on their outcomes: does it create "the greatest happiness for the greatest number"?
Bentham's act utilitarianism treats every situation individually. Before acting, you'd use his hedonic calculus - weighing up seven factors like intensity, duration, and certainty of pleasure or pain. Sounds logical, but imagine trying to calculate whether to help your mate cheat on an exam using mathematical formulas about happiness!
J.S. Mill thought Bentham's approach was too crude. His rule utilitarianism distinguishes between higher pleasures (studying, art, intellectual pursuits) and lower pleasures (eating, drinking, physical satisfaction). "It's better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied" - basically, quality beats quantity.
Mill's approach is more practical - follow rules that generally produce the best outcomes rather than calculating each decision. But it's also pretty elitist. Who decides that classical music is "higher" than football? Mill's upper-class background definitely shows here.
Key Point: The naturalistic fallacy challenges both versions - just because we naturally seek pleasure doesn't mean pleasure equals good. Plus, preference utilitarianism (Singer) focuses on satisfying desires rather than just maximising happiness.
Both theories face major criticism: Kant's system seems too rigid for real life, while utilitarianism could justify horrible acts if they benefit the majority. The debate continues!