Mill's Utilitarian Approach to Normative Ethics

The debate of what is good and right has been discussed since the beginning of man. Three of the most recognized views concerning normative ethics are presented by Aristotle, Kant, and Mill. Aristotle argues that one’s character determines what is good and right; Kant argues that one’s intention behind an action determines whether it is good and right. Mill argues that the consequences of the action and the choice that results in the greater good determine what is good and right. Mill’s view, utilitarianism, operates according to the Greatest Happiness Principle, which says that actions are right if they promote happiness and wrong if they produce the reverse of happiness for the greatest number of people.

One objection to Mill’s view argues that in reality, there is usually not enough time for a person to weigh the consequences of their actions. For example, if there were a child that was drowning in a pool, most people would jump in on impulse to save it. In that situation, and many similar ones in which the person seems to act on impulse, there is hardly any time to deliberate the consequences of jumping in and saving the child as opposed to letting him drown. Those who oppose utilitarianism deem it useless, as it cannot be consistently used in all circumstances.

In response, Mill might reply that our subconscious has learned from our past experiences that what results in happiness for the greater number of people is what is considered good and right; in those moments when we decide to jump in to save the child, our subconscious is already persuaded that saving his life will result in his and others’ happiness, therefore making it the right thing to do. Though both plausible arguments, I personally believe that the answer to what is good and right is found within a combination of the three aforementioned widely acknowledged theories.