This may be the reason why Mill does not refer to maximization in the formula of utility. (ii) Mill now turns to the question of whether determinism – correctly understood – is indeed incompatible with the doctrine of free will. An action has a high positive value on the scale of preference, if its tendency to facilitate happiness is high. There is one crucial difficulty with the interpretation of Mill as an indirect act utilitarian regarding moral obligation. This, being, according to the utilitarian opinion, the end of human action, is necessarily also the standard of morality; which may accordingly be defined, the rules and precepts for human conduct, by the observance of which an existence such as has been described might be, to the greatest extent possible, secured to all mankind; and not to them only, but, so far as the nature of things admits, to the whole sentient creation. He finds them incompatible with the basic principles of the modern world, such as equality and liberty. For ought implies can. In a famous letter to a Henry Jones, he clarifies that he did not mean that every person, in fact, strives for the general good. With this, the second step of the argument is complete. In Principles of Political Economy, which became the leading economics textbook for forty years after it was written, Mill elaborated on the ideas of David Ricardo and Adam Smith. Humans discover that co-operation with people outside the tribe is advantageous. But what about those who do not want to change? On the one hand, he says that the “utilitarian doctrine is, that happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end.” (CW 10, 234) On the other hand, he defines utilitarianism as a moral theory according to which “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness…” (CW 10, 210). As quoted before in his “Remarks on Bentham’s Philosophy” (1833),he states that some violations of the established moral code are simply unthinkable for the members of society: people recoil “from the very thought of committing” (CW 10, 12) particular acts. Someone with criminal tendencies might not be able to keep himself from acting criminally, because he does not consider the possibility that he will be severely punished if caught. Seen from the perspective of an all-knowing and impartial observer, it is – in regard to the given description – objectively right to perpetrate the homicide. Corresponding to his basic thesis that “the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it” (CW 10, 234), Mill must consider the possibility that knowledge, fame or wealth have intrinsic value. Humans strive for virtue and other goods only if they are associated with the natural and original tendency to seek pleasure and avoid pain. (ii) A further complication arises with the word “tend”. One may object here that Mill’s theory presumes the desire to change. Hedonism states not only that happiness is intrinsically good, but also that it is the only good and thus the only measure for our action. Mill is a determinist and assumes that human actions follow necessarilyfrom antecedent conditions and psychological laws. John Stewart Mill was a philosopher, an economist, a senior official in the East India Company and a son of James Mill. A manner of existence without access to the higher pleasures is not desirable: “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” (CW 10, 212). Macroeconomics studies an overall economy or market system, its behavior, the factors that drive it, and how to improve its performance. Mill defines “utilitarianism” as the creed that considers a particular “theory of life” as the “foundation of morals” (CW 10, 210). These reasons are empirical and touch upon the careful observation of oneself and others. The Second Formula maintains that a set of social rules A is better than the set B, if in A less humans suffer from an impoverished, unhappy life and more enjoy a fulfilled, rich life than in B. Recent studies emphasize Mill’s rule utilitarian leanings (Miller 2010, 2011) or find elements of both theories in Mill (West 2004). Virtue, knowledge or wealth can thus become parts of happiness. Mill does not write “morally right” or “morally wrong”, but simply “right” and “wrong”. The model seems to be roughly this: At the neutral point of the preference scale, actions have the tendency – in regard to the status quo – to neither increase nor decrease the mass of utility in the world.