January 10th, 2018
Science of morals asserts that morality needs to be inferred from principles. On the other hand, scientists have not clearly defined the principles that act as the grounds of the science. Instead, they assume that the ordinary precepts of morals should be laid on common authoritative rule, which at times is generalized, hence unacceptable. Scientists ought to support their assumptions through a defined principle or law, which should be enacted according to the rule of all morality. Similarly, a rule for judging different conflicting principles should be independent. To ensure that moral beliefs are made certain, and that the ethical creed is not questioned, a decisive and distinctive standard ought to be set. Although the lack of a recognized set of principles has made the law of ethic not to be relied on, in a typical world, men would prefer to be guided by the rule of utility to form their moral principle , which they consider effecting their happiness. Although some theorists would still not settle for utility rulings, utilitarian opinions are crucial. On the other hand, although utilitarianism has long been termed as a theory of happiness, a proof cannot be gathered through the mere mention of the word. Ideally, direct proof does not necessarily explain the questions of final ends. “Good”, being a relative term, can only remain so if it demonstrates that it can be means to something agreed to be good without resistant (Mill, 6). The rule of utility also holds that actions that lead to happiness should be considered as ‘right’ while ‘wrong’ actions are those that inflict pain while depriving pleasure. Although the act-utilitarian seems to agree with the rule utilitarian at some instances, some contradictions on the choice of actions are evident.