Is personal utility (satisfaction, pleasure) not the ultimate guiding factor when deciding to apply any ethical theory?
In other words, if I presented the question, "why is the divine command theory the best method of applying morals to an ethical view?" Wouldn't the answer unequivocally be, regardless of the previous theory questioned, that it will predictably increase the chance of any random chosen person's satisfaction more than another theory?
It would seem that utilitarianism, as addressed on page 17 of Houlgate's "Morals, Marriage, and Parenthood" comes close to supporting that idea. However, there are two major criticisms I can find in Mill's writings that leave holes in utilitarian application. To clarify how utilitarianism relates to a sense of personal utility, though, I'd like to first challenge Ross' criticism. Ross contends that even if a "utility score" is equal in helping two people - a stranger, and a family member - we "ought to" help the family member. First of all, this is hardly supported by any kind of reasoning, so I can still ask "why?" Also, I can contend that it is typical that helping someone with whom you have a close relationship will raise your satisfaction more than helping a stranger (for a few reasons), which would still be the utilitarian decision.
This brings me to a discrepancy, however. Utilitarianism is still only the most viable ethical theory IF it increases the chance of any random person's satisfaction level being higher (and therefore the chance of mine being higher raises as well.) The second criticism then, is that rather than being a moral "obligation" - it is more a personal decision to try and increase the overall satisfaction of one's life - the inherent sense of personal utility.
