John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism

In John Stuart Mill’s literature (575-580), he describes a system of ethics which he dubs as Utilitarianism. Mill’s Utilitarianism is unique because it is a Consequentialist theory – it focuses on the consequences of things, rather than individual processes involved. In other words, Mill argues that, for an action to be morally correct, it must solely contribute towards benefitting the greater good and maximizing humanity’s happiness. I argue that this ethical theory is flawed and cannot be used as a standard to gauge the morality of our actions because, since Utilitarianism is so entrenched on the outcomes that are produced, it has the potential to sanction clearly wrong actions, so long as they promote the general welfare. In this critique,

However, Mill might object to this alternative on the grounds that it does not promote the general welfare because the criminal may eventually be released after a suitable amount of time, perhaps due to good behavior or overcrowding, and therefore, leaves the criminal with the opportunity to hurt people again in the future. Yet, this reply is also inadequate because it assumes that the criminal justice system is destined to fail its inhabitants, and that people are incapable of rehabilitation or redemption. In this manner, Mill implies that no criminal will ever able to atone for their crimes and reduce their threat to society, so death is the only option that ensures the promotion of the general welfare, which is, surely, absurd.
The problem with Utilitarianism is not that it seeks to maximize happiness. Rather, it is that Utilitarianism is so fixated on generating the most happiness that the need to take into account the morality of the individual actions that constitute the result is essentially eradicated. In so doing, the possibility of committing unethical actions in the name of promoting the general welfare is brought about, which in turn, renders Utilitarianism an inadequate ethical