Tematem artykułu jest stanowisko normatywne H. Elzenberga, które nazywam autocentryzmem etycznym. Jest to stanowisko, które przedkłada obowiązki wobec siebie nad obowiązki wobec innych. Nie jest to jednak klasyczny perfekcjonizm. Stanowisko Elzenberga opiera się na kilku założeniach: na agorofobii, na sceptycyzmie deontologicznym, perfekcjonizmie, irracjonalizmie (co radykalnie różni jego stanowisko od stanowiska stoików) oraz monizmie aksjologicznym. Wzorami osobowymi wpisanymi w to stanowisko są „meliorysta” i „soteryk”.

In his A Theory of Justice John Rawls presents a critique of utilitarianism. He focuses on utilitarianism in the version offered by John Stuart Mill, but Rawls’s analysis of Mill’s views is schematic and limited to Mill’s ethical theory. Rawls does not recognize the importance of perfectionistic themes in Mill’s theory, nor does he note the consequences of that issue for the problem of gender equality. Rawls discuses those themes in his Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy. If one is primarily guided by Rawls’s A Theory of Justice, however, the person will be unable to appreciate similarities between Rawls’s and Mill’s positions. When focusing on the Lectures it is possible to recognize these affinities that are only dimly insinuated in A Theory of Justice. In the later volume they are strong enough to support the claim that a more pronounced affinity may bind these two authors that are not obvious at the first glance. I proceed therefore (1) to expose some shortcomings in the presentation of Mill’s utilitarianism by Rawls; (2) go on to analyse Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy in order to present a more penetrating reading of Mill’s utilitarianism by including its perfectionistic content; and (3) finally on the basis of those claims I point to some practical consequences of Mill’s and Rawls’s views on gender equality.