He believes in the so-called greatest happiness principle, which fundamentally determines moral good and evil based on the happiness it generates. This doesn't just apply to quantity. This is not a case where moral rightness is determined to win over as many people as possible. This is where moral rightness depends on the amount of happiness generated. So let's look at the previous example. If I had to pull the plug, I would give a child another chance at life. The amount of happiness shown would be immense for him and his family. On the face of it, the morally correct response would be to pull the plug. But is the child the only one to have a family? Is his happiness the only one that matters? What if the man in the coma had a waiting room full of people praying that he would pull through? Would his life, if not sacrificed, mean as much to them as it did to the child's family? In a situation like this, there are many factors to take into consideration. It could simply be that the man's family would be happy to donate his organs because they understand that his chances of waking up are so slim and he would have wanted to save the child's life as well. Whether it is obvious or a dispute over which outcome generates the most happiness, Mill uses the consequences of actions to determine the morally right response. A simple way to understand this concept is to think of it as a