In developing my own argument about what justifies good or bad action, I will refer to two of the most influential philosophers, Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. . To make this article easy to follow, I intend to focus on one of the arguments made by each of these men. I will evaluate how Kant's and Mill's principles fit into the morality of right and wrong. Kant gives us a categorical imperative which urges us to act only according to this maxim by which we can at the same time will it to become a universal law (Kant), and Mill declares that actions are right because they tend to promote happiness, false because they tend to produce the opposite of happiness (Mill). Finally, I will briefly formulate my own position on the components of morally right action. I find Mill's view of utilitarianism to be somewhat contradictory to the idea of ​​morality. Starting from the idea that utilitarianism qualifies as "just" actions that promote the greatest happiness, for oneself and for the whole, we can say that utilitarianism authorizes murder (for whatever reason) and that this point of view is therefore incompatible with our assessment. moral acts. When we find ourselves conflicted in a difficult decision-making process, a Kantian would advise us to evaluate the results of our decisions and consider whether we would like such actions to be made universally acceptable. If we cannot imagine living in a world where innocent individuals, regardless of their status, risk death to pay for the crime of others, then we should not take such measures against an innocent individual. Otherwise, the result would only lead to a world in which real criminals roam free while many innocent lives are imprisoned or executed. This effect could be middle of paper... eating a less happy society than utilitarians would. Indeed, Kantians would be more likely to commit actions of a righteous nature, thus leading them to be more selective, which in turn diminishes their happiness-maximizing existence. To see how this plays out in a real-life scenario, the person who would have been able to sentence an innocent person to life would refrain from doing so. This move could potentially give him a bad reputation in his career (for not being able to catch the real criminal) and worst case scenario, a disorderly riot would break out and no one is happy. On the other hand, the utilitarian-minded authority would sentence the innocent for life, earning him a medal for a job well done, and overall the public would celebrate a false victory of justice. Ultimately, there are objections to both Kantian and utilitarian perspectives..