Sorry Mill..

Despite Mill’s rebuttal, I would still agree with Kant’s idea that basically if you mean well then all is well.  I would disagree with Mill stating that it is not the consequences that determine if an act was wrong or not, but the thought process or meaning behind the act.  For example, many people would argue over whether or not it is morally wrong to lie.  Now I believe pretty much any one would agree that it is wrong to lie but however there are exceptions, such as Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.  We make children believe that these things are real to give them hope and to make them happy, which is the final purpose itself.  What I understood from Kant is that if the meaning behind any act whether in normal cases it may be wrong, is good then the act cannot be wrong.  For example, using self-defense would be an exception to rule of you shall not kill/harm anyone.  Your meaning or thought process is to defend not harm, which would be considered a good thing, regardless of the outcome.  According to Mill the act is given meaning based on the outcome.  For example, for a person’s act to be determined good or bad the consequences have to be good or bad.  I would disagree and say that “it’s the thought that counts!” I always lived by that motto regardless of the outcome.