John Stuart Mill"s Utilitarianism (Latin utilis,"useful"), in ethics, the doctrine that what is useful is good, and consequently, that the ethical value of conduct is determined by the utility of its results. The term utilitarianism is more specifically applied to the proposition that the supreme objective of moral action is the achievement of the greatest happiness for the greatest number. This objective is also considered the aim of all legislation and is the ultimate criterion of all social institutions. Utilitarianism is likewise at variance with the view that moral distinctions depend on the will of God and that the pleasure given by an act to the individual alone who performs it is the decisive test of good and evil. These are the general conceptions of Aristotle"s Normative Ethics and John Stuart Mill"s Utilitarianism; however, this paper aims to portray specific correlations as well as the differences on their individual notions of Hedanism (good (which is sometimes called virtue = pleasure/happiness), and morality is a word which would encompass all of these terms.

             To begin then, for Aristotle, morality is relative because he says, ethics is concerned with particular concrete actions, rather than, say, a universal principle. This makes good a relative. In his Practical Science, there can be no absolute moral standard, which will serve as the principal governing every action. For this reason, the good of any action is relative to the kind of action it is and this is why the good is not an absolute value, since good can mean many things, such as useful, excellent, harmony, creation/creativity, enough, et cetera. Whereas, Aristotle"s approach is practical and "down to earth", Mill persistently tries to make his theory just the same, but fails remarkably in my mind in attempting to do so. Mill mentions that he would not make "morality a science, but an art" and says that it"s a type of art, because it"s relative in the sense that it"s the application of a law to an individual case.