Classical utilitarianism, the theory described by 17th-century philosopher John Stuart Mill, states that the only thing that matters is the happiness and unhappiness created as a result of an action; these actions should be judged good or bad only by virtue of their consequences, everything else is irrelevant. The theory also states that everyone's happiness is equally important. According to Mill, good actions are those which produce the greatest possible balance between happiness and unhappiness. Although the theory of utilitarianism is widely accepted, it is not free from very critical and compelling objections. I will examine and analyze the "pig doctrine" and "lack of time" objections to utilitarianism as well as Mill's response to these statements. Utilitarianism emphasizes the importance of happiness resulting from an action. However, the “pig doctrine” that opposes humanity asserts that since all that matters is pleasure and happiness, then our values ​​must be considered unworthy of life. An example that illustrates this notion is the experience machine: let A be defined as: a dictator issues a decree forcing everyone to use machines that produce pleasant experiences (with the amplitude knobs set to maximum). U(A) = +1000 Let B be defined as: the dictator does not publish an edict. U(B) = +5001. If utilitarianism is true, then the dictator is morally obligated to do A2. The dictator is not morally obligated to do A3. Therefore, utilitarianism is false. Ordering everyone to be connected to the machine would certainly maximize utilities, but people's lives would become no better than a pig's. The first of the objections is true in the middle of the paper. .....transportation. He should not have to think twice about his course of action because of his past experiences in life. I also believe that the “lack of time” objection is false. According to utilitarianism, any action that does not produce the greatest utility is morally wrong. Using the pram example, if Jim stood up and thought about his alternatives, it would undoubtedly produce less happiness than saving the baby. That said, the first assumption becomes false because utilitarianism does not require us to think about our actions. Therefore, the lack of time objection is invalid and therefore ill-founded. Even though the "pork doctrine" and the "lack of time" argument all turn out to be ill-founded, both objections illustrate the flaws of utilitarianism. And although Mill attempts to reason out each argument, he only succeeds in certain cases..