[Jimbee (OP)]

As I tell people, in 1994 I bought the book "Utilitarianism: For and Against" by J. J. C. Smart at the book store of a community college I was going to. I was interested in topics like that. Philosophy, meta ethics and normative ethics. A couple of things still confuse me about the book.

Don't get me wrong. But it just seems to me to be written on a very ordinary level intellectually. But I wouldn't know. I think that is just because it was written for the laymen. I really don't that know much about the subject of philosophy still anyways. So that could just be my opinion too. But I know Smart was famous and outstanding in his field. He was also connected with a couple of universities in Australia and the UK. He also thought utilitarianism is the best normative system of ethics. I don't know what the best normative system of ethics is. But utilitarianism does have some flaws, in my opinion at least. Using hedonistic math is good at solving problems, like how to write legislation to help the most people. But it seems to say that pleasure is the greatest good. I don't know what the greatest good is, but I don't think it's pleasure. I think having a society where everyone is healthy and their needs are met, and then they are able to decide for themselves how they choose to live their life, is the greatest good. I know Smart believed in utilitarianism. But I wonder books like "Utilitarianism: For and Against" weren't just meant more to make people think, and to get the discussion going on that topic.

I was also asking on another message board. Has anyone created a list of normative ethics rules that everyone agrees on? I know I've heard most modern philosophers are moral realists. And some moral realists say that we can not know what moral rules are valid and what aren't. But I know everyone still seems to agree on a few basic rules, at least the most important ones. Because I've heard some people say secular humanism is one rule system that most philosophers and scientist agree on. I've also heard people say that the golden rule is still the best, treat people as you would have them treat you.

So my questions are about that book. Was it written for laymen, or is it taught in places like universities? And do most modern scientists and philosophers think utilitarianism is the best moral system? And what moral system do most scientists/philosophers belong to?

[Petrochemicals]

Was it written for laymen, or is it taught in places like universities?

I think you will find we are all laymen when judged from a position of interlectual liberalism and all universities are in a metaphysical position are non productive consideration centres of the Fourth dimension.

[alancalverd]

some moral realists say that we can not know what moral rules are valid and what aren't.

All moral rules are invented by people and are therefore valid in the judgement of those that invent and enforce them. Sadly,  humanity is still mired in toxic filth like religion and political philosophy, which excuse wars and the perverted treatment of half the human race.

The test of an action that seems to be universally applied by superior species such as dogs and dolphins, is "Would you do it to your nearest and dearest?"  There are some perverts and parasites in any society but if you steer clear of the abovementioned filth the majority opinion of what is immoral seems fairly consistent and can be written into  law.