عنوان مقاله [English]
In this paper, we defend the rule-based interpretation of John Stewart Mill's utilitarianism. First, we will explain briefly this recent and new dualism in the philosophy of utilitarian ethics. In general, Utilitarianists are divided into two categories: Rule-based and action-oriented. This is a recent division, but in our opinion, Mill's Utilitarian is rule-based. He uses the principle of utility through the intermediation of rules, not direct and immediate and he uses that fundamental principle only when creating rules or contradicting the rules. In order to defend this claim, we first refer to Ermeson’s interpretation and then we will examine seven arguments of adherents and opponents of Mill's rule utilitarianism and in this review, we will amplify the words of supporters like Ermeson and criticize the words of opponents like Crisp. Then we will bring five witnesses to consolidate our claims which according to them, our interpretation of the rule-based utilitarianism of Mill is strengthened and supported.