The Greatest Happiness Rule as a rule is great, yet it has numerous defects like all other moral frameworks. Because of one’s powerlessness to accurately anticipate the future as per his activities (accepting the future is equipped for being adjusted with one’s activities); the outcomes one craves for might miss to achieve what was expected. In case, unanticipated factors lead to the greater part of one’s activities to go wrong, despite the fact that he had been trying to act as per Utilitarianism, he would be viewed as unethical as his acts just brought on agony. In case this happened to everybody in the whole world, then no one could be viewed as ethical. The Greatest Happiness theory additionally lets one to hurt other people, provided that the general populations get to be more content. One could simply lift assets from little remote nations and impel them to destitution on condition that more of individuals gain than lose. For example, as per Utilitarianism, subjugation, harassing, assault, prejudice, and murder could be supported if the common people incline towards it. Killers could defend their acts by just murdering ones who go against them. If their numbers turn out to be big, killing will get to be acceptable as ethical. Finally, the Greatest Happiness rule gets rid of the utilization of the regulations given by the govt. Only if the individuals’ acts expand wide-ranging utility, then it doesn’t make a difference what number of laws is not followed during the procedure. One might also move on high speed on streets and forget about the movement signals/signs for satisfaction, in spite of the maximum speed being defined, provided that very few of people care and other majorities just want to enjoy speed.
ESSAY 2: The theory of Deontology
The theory of Deontology by Kant states that “all things in natural world work as per regulations.” However, people contrast from different parts of nature in that people by themselves can as indicated by standards. Along these lines, Kant perceives the reasonability of individuals. According to him, Human beings are judicious in having an “origination of regulations,” or standards. Their wisdom empowers them to know the rightness of ethical rules, for example, “stay faithful to the obligations,” and to make out the contrast in the middle of good and bad (“Mill’s Theory”,Pg 390).
As per Kant, a good will is great not in light of what it does or impacts, rather it is great in itself. Since the estimation of a good will lies completely inside itself, it is still great even if it leads to something which is either a great or an awful impact on it. The positive attitude (good will) then “has its entire worth in itself,” and “its convenience or pointlessness can neither promote nor remove anything from this worth.”