Analysis Of John Stuart Mill's Utilitarian Ethics

On the other hand, when determining the morality of the act of giving money, John Stuart Mill’s utilitarian ethical theory would focus on consequences as well as two main components: deriving highest pleasure and avoiding pain for the majority (Mill 8). Mill argues, “He who saves a fellow creature from drowning does what is morally right, whether his motive be duty or the hope of being paid for his trouble” (Mill 18). Through this example, John Stuart Mill describes the importance of consequences, rather than motive in determining whether an act is ethical. Without two varying options to act upon, one could not be ethical because the consequence of the action is what causes it to become ethical. Similarly, where the pleasure lies on the hierarchy of pleasures is a vital part of the utilitarian theory. In his book, Utilitarianism, Mill states, “It is quite compatible with the principle of

In chapter two of Utilitarianism, Mill argues “The motive has nothing to do with the morality of the action…He who saves a fellow creature from drowning does what is morally right, whether his motive be duty, or the hope of being paid for his trouble; he who betrays the friend that trusts him, is guilty of a crime, even if his object be to serve another friend to whom he is under greater obligations” (Mill 16). Through this statement, Mill establishes the concept of consequentialism, therefore altering the ethics of an act. If one saves a man from drowning with the intentions of saving him, the act is ethical. On the other hand, if one saves a man from drowning with the intentions of killing him, the act is therefore unethical. In opposition to Kant’s ethical theory, Mill’s theory defends the claim that consequences affect the ethics of an