As situations change, the issues confronting you varying between people and circumstances, it isn't practical to always abide to a strict and universal action to be had. Because our social world is crowded with exceptions between personalities, environments, and other incalculable and unpredictable variables, one must be prepared to apply alterations to previous working systems of Utilitarian Intent. While our Intent may remain constant, the system of going about achieving that intent is rarely ever so. As a reminder, John Stewart Mill indicates that there is pain and pleasure, and our goal should result in the latter; with Kant's intent applied to this, our intent and results should provide pleasure and not pain. With this, our dilemma of whether to lie to your wife or go bowling is solved by having intentions not to bring pain, while there are three friends who will be pleased by you attending the bowling game, there is greater pain produced by your wife than by those friends in your absence; furthermore, by not lying to the wife, you've avoided a moral dilemma whereas you can simply tell your friends you're not attending. Only one lie is to be made, and by Kant's categorical imperative, lying is wrong; combined with Utilitarian belief, because lying to your wife and not having dinner with her produces a greater amount of pain, despite only being contained to a single person, it would be right to stay and have dinner.
The Application of Utilitarian Intent
Utilitarian Intent's applications in respect to previously defined Rights of Self are best explained through example.
First, to resolve the issue of Autonomy, one should always act, although provided the right to act otherwise, with intent to produce the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people; with this, such virtues as sacrifice are created. It follows that taking another's life, murder or abortion (provided the aborted is classified and provided these rights) are immoral, as taking a life does not produce happiness for others.
One's Right of Body is further complicated through simply Utilitarian Intent, because the only action implied is pain or pleasure on the individual's part; however, when one's autonomous actions in respect to their Right of Body have an emotionally negative affect others around them, the greatest happiness is not found in said actions. Situational action is utilized here, where actions in respect to Right of Body are contingent to the variables presented.
Our Right of Mind is perhaps the easiest to resolve; while in most cases our thoughts and ideas are inconsequential to others, in situations applied to hate speech directed specifically to another person, or other words that offend or otherwise emotionally affect a greater number of people negatively, those variables must be calculated and measured into your Utilitarian system, regardless of your intent.
Through understanding the Right to Self and Utilitarian Intent in cooperation to situational action, while (because of unknown variables) it may not be universally applicable, it is certainly a practical solution to several issues otherwise unresolved by previous ethical theories. Our autonomy, in respect to our intentions of the utilitarian principle, is the core of other distinguishable rights to mind, body, and life.
