Philosophy
Mill’s main argument is that consequences of an action are the sole criterion of its rightness and wrong, but that is not completely correct as other things besides consequences matters as well. Mill argues that consequences of an action are what determine whether the action is morally right or wrong. In his views, the object of all the actions is to increase happiness and reduce pain or unhappiness. If the end result of an action is, increase in happiness then the action is morally right, but if as the result of the action happiness is reduced it is morally prohibited. It is only the consequence of an action that matters nothing else is of value. To state it in Mill’s own words, “The utilitarian doctrine is that happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things being desirable as means to that end.” (Mill)
But is consequence the only parameter on which we should judge morality of an action? Do not the past considerations of an action and the motivations of an agent have anything to do with the morality of an action? Mill seems to think otherwise, in his opinion none of this matters, it is only the consequence of an action that matters. The position of Mill appears to be a rigid one as a close analysis would show that other things besides consequences can also play an important part in determining the morality of an action.
In addition to this, even if we agree with Mill that happiness is the only criterion with which we should judge the consequences, and that people only desire happiness in the end still the question remains that ends and consequences alone cannot define morality. The strongest critique of Mill’s Utilitarianism is given by H.J. McCloskey. He asks his readers to indulge in a thought experiment. Suppose, he said, riots are about to occur in a racial society because of the crime committed by a Negro. However, if a particular innocent Negro is charged with the crime it would stop the riots and lynching. A utilitarian would have no choice but to conclude that he must bear false witness against that particular Negro to stop the riots and lynching. Though, falsely accusing a Negro will undermine the happiness, but this reduction of happiness would be outweighed by the prevention of riots and lynching. In the calculation of a Utilitarian like Mill, the utility of saving the peace of the society is more important than the life of an innocent man. As the example illustrates, simply the consequence of an action cannot be the only determinant of morality. Utilitarian morality can go against the distributive justice and this cannot be right. The life of an innocent man cannot be sacrificed just to enhance the utility or happiness of a society. So, as Rachel puts it, “Thus, an ethical theory that says utility or consequence is the whole story cannot be right.” (Rachels 120)
Furthermore, Mill focused all his attention to the future result of an action, i.e. consequence and ignored the backward-looking reasoning. Suppose someone made a promise to his friend, but then he realizes that not fulfilling the promise would slightly outweigh the utility of keeping the promise. In Mill’s calculation, the person should break his promise. He is not only morally permissible to do so; it is his moral obligation to do this as it would increase the end utility. But this cannot be right; the fact that he promised to his friend puts an obligation upon him and a little increase in utility cannot exempt him from it. The crux of the argument is that backward-looking considerations are also important in defining the morality of an action. So, Mill’s argument that consequences are the only thing that matters, is again seems incorrect.
Works Cited
Mill, J. S. (1861). Utilitarianism. London.
McCloskey, H.J. "A Non-Utilitarian Approach to Punishment." Inquiry (1965): 239-55. Print.
Rachels, J. (1986). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. McGraw-Hill Companies.
