Utilitarianism is an ethical theory which focuses on the outcome of an action. It weighs the value of an action over its consequences. The rule of utilitarianism focuses on the result regardless of the nature of the action. It points out that, if the outcome is in line with the expected benefits, then the action can be undertaken. It should not only apply to the agent, but also satisfy everyone affected by the action. The action should put forth maximum happiness to everyone involved. Utilitarianism provides a morally upright approach in making decisions about a certain action. It foresees the possible outcome of the action and calculates the benefits and the costs. From these calculations, the best approach is chosen which ensures that benefits are maximized while costs are minimized. The major drawback of the utilitarianism is justice. For instance, a situation where a certain act yields more benefits but is still deemed unjust affects decision making. This is because; one has to choose the principle to be used, which is either justice or utilitarianism. The utilitarian standard focuses on the happiness for all those concerned and not oneself. The kind of decisions we make should not only bring happiness to the agent of the action, but to everyone involved. The spirit and purpose of utilitarianism is ‘the greatest happiness for the majority’. Utilitarianism is being used by business analysts, scientists and legislators to make decisions on; whether to invest certain resources to carry out specific projects, whether to approve a certain drug, or whether to ban a certain chemical. The most important formal principle studied in formal ethics is the golden rule which involves principles such as; ‘treat others the way you want them to treat you’ ‘be logically consistent in your beliefs’ ‘practice what you preach’ and ‘follow your conscience’. These principles can be ambiguous if they are taken literally, for instance the principle of treating others the way you want them to treat you, might not be applicable in some situations, for example in a case where a doctor wants to replace your kidney, then you ought not to replace his in order for him to replace yours. This ambiguity becomes a challenge when establishing these rules since it is hard to come up with situations that satisfy the rule and those that do not. The question of right or wrong is generally dealt with in ethics. If one has a justified claim, then he has a right. For instance, every human being has a right to be educated, and hence entitled to some form of education. Moral rights are then justified by the moral standards that are agreed upon by the majority but not necessarily those coded by the law. An act is said to be wrong where it does not respect the rights of the persons involved. A right has a major role on ethics, but it should not be the only factor to be considered in ethical decision making. This is for the reason that, when we consider a right as the sole approach to ethics, then the focus shifts to an individual not to a community. Thus morality calls us to respect one’s dignity and uniqueness, so as to achieve desirable results for the effective living of the community. According to Aristotle, every individual has his own opinion in what is best for human beings. This brings diverse views raising disagreements. These disagreement