Intelligence, wit, judgment, and the other talents of the mind, however they be named, or courage, resoluteness, and perseverance as qualities of temperament, are doubtless in many respects good and desirable. But they can become extremely bad and harmful if the will, which is to make use of these gifts of nature and which in its special constitution is called character, is not good. (Kant 2: p 9)

John Stuart Mill on the other hand proposed a different theory of morality which stated that an action is right if it promotes happiness of the greatest number of people. In other words, if an action maximizes general happiness then it can be deemed moral. Mill felt that maximization of general happiness was the pre-requisite because "each person, so far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness" (Mill qtd. In McCloskey, 61). This was his utilitarian belief and was based on the notion that man's desires his own pleasure. Thus by maximizing the general happiness, he would also be maximizing his own pleasure and since it is not only him benefiting from the action, we can term it moral. Since pleasure, to Mill, was the only goal that man strived to attain with his actions thus morality, "the rules and precepts for human conduct" (Kolak, 834), was also based on this notion. Mill completely rejected Kantian belief that morality occurs when good will is the driving force behind an action. He felt that a moral action should be based on possibility of good consequences and not on good intentions alone.

While there are some flaws in both theories, it is Kant's moral law which makes far more sense than Mill's utilitarian idea of morality. For one, man doesn't always act with the goal of maximizing other people's happiness because one some occasions, their happiness might not result in his own pleasure. Suppose a person X loves...

In this case, if X resigned, it would result in maximization of other's happiness but would cost him his pleasure. So-then - now will his staying in the firm constitute an immoral action? How would leaving it make it a moral action? Mill's notion of greatest happiness of greatest number of people is thus rather flawed as one critic writes: "Mill here failed to grasp that rational beings often deem it important to act on principles irrespective of the ends to be achieved thereby, or in spite of the consequences" (McCloskey, 59). Kant's theory is based on rationality and actually leads to a choice where people know they can choose to make a right decision and act morally. Mill's idea of maximization of happiness is absurd on various occasions. It doesn't apply to all situations and doesn't give man much room. There are some flaws with Kant's moral theory as well especially with his categorical imperative but it still leaves room for choice and free will which make the while concept rational and applicable.
Works Cited

Kolak, Daniel. The Mayfield Anthology of Western Philosophy. Mountain View:

Mayfield Publishing Company, 1998.

McCloskey, H.J. John Stuart Mill: A Critical Study. London: Macmillan & Co.

Ltd., 1971.

Miller, Ed. L., Questions that Matter: An Invitation to Philosophy, 3rd ed. (Colorado: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1984, 1992)

Kant, Immanuel, "Good Will, Duty, and the Categorical Imperative," ed. Anthony Serafini, Ethics and Social Concern (New York: Paragon House Publishers, 1989)

Kant (2), Groundwork and the Metaphysics of Morals, ed. Herbert J. Paton, (New (York: HarperCollins, 1964)