Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
Philosophy and religion are tightly connected with the human desire to understand the world and themselves. Many different theories were proposed in order to better quantify the human condition and determine the ultimate purpose and aim of life. However, it still remains impossible to find definitive truths about living that would be applicable to every individual. Despite this, moral and philosophical theories work to provide potential frameworks of meaning, a type of lens that allows individuals to understand the world around them and their own purpose. In this discussion, the question of living “a good life” is particularly interesting, as it can be defined wildly differently depending on the framework one uses. A good life can be one that brings a sense of contentedness to the individual, produces some type of legacy, influences others in a positive way, or even one that is spent following certain rules. Even the consequences and purposes of living a good life can vary with the individual’s beliefs, making it extremely difficult to determine a universal set of criteria for good living.
Depending on an individual’s culture, background, social circle, and beliefs, their perception of a good life will differ. In this work, two main frameworks of what constitutes a good life will be discussed in an effort to understand which one of them is more substantial. It is proposed that the utilitarian perspective of good living is more universally applicable, satisfying, and beneficial to society than that produced by deontology and the Catholic Church. This supposition is supported by the idea that Christian belief is not universally accepted as correct in all parts of the world, compared to a relatively unanimous view on human happiness. A deontological position works with the intrinsic desire of each individual to pursue personal fulfillment and quantifies good living in a diverse manner, one suitable for a diverse population.
Utilitarian Perspective
Utilitarianism is a moral theory intimately focused on the importance of happiness in human life. Most utilitarian beliefs focus on the importance of individual and community happiness and define the pursuit of this state as the main goal of living. The moral philosophy encourages actions that result in the happiness of the most while avoiding unhappiness (Abumere, 2019). One of the biggest flaws of utilitarianism is its reliance on predicting the future and trusting that a certain course of action will bring the most happiness to most people. With an established understanding of utilitarianism, it is possible to argue for the utilitarian definition of a “good life.” From this view, living a good life means living in a way that promotes the happiness of oneself and others. If the individual has been able to enhance the lives of others and increase the amount of happiness in the world while avoiding unhappiness, they can be classified as having lived a good life. The utilitarian view, then, aligns with charitable pursuits, arts, and community work, as well as different forms of business (Utilitarianism, n.d.). An individual that gives money to their community or is part of an organization that makes a change in the world can enhance the happiness of many.
Similarly, those who interact with their community are also able to promote public happiness. Creating support groups, community initiatives, supporting poor families, and helping one another, all of these actions can be seen as conducive to public happiness. The arts, on some level, would also be capable of enhancing the experiences of the majority. Drawing, sculpting, composing, or working in any other art medium, an individual has the capacity to reach personal fulfillment while also infusing a sense of beauty and meaning into others. Therefore, the utilitarian perspective aligns with many modes of living as long as they are capable of impacting the lives of others in a positive manner. The ability of people to influence others and promote their happiness differently adds a certain level of versatility to this understanding of a good life and enables it to encompass a wide spectrum of human experience. Individuals with different belief systems, values, life goals, and circumstances can be understood as having lived good lives, producing happiness for the others around them.
Deontological Perspective and Comparisons
Deontology, as a moral philosophy spearheaded by Kant, is focused primarily on creating or determining a set of objective rules and standards of living. Through his observations and deductions, Kant has decided on a set of rules that must guide a person’s life, including both their day-to-day decision-making and overall aims in living. In the case of deontology, an action can be deemed good or evil depending on its adherence to existing moral principles (Barrow & Khandhar, 2019). Compared to utilitarianism, the happiness of the individual is never the focus or the desired outcome, compared to the importance of following rules. If an individual is capable of following the existing rules of society, with its moral constraints, they can be deemed to have lived a good life. In this process, it is necessary to understand that the rules presented are largely non-negotiable, and an inability to follow them makes a deed inherently immoral, even if its outcomes are positive. Kant discussed rules such as not lying or never killing other people as examples of his moral principles and their universality. According to this philosophy, an act of lying to another individual would not be justified by the benefits produced in the act, and telling the truth is always a morally good decision (Hart, 2019). This largely dogmatic view of morality falls in line with the idea of natural law and the Christian understanding of morality (Gorecka, 2020). Natural law is an idea that a certain set of laws exists that can be traced back to the natural world, constituting rules that apply to every living being on the planet. Interestingly, the applicability of both concepts in the modern world is actively being discussed.Through a deontological lens, it would be beneficial and preferable for society to follow such laws, as they have an inherent level of objectivity embedded into them. Christianity, similarly, approaches questions of living from a definitive standpoint (Carter, 2021). In order to have lived a good Christian life, it is necessary for the individual to adhere to a certain set of beliefs, actions, and habits (Guzman, 2019). These habits either work to demonstrate one’s virtues and retroactively make a person’s life good or act as a moral compass in order to promote good living. Therefore, a deontological perspective on living a good life principally hinges on being able to follow certain rules and regulations, be they directed by a higher power, the state, or nature itself. If the individual is unable to follow this specific set of regulations, then their life cannot be considered good.
Comparing this view with the utilitarian approach, there are a number of differences. The usage of strict laws helps to resolve ethical issues more smoothly, allowing the justice system and other social structures to operate easily. For example, the idea of capital punishment is largely prohibited in deontology while sometimes being allowed by utilitarianism. If one considers the pursuit of personal wellness and life a central factor in living a good life, deontology provides a better framework for understanding (Udoudom et al., 2019). However, utilitarianism is able to make an argument for promoting wellness and good living for a larger number of people (Maduabuchi et al., 2021). It is necessary to note that Christianity and ethics that align closely with it are not seen as predominant throughout the world. A delineation of rigid morality structures as a source of human contentedness is difficult to support universally. With a philosophical and cultural move toward post-structuralism, the pre-existing constraints of what is considered correct are increasingly being examined and challenged (Hurst, 2020). In the wake of newer philosophical theories, combined with the amplification of global perspectives, views based closely on the authority of God or an unchallenged authority become difficult to justify. Comparatively, utilitarianism provides a more flexible and globally applicable lens to view living, which can be molded into various belief systems and frameworks.
Conclusion
The work has examined the main suppositions and arguments of two moral philosophies regarding good living. While living a good life is generally a goal of many, what acts or ideas definitively constitute “a good life” remains an unresolved question. The utilitarian and deontological perspectives seek to provide their own views on the definition of good living, which align with a certain set of moral and ethical priorities. Utilitarianism finds the pursuit of personal happiness and the promotion of other people’s happiness to be the central goal of good living. Only by maximizing the potential level of happiness that people feel would life be considered good. In comparison, the deontological perspective, as well as the Christian one, focuses on creating an absolute set of universally applicable laws, ones that govern morality and behavior. By following such rules, these frameworks suggest, it is possible to remain morally good and encourage better social outcomes. This work favors the former understanding of good living, as it is more flexible and better applicable to a wide range of people who live on the planet today.
Reference List
Abumere, F.A. (2019). Utilitarianism. [online] press.rebus.community. Web.
Barrow, J.M. and Khandhar, P.B. (2019). Deontology. [online] Nih.gov. Web.
Carter, J. (2021). Understanding ethical systems: Deontology. [online] ERLC. Web.
Gorecka, A. (2020). On the nature of law: the relevance of deontological natural law perspective in modern times. International Comparative Jurisprudence, 6(1).
Guzman, A. (2019). 7 Keys to Living the Good Life According to Scripture. [online] Beliefnet.com. Web.
Hart, C. (2019). Is It Always Wrong to Lie? [online] Psychology Today. Web.
Hurst, A. (2020). Post-Structuralism – Literary and Critical Theory – Oxford Bibliographies – obo. [online] Oxfordbibliographies.com.
Maduabuchi, R.O., Chukwujekwu, S.C. and Madu, R.Z. (2021). Epistemic Investigation into Jeremy Bentham’s Theory of Capital Punishment: Implications on Nigeria Situation. Open Journal of Philosophy, 11(01), pp.75–84.
Udoudom, M.D., Bassey, S.A., Okpe, O. and Adie, T. (2019). Kantian and Utilitarian Ethics on Capital Punishment. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute (BIRCI-Journal) : Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(2), pp.28–35.
Utilitarianism. (n.d.). Acting on Utilitarianism – Utilitarianism.net. Web.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.