Research from Term Paper:
In this case, Martha would have served precisely as she did, that is, pursuing her personal happiness and acting relating to a routine she acquired established just before, that of becoming virtuous and acting morally. In this case, the choice is simple and easy to consider: Mary has to be virtuous to be able to satisfy her own moral demands and ensure her emotional and psychic comfort. Therefore, she works according with her pre-established set of rules.
Therefore, Mary functions primarily, since she himself argues, so as not to ‘soil’ the beginning of her life. She feels that taking money could save the man because his own happiness and personal interest would be in giving the money away to anybody else besides his family: “I will not allow the close in your life soil first mine. I will not touch your straightener chest or perhaps your will. “(Eliot, 411) Mary’s statement is thus very pertinent because your woman keenly observes her individual satisfaction in this case would as well mean that this man would not get his own fascination. According to my pre-theoretical judgment, I would have acted as Mary did, as that would have accorded to my specifications and my principles. In act utilitarianism, the agent follows the immediate prospect of his joy which may change according to the conditions. This makes the be less virtuous and more likely to pursue immediate, self-interested pleasure: “The same might be said in the majority of the great objects of human lifestyle – power, for example , or fame; except that to each of such there is a specific amount of quick pleasure annexed, which has by least the appearance of being naturally inherent in them. “(Mill, 55)
In line with the doctrine of rule utilitarianism, Mary could have acted how she would because the lady follows her personal interest in standing by her model of actions. She refuses the money and behaves morally and virtuously, a pattern that she always pursues in her actions. Therefore, it is clear that secret utilitarianism is considered the most pertinent kind of utilitarianism, plus the one that appears to agree the most with the concept that people tend not to pursue totally their pleasure but each one of the virtues or pleasures as a method in itself: “The principle of utility does not mean that a pleasure, while music, for instance, or any presented exemption by pain, regarding example, health, are to be looked upon as ways to a collective something termed happiness, and be ideal on that account. They are really desired and desirable in and for themselves… “(Mill, 54)
According to Mill, also money, which can be central for the case debated here, can be not attractive for the sake of a finish, but as element of an end: “Yet the love of money is not only one of many strongest going forces of human existence, but money is usually, in many cases, wanted in and then for itself; the need to possess it is often stronger than the desire to make use of it, and moves on increasing once all the wishes which indicate ends beyond it, to get compassed by it, are falloff. It may then be said truly, that money can be desired designed for the sake of an end, but as area of the end. “(Mill, 55)
Thus, of the forms of utilitarianism, one of the most pertinent and the one which seems to agree with the general pattern of human actions are rule utilitarianism. The human beings behave in a certain method so as to make sure their joy, but the rules they adhere to to do that likewise ensure that they will behave within a virtuous and coherent method.
