“I will call Source no being good, who is not what I mean when I apply that epithet to my fellow-creatures; and if such a being can sentence me to hell for not so calling him, to hell I will go.”
This powerful declaration comes from the philosopher John Stuart Mill. It is a bold statement of moral independence. Mill penned these words in his work An Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy. The quote challenges the very foundation of religious authority. Furthermore, it champions human reason as the ultimate judge of what is good. Mill refuses to accept a definition of goodness that contradicts his own conscience. His defiance resonates even today, forcing us to ask profound questions about morality, freedom, and belief.
John Stuart Mill (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
The Anatomy of a Moral Rebellion
Mill’s statement is not just a fleeting emotional outburst. Instead, it is a carefully constructed philosophical position. Each phrase builds upon the last to create an unshakable ethical stance. Understanding this structure helps reveal its true depth and significance.
A Human-Centered Standard for Goodness
First, Mill asserts, “I will call no being good, who is not what I mean when I apply that epithet to my fellow-creatures.” This opening sets a clear standard. Goodness must be consistent. The qualities we admire in people—kindness, justice, and compassion—are the same qualities he demands from any being, including a divine one. Consequently, he rejects a double standard for morality. He argues that a being who is cruel or unjust cannot be called good, regardless of their power or status. This places human experience and empathy at the core of ethical judgment.
The Primacy of Individual Conscience
Next, Mill emphasizes his personal role in this judgment. The phrase “what I mean” is crucial. It elevates individual conscience over doctrine. Mill is not willing to outsource his moral reasoning to any external authority, be it a church, a state, or a god. This idea is a cornerstone of his philosophy, particularly his arguments in On Liberty. He believed that individual thought and moral autonomy were essential for human progress. Therefore, accepting a prescribed definition of good without personal conviction was, for Mill, an act of intellectual and moral surrender. He championed the right and responsibility of every person to think for themselves.
Utilitarianism Versus Divine Command
Mill’s defiance is deeply rooted in his commitment to utilitarianism. Source This ethical framework judges actions based on their consequences. Specifically, it promotes actions that produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. A divine being who creates suffering or commands immoral acts would directly violate this core principle. From a utilitarian perspective, such a being would be the opposite of good.
This position directly confronts Divine Command Theory. This opposing theory states that an action is morally good simply because God commands it. Mill found this logic unacceptable. For example, if a deity commanded cruelty, Divine Command Theory would label that cruelty as “good.” Mill’s quote serves as a powerful rejection of this idea. He argues that goodness is an independent quality that we can recognize through reason and empathy. It is not an arbitrary label assigned by a powerful being.
The Ultimate Act of Integrity: “To Hell I Will Go”
The final clause of Mill’s statement is its most shocking and powerful. By declaring, “to hell I will go,” he makes his ultimate point. He values his moral integrity more than his own salvation. The threat of eternal damnation does not sway him from his ethical convictions. This is the pinnacle of intellectual freedom. It demonstrates a profound commitment to his principles, even in the face of the highest possible stakes. He would rather face punishment while retaining his conscience than accept a reward for what he sees as moral dishonesty.
This sentiment continues to inspire those who champion secular ethics and humanism. It asserts that morality does not require a divine enforcer. Instead, humans can and should develop their own ethical systems based on reason, empathy, and a desire for well-being. Mill’s words remind us that true morality comes from within. It is not about obedience to power but about a steadfast commitment to what is right. Consequently, his defiant stance remains a timeless defense of human dignity and the power of a free mind.