However, It should be mentioned that Mill goes on with this by saying, however morality does indeed have an unrecognized standard, a (tacit standard). Here, one can start sensing the discrepancy right away, for how can it be relative, if it has a standard. But then it gets interesting when he tries to redeem himself by saying that these "rules" however develop over a period of time, this is, we do not calculate the consequences of every action, but rely on what we consider to be the tendencies of action. And then, he tries to justify it all by saying some standard is better than no standard at all. He mentions, for example, the moral rule preserving life takes precedence over the rule of never lying. However, we can, to make things interesting change the example so that the pursued man is a criminal and pursuer a policeman. In this case, we are perfectly justified in telling the truth to the policeman even if we suspect that the criminal will be killed. The answer Mill would say is that it is in the public"s interest to inform the policeman. At this point, the argument has obviously reverted to a form or Utilitarianism. Yet, another reason why Mill doesn"t quite fit well with Aristotle"s morality being a relative, is asserted while Mill accusing Kant"s categorical imperative as essentially being the same as Utilitarianism, since it involves "calculating" the good or bad consequences of an action to determine the morality of that action. I don"t know about you, but this connotes to me that Mill, probably inadvertently is revoking his concept of morality as being an art by agreeing to the fact that his theory is categorical, calculative, and in essence-mathematical. Thus, Aristotle is distinguished from Mill because Mill"s moral principles are more like mathematical formulas; whereas Aristotle"s aren"t.

             The chief end of man, "the common run of people" and the highest good attainable by action is happiness (living well) says Aristotle.