Jeremy Bentham believed that humans were ruled by two sovereign masters,

pleasure and pain. Yet he also promulgated the principle of utility as the standard of right
action on the part of governments and individuals. Bentham believed that actions are
approved when they promote happiness (pleasure) or disapproved when they cause
unhappiness (pain). John Stuart Mill disagreed with some Bentham’s claims, particularly
on the nature of happiness. Mill believed that the theory of pleasure equaling happiness
wasn’t that simple. The fact is, there are some pleasures that are just more pleasurable than
others. Intellectual pleasures sit on a much higher caliber than ones that are merely
sensual. Bentham considered only quantity of pleasure, but Mill considered both quantity
and quality of pleasure. Bentham's utilitarianism was criticized for being a philosophy
"worthy of only swine". This is because he made no distinction between the pleasures
experienced by beasts and those experienced by humans. "Quantity of pleasure being
equal, pushpin is as good as poetry". Mill acknowledged this, and to sidestep the
criticism, he considered both quantity and quality pleasure. Mill distinguished between
higher pleasures (those that require mental faculties that only educated humans could
obtain) and lower pleasures (bodily pleasures that both animals and humans could
experience). For Mill, higher pleasures are more valuable than lower pleasures, because
of their "intrinsic superiority". Though Mill's theory is more respectful of human nature,
it makes pleasure even more difficult to calculate as we now have to consider
unquantifiable quality of pleasure, as well as the quantity.

Globalization has transformed the world from a collection of discrete communities

interacting occasionally to an overlapping community of fate. Thus culturally, politically
and economically, communities across the world now operate in what is essentially a
shared space albeit divided into artificial political condominiums called nation-states.
This artificial division, notwithstanding, the intensification of transnational relations
occasioned by globalizing forces and processes has opened up novel forms of social
bonds and responsibilities. As nations, peoples and communities across the globe become
economically, socially and politically connected, the distinction between the global and
the local becomes increasingly blurred and events and actions in one locale carries with
it the potential to generate transnational and trans-generational consequences. It is
precisely because in a globalized world, events and actions are capable of giving rise to
transnational consequences, that moral reflection about our responsibilities and
obligations has become an imperative. Taking the above observations as a point of
departure, this paper seeks to highlight some of the plethora of normative issues and
question which are becoming increasingly significant in the age of globalization. These,
interestingly, includes the character of globalization itself. Critics have argued that the
currently unfolding neoliberal globalization concentrates wealth in the hands of a few
while it leaves the majority in the condition of poverty. Other questions relate to the
environment, cultural imperialism, human rights, global poverty, the rise of powerful
transnational corporations etc.