¶ … Good Life What is Good Life?

The Consequentialism Debate

Utilitarian reasoning is regarded as "consequentialist." The other approach of human actions' analysis is called "deontologist" reasoning. Utilitarian and deontological reasoning have very little in common. They are similar only in the sense that they both attempt to establish which human actions are appropriate and which ones are not. Apart from that, there is no other similarity. The differences arise in their adopted approaches in attempting to establish and distinguish the right actions and behavior from what is wrong (van Staveren, 2007).

As the term implies, judgments of "consequentiality" are founded on the consequences of an individual's actions. Here, an action is categorized as right or wrong based on the results of actions. Its ethics have nothing to do with whatever the individual intended to do. Taking an extreme case, assume that I am driving and I notice a person I truly dislike strolling on the sidewalk. I make up my mind to run him over. He, however, notices me coming and moves out of the way. I unintentionally end up running over somebody behind him who possessed an automatic rifle and was on the way to kill five individuals. In accordance to utilitarianism, since I stopped five people from getting murdered, my action is regarded as good. The fact that I accidentally saved them while attempting to kill somebody else is not relevant; of importance is what actually came about as a result of my action (van Staveren, 2007).

Deontological reasoning, however, assumes the diametrically opposite approach. Here, our actions are either right or wrong based on why we do them. If certain things are done out of good intents, then the action is regarded as morally good regardless of the outcomes. If we think about the case illustrated above, from a deontological perspective, my action would be regarded as wrong. I drove my car up onto the sidewalk; I did that with the intention of killing an innocent individual. The fact that I ended saving five lives by accidentally killing a bad person has totally nothing to do with my action's morality. My action shall be regarded as immoral since I was attempting to do a bad thing (van Staveren, 2007).

Bentham deems that the calculation, comparison, and measurement of pain and pleasure produced by actions is actually possible according to several (seven) criterion. He referred to this as "felicific calculus." This implies that each action we plan to carry out ought to be measured by the quantity of "units of pleasure" it generates, or is anticipated to generate. Amongst the seven groups, the most ethic/correct action shall be the one that provides the highest sum of points (Rachels & Rachels, 2010). Conversely, Mill recognizes the challenges of making these particular quantitative measurements, and the emphasis is altered from "quantity" of pleasure to "quality" of pleasure. He differentiates "lower" pleasures (linked with the body, which produce "contentment") and "higher" pleasures (linked with the mind, which produce "happiness") (Rachels & Rachels, 2010).

In its political beliefs, Utilitarianism bases the government's power and the sanctity of individual rights on their utility, hence giving an alternative to the theories of natural rights, social contract, and natural law. The best type of government therefore turns into a question of the type of governance that has the best consequences; an evaluation which calls for factual arguments concerning human behavior and nature. As an abstract moral principle, Utilitarianism has developed itself as one of the few live alternatives that need to be considered and either accepted or rejected by any philosopher assuming a position of normative morals (Clark, 1992; Hooker, 2000).

2. Virtue ethics and care ethics

The moral theory referred to as "the ethics of care" suggests that there exists moral importance in the basic constituents of relationships and reliance on human life. Most frequently described as a virtue or practice rather than a premise such as, "care" entails sustenance of the world of, and satisfying the needs of, all involved including ourselves. It develops the drive for caring for those individuals that are vulnerable and needy. Abiding by the sentimentalist practice of moral theory, care ethics confirms the significance of caring emotion,

Virtue ethics concentrates on moral character. It supports the belief that ethics is concerned with the type of people we are, more than our actions. As a result, virtue ethics does not provide us with direction regarding our actions. It does not instruct us to increase joy in the world, or fight for justice, or stop killings. Instead, it just advises us to develop a sound, moral character. According to virtue ethics, when we have a good character, we shall definitely act as required (Adams, 2006).
According to care ethicists, the foundation of our moral concerns ought to be our emotional reactions to them. In addition, they also support the fact that special moral responsibilities are generated by special relationships, something that is declined by other premises. It might be assumed that as a result of this, care ethics could actually offer a foundation for an anthropocentric perspective which left out non-human animals. The supposed reason behind this would be that, because we normally have stronger connections with humans, we ought to prioritize their interests and focus less on the interests of non-human animals. This particular claim has, however, been declined by the advocates of non-human animals' consideration from a care ethics point-of-view. Being a caring agent would involve having a caring reaction to that anguish. For that reason, various care ethicists have in fact dealt with the obligations we might have towards those non-human animals that we are associated to, but also towards others that we are actually associated with, for instance animals that are found in the wild (Annas, 2011).

Normally, compared with Utilitarianism and deontological ethics, care ethics has been discovered to have similarities with moral viewpoints like Confucian ethics, and African ethics among others. Critics rate care ethics as being a type of slave morality, and also as bearing serious limitations such as parochialism, vagueness, as well as essentialism; Even though a lot has been documented regarding care ethics being a feministic ethic, in regards to motherhood, political theory, and international relations. Care ethics is applied extensively to several ethical fields and moral concerns, with the inclusion of caring for the surroundings and animals, bioethics, and most recently public policy. Initially regarded as being the best for the intimate life spheres, care ethics has diversified as a social movement and political theory, focused on a wider understanding of, and public support for, care-providing actions (Hooker, 2000; Baier, 1994).

3. Political and ethical dimension of existentialism

Essentially, Existentialism as a philosophy stresses personal existence, choice, as well as freedom. The central the idea is that humans describe their own significance of life, and attempt making sensible decisions in spite of actually living a ridiculous world. It concentrates on the subject of human existence, as well as the feeling that there is no explanation for existence. According to existentialism, neither God nor any other magnificent force exists, and thus the only means of finding meaning in life is though embracing existence (Earnshaw, 2006; Flynn, 2006).

Authenticity, on the other hand, is existentialism's core virtue frequently understood as freedom but has a lot to do with honesty. It mostly entails being real to yourself, to your own nature, instead of carrying out the desire of others. Lack of authenticity is regarded as bad faith. An individual is said to be acting in bad faith when they are acting in accordance to some external force, permitting other people to direct their lives and determine who they are, instead of being mainly directed by their own self and being accountable for their existence and actions. This illustrates how the phrases are associated with freedom; freedom is reduced by an act of bad faith, while authenticity opens an individual to freedom (Earnshaw, 2006; Flynn, 2006).

Ambiguity is also quite fundamental to the human condition. Humans are living things placed between god and animal; neither do we have total control over our own lives, nor are we entirely at the mercy of our bodies and nature. We are and are not our past. The past has considerable impact on us, and it would actually be bad faith to overlook that and act like we do not have a past. However, it is also bad faith to bind ourselves to the past and pretend as if we cannot alienate ourselves from it (Earnshaw, 2006). This is actually similar to what we are born into. There exists a constant vagueness amidst the things we are not capable of running, and the segment of our lives and selves that we could…