The comparative morality of action is then based upon a comparison of the results of that balancing act. Whichever produces the most net utility is the more correct action to take. On face, the theory seems quite simple, to act morally is to weigh the effects of one s possible courses of action and then undertake that action which creates the greatest pleasure. However, a few things need to be clarified before this system can be used as a moral standard. Initially, Mill argues that all moral calculations must be based upon the final goal of the action.
Every action is undertaken for the sake of an end, or goal.
The moral rules that guide our actions would then seem to logically spring from that end goal. Any system basing moral codes strictly upon a priori principles fails to recognize the link from morality and the results of action. Specifically, Mill argues that human happiness is the end towards which all action is directed, though his justification for this doesn t go far beyond mere assertion. Secondly then, the idea of happiness requires clarification. The question then becomes what exactly Mill means when he uses the term happiness as the basis of his system.