Utilitarianism

The main principle of utilitarian moral theory,the principle of utility, states thatthe right action is the one that produces the most overallhappiness. John Stuart Mill adapted Jeremy Bentham's theory, and stated that happiness is pleasure and the absence of pain. However, Mill clarified that there are higher and lower pleasures. The higher pleasures are the pleasures of the intellect, and the lower pleasures are the pleasures of the senses. The upshot is that morally speaking, it is not just thequantityof pleasure that matters to the utilitarian, but thequalityas well.

It is wrong to punish an innocent person because it violates his rights and is unjust. But for the utilitarian, all that matters is the net gain of happiness. If the happiness of the many is increased enough, it can justify making one (or a few) miserable in service of the rest.

Is it justified that under the utilitarianism principle, one should commit unjust actions in certain situations for the greater good? Why or why not?

References:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a739VjqdSI

https://www.thoughtco.com/kantian-ethics-moral-philosophy-immanuel-kant-4045398