Many times the process leading up to that consequence are overlooked because the end result is the only thing that matters. Mill states that “if [my own] happiness lies in something else, why [may I] not give that the preference”, which may sound logical on the surface, but when analyzing the clause there is much to criticize. Take for example a serial murderer. Their preference and/or happiness may derive directly from the death of others, especially when that death is the result of the murderers doing. According to Mill and the utilitarian doctrine, it is morally right for that murderer to optimize their own happiness by continuing to their means to happiness, which happens to be murder. Obviously killing someone is immoral most of the time, but this idea of preference utilitarianism begs to
Many times the process leading up to that consequence are overlooked because the end result is the only thing that matters. Mill states that “if [my own] happiness lies in something else, why [may I] not give that the preference”, which may sound logical on the surface, but when analyzing the clause there is much to criticize. Take for example a serial murderer. Their preference and/or happiness may derive directly from the death of others, especially when that death is the result of the murderers doing. According to Mill and the utilitarian doctrine, it is morally right for that murderer to optimize their own happiness by continuing to their means to happiness, which happens to be murder. Obviously killing someone is immoral most of the time, but this idea of preference utilitarianism begs to