The Good, the Bad, and the Consequences

Mill states that morals are based on the consequences of an action. I think this is an interesting theory. Many times when thinking about a moral person we are thinking about a nice person. We don't think about that nice person's actions. We think about it as part their personality. However, if we think about what makes a person kind I believe that it would be similar to what makes a person morally right. They follow the Greatest Happiness Principle. They try and make the greatest amount of people happy. Although, someone can be a kindhearted person but do something to make someone unhappy. They could try and give someone back their coat and they might be giving it to the wrong person by mistake. It is possible to have good intentions and bad consequences. Would that mean what the nice person did was wrong according to Mills? We wouldn't say that they weren't nice. We know that they didn't mean to give away someone else's coat. But we could say their action was wrong. Does that mean that since their action had bad consequences that it was immoral? I think that saying this kind persons actions were immoral due to the fact the consequences were bad is harsh. It's purpose was to help and make another person happy. I believe that judging morality based on actions can get complicated. For instance, if someone is genuinely good for most of their life and then goes and kills someone the action of killing someone is still morally wrong. However, if someone tries to help a group people and fails miserably their moral actions could be considered wrong as well. I think that my ideas of morality are a mixture of Kant's and Mill's theories. I believe that goodwill motivates and action and that it is important to try and make that action a positive for the people around you.