Utilitarianism is starting to become a bit more difficult to swallow the more our class delves into it. The latest objection was that Utilitarianism is too high for humanity. The objector goes on to say that it would just be too lofty for people to always make a decision based on how it will effect ALL the people in the world. This does seem a bit daunting after all.
To combat this Mill says that it doesn’t really matter what the motive behind doing an action is, so long as it increases overall happiness. In fact he goes further to say that NO system of ethics worth considering takes this into account. He makes an analogy of a man saving another creature from drowning. To Mill it doesn’t matter if the man saved the creature because he thought he would get a reward or that it was done in goodwill, the man’s action increased overall happiness. Therefore, this person performed a morally good action.
Although Mill does a decent job in defending himself, I believe he is wrong. If a person walked out of his or her house with the intention of murdering another person, but for one reason or another failed to do so, the intent still seems morally wrong. Mill would say, no harm, no foul, but in our society we would probably tell this person that he or she would need counselling at the very least. The same argument would hold true for somebody who was forced to do a moral action such as community service due as a punishment for a crime. Although this person is doing a moral act, it seems that it would not be the same as a person who volunteered through their own free will. To Mill this wouldn’t make a difference.
It seems very Macchiavellian of Mill that he does not seem to care about how overall happiness was obtained, but merely if it is obtained. Without delving too deeply into Macchiavelli’s theories, a person who believes that “the ends always justify the means”, does not seem to promote a good sense of morals.
Based on these reasons I firmly believe that Mill is wrong in this case. I believe that people do different things for different reasons (or motives) and not all of these reasons are particularly moral. I’m not saying that motive is just as important as the action itself, however it certainly does seem that motive should be taken into account in regards of morality.
