Mill's utilitarian moral theory and Hospers libertarian moral theory disagree with each other about what is morally correct to do under certain circumstances. In many ways Mill's utilitarian moral theory would be considered the right way or the only way. In contrast, Hospers libertarian moral theory would also be the right way or the only way. If one could combine the two theories together, then I believe, an almost perfect moral theory would be established. The only problem is that Mill's and Hospers theories tend to disagree with the basic structures of each other's theories. It would be almost impossible to combine the two together. I just feel that both theories have their strong points to bring the "greater good" to society and individuals, unfortunately, because of their differences; it would be too impossible to combine them together.
"Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness."(Mill). When Mill speaks of happiness, he doesn't just mean the happiness of the person acting, but instead everyone that is affected by the action. This requires us to maximize the total amount of happiness and to minimize the happiness of the individual. A big building is on fire and you have the choice to either run out the door as fast as you can or to spray the fire with an extinguisher so that many others could make it out alive. If you choose to save your own life then you are not looking out for the greatest happiness principle. If you choose to sacrifice your life so that great amounts of people can have their life spared, then you are following the principle of the greatest happiness. Mill's utilitarianism when faced with the moral dilemma identifies appropriate ideas but offers no way to gather necessary information to make the right decision. The lack of information is a big problem in evaluating what the right moral choice should be.
