Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that focuses on the outcomes and consequences (a form of consequentialism) of action by upholding the ethics of a choice that would produce the greatest good for the largest number of involved people or stakeholders. It moves outside the scope of one’s interests to take into account the needs of others. It is a flexible moral framework as it helps to account for the negatives and benefits of a specific action, thus weighing a balanced approach. However, it remains one of the few moral frameworks that can justify something like the use of force or deceit, any potentially unethical (as considered by most) action if it results in the greater good. Despite a logical basis to this theory, it remains highly controversial with its limitations. One limitation is that no one can predict the future to determine with certainty the full consequence of any given action. Furthermore, it has little regard for justice and individual rights, making it difficult to apply in situations in the modern world (Barrow, 2010.). Utilitarianism can apply to either specific actions (act-utilitarianism) or general rules of moral behavior and conduct (rule-utilitarianism). In act-utilitarianism, the framework is applied to each situation of choice where alternative acts are evaluated to determine which brings the best outcome (or one with the least bad consequences). As mentioned earlier, it can justify inherently immoral acts such as torturing a suspected terrorist to prevent as an example. Rule utilitarianism establishes a more general code of conduct based on similar principles. For example, a rule, to tell the truth, can be deemed necessary by moral utilitarianism because there have been numerous examples in society and history where lying resulted in horrendous consequences. However, it may seem paradoxical since rule utilitarianism establishes boundaries that individuals must follow, but this suggests that individual actions which maximize utility (act-utilitarianism) no longer apply. Nevertheless, it is plausible because rule utilitarianism provides general rules which leave it up to the individual to decide how to conduct themselves. In certain situations where a human being is notoriously bad at making judgments at the moment, this can be helpful to maximize positive utility. Rule utilitarianism allows departure from rigid guidelines leaving the choice up to individuals and to behave as in the case of act-utilitarianism (Barrow, 2010). This is how the process of ethical decision-making works in utilitarianism. In general, utilitarian philosophers support a view of morality that seeks to increase good things in the world and decrease negative aspects. That often leads to utilitarianism reject common law, systemic or societal traditions, or customs, examining morality from a pragmatic perspective of its contribution to human beings. Despite its seeming simplicity, utilitarianism can be complex as it requires recognition of 3 key factors: understanding good and evil, whose good must be maximized (since many moral dilemmas place one group of humans against another), and comprehension of whether actions or policies are made right or wrong by their actual or foreseeable consequences (Nathanson, n.d.). In the scriptures, there is a line “Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed yo