Mill discusses promotes the principle of utility as a valuable source of optimizing the goodness of an action by minimizing any/all unhappiness which may result. There seems to be many exceptions to this argument, all of which he provides a good defense to, however I cannot help but feel that it weakens the premise of his utilitarian argument. He rejects the notion that people should choose the course of action which causes the greatest amount of happiness from a quantitative standpoint, because we must access the quality of the pleasure and pain that may follow. While I agree that pleasure is completely qualitative, it also differs entirely person to person depending on the circumstances. Since utilitarianism is a doctrine of impartiality, so that the welfare of individuals holds equals across all matters, we must act considerately to each party that may be effected by the act. I think it is very difficult for one to access the expected results of an action and then apply it to each party, especially if the action has a chain of ends that are unforeseeable. This said, I think it is important to acknowledge the difference between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism, which considers the number of people affected by the result of an action.