Poison or Penicillin?

An Interpretation of John Stuart Mills Utilitarianism An important distinction of our everyday actions is that between the goodness of the action and its morality. The action intended to produce happiness is a good action, however an action is deemed moral by the terms of the Greatest Happiness Principle, in which actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness (Warnock and Mill 2007, 1). Therefore, actions which intend to produce happiness, but through chance and decision actually detract from happiness, can be deemed both good and morally wrong. Following the same form, actions can be both bad and morally right. This distinction, when applied to the curious case of the instructor intending to kill their roommate while poisoning them, presents an action with bad intentions. However, the wrongness of this action is countered by the wrong action of another: in intending to poison their roommate, the instructor actually administers an antidote to a deadly poison which the roommate ingested earlier from a mal-intentioned lover. While both these actions are morally bad, they seem to be made, through Mills Greatest Happiness Principle, morally right actions. However, the response from Mill would hold that, while there may be happiness from these actions, the long term effects of betrayal and retribution cause the suffering to outweigh the goodness of today. While good can come from many actions, a Utilitarian society can soar only on the wings of wellintended actions from noble men. In a court of law, the instructor and his roommates lover would be charged with attempted murder, and most likely be convicted. It doesnt matter that their mutual mal-intent cancelled each other outthey were both intending to kill the roommate. Furthermore, Mill proposes that since the morality of an action depends entirely on the intention, intending to

poison the roommate was a completely immoral state, but, barring the motives for killing, became a right action (Warnock and Mill 2007, 9). However, in right and wrong actions, we return to the point that right actions are those that promote overall happiness and mitigate suffering. The instructor and the lover individually performed morally wrong actions that seem to be good when taken together. However, in individually foregoing their duty to treat other humans with actions that promote happiness, they performed both morally wrong and bad actions. This weighing of Utility is the true test of the morality of the action. Mill holds true to the statement that Utilitarianism can only reach its end goal by the general cultivation of nobleness of character, even if each individual were only benefited by the nobleness of others, and his own, so far as happiness is concerned, were a sheer deduction from benefit (Warnock and Mill 2007, 4). Being surrounded and continually benefitted by wellintentioned individuals will foster the desire to be noble, Mill holds. Furthermore, it is acknowledged that a Utilitarian society could not reach its ultimate end of full mitigation of suffering along with the maximization of pleasure without noble individuals. Nobleness in itself is not always source of personal pleasure, but, through development of ones conscience and intelligence, the act of serving others while being willing to sacrifice provides a sense of satisfaction and tranquility. Without this desire to increase the happiness of others while at the same time bettering oneself, a society will never reach harmony. While we have been given the intent of the instructor and roommates girlfriend, Mills Utilitarianism could still deem the individual actions morally right, given the outcomes. We know both the attempting killers intent, but the motives remain unclear. It could be that the two had discovered the roommates plot to later go on a rampage that day, and decided that it was in their duty to act since alerting authorities might set the roommate off. While their motives would

be justifiable, their intent would be morally wrong (since killing is wrong), but the act of poisoning itself would be seen as a good act. Continually, we must reference the Greatest Happiness Principle as Mill says [h]e 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 (Warnock and Mill 2007, 9). By acting to mitigate suffering, the instructor and the girlfriend would be bettering a Utilitarian society. In all, this conjecture of motives has no real weight: regardless of motives, the act of combinatorial poisoning that leads to the saving of the roommate is good, and since it increases happiness, mill would also include that it is morally right. The instructor can be held accountable for his intent, but he cannot be held accountable for the good caused by his mal-intent. In all, we must follow the conclusion of Mills that motive does not matter, only the product of the action done. However, Mill holds that, should society intend to progress to a tranquil and ideal state, these good states of being should be the product of actions from noble men.

Jonathan Meneses

Work Cited
Warnock, M. and John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism and on liberty: Including an essay on Bentham and selections from the writings of Jeremy Bentham and Jon Austin. John Wiley and Sons: 2007.