It is true that happiness is an ends and it may be the ultimate ends for individuals but ends like means have intermediary stages for whatever reason (primarily because humans do not have perfect knowledge - the world is one of uncertainty). And so humans make choices of means and ends (imperfectly) and they make them subjectively.
In many instances the means and the ends are closely associated and the distinction between them is fuzzy at best. Peace, for example, is an ends and it is a means. When 'economists' apply their arbitrary and artificial distinction between these - to examine the economic ramifications of choosing peace as a means (economics being the study of the means to attain an ends) - they are flummoxed by such a means! The closer the 'economist' is to being an empiricist the more flummoxed the 'economist' is! The fall back position is to stop the 'scientific' or more specifically the 'economic' inquiry and examination.
Has the limit been reached? Is that what everyone says and thinks? Is that where the literature seems to draw the line? Is going further nothing but metaphysics?
Well, I made a discovery and I used my technical training in classical liberalism to penetrate this fuzziness. No one has to accept this statement blindly. Nor should they discount it blindly!!!
The quest here is to see if ethics and economics are separable or inseparable? I have made an original and significant contribution to this quest - as a result of my own quest for a better understanding - and all I can do is to bring it to your attention (and the attention of whoever else is exploring this scientific realm).
Follow me on Twitter @DivineEconomy
If you know of anyone interested in ethics and
or liberty and justice, please send them this