I examine the claim that utilitarianism treats actions as right in cases where common sense considers them to be unjust. To this end, I have described the guidelines of the doctrine as John Stuart Mill defined them and presented the objection to it. I show that utilitarians could refute the objection by proving that commonsense morality itself allows for the increase of evil. Utilitarianism is a moral doctrine that sees “utility” in benefit, which is described as “pleasure”. It is based on the principle of “greatest happiness”, according to which the best action is that which maximizes happiness. By “happiness” we mean obtaining pleasure and avoiding suffering. According to this doctrine, a person is supposed to aim in his actions for the greatest possible happiness, either in terms of the magnitude of the benefit itself or in terms of the number of people who benefited from it. Additionally, the long-term benefits outweigh the short-term ones. Since “every action aims at an end”, actions and their consequences are inseparable. The doctrine holds that the consequences of actions outweigh in importance the nature of the actions. Therefore, no action is considered wrong according to utilitarianism as long as it maximizes happiness, even if the action is morally wrong in its nature. The doctrine appears to encourage actions that contradict common sense morality, the set of moral rules accepted by society. This impression raises an objection to utilitarianism, claiming that it promotes unjust and evil actions. For example, imagine the case of a surgeon who has five patients who can only be saved by transplants of certain organs, and another patient whose organs are healthy. According to utilitarianism, sacrificing health...... middle of paper...... from right actions. The answer defends utilitarianism by explaining that the doctrine values ​​consequences and not actions. The weakness of the answer lies in confirming that the doctrine authorizes unjust actions, the point to which the objection was raised. However, this shows that even though utilitarianism permits injustice, it is for a legitimate purpose of minimizing harm. Utilitarians argue that human actions should produce the maximum possible benefit. According to the objection to the doctrine, maximum benefit is obtained at the expense of justice. The objection is refuted by asserting that utilitarianism promotes greater happiness, not unjust actions. The latter may be necessary to achieve consequences whose benefits outweigh both the injustice of the actions and the benefits of the consequences that could be obtained by following common sense morality..