From a philosophical point of view, the good life is the type of life that a person dreams of having. In the past, the facet of a good life was quite easy. It involved having adequate food, a family, tribal affiliation, and shelter. It also entailed the freedom acquired from the sufferings of life (Casey, 2016). Some major philosophers who defined the good life is Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Other philosophers during the ancient times also had their perspectives of the good life. From their views, the good life does not entail being wealthy, but it is about having happiness and the intellectual virtues of life (Gawronski et al., 2016). People must acquire happiness to achieve a good life by doing appropriate actions that cause happiness. Additionally, attaining happiness means learning how to make important decisions in life and possessing the capacity to reason well. Different theories can be used to explain the aspect of good life including utilitarianism and deontological theories.
Comparison and Contrast between Deontology and Utilitarianism
According to morality, people will justify the end and the means based on whether it directs them to do what is right or wrong. It also makes them do what will make them happy as well as what their conscience tells them to do. The two schools of thought concerning morality, which are almost similar but very different from each other, are deontology and utilitarianism (Casey, 2016). Utilitarianism revolves around the idea of “the end justifying the means.” The concept was constructed by philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. From the idea, individuals believe that consequences result from actions that have significant values compared to those that do not (Mill, 2016). It is also perceived taking advantage of happiness for the good of the whole society is the most ethical thing to do. Thus, utilitarianism relies on consequentiality.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
On the other hand, deontology is more contingent on the scriptures. This refers to intuition, rules, and moral laws. Deontology originated from the Greek words “Deon” and “logos” meaning the “study of duty (Baron, 2017). Deontology mainly focuses on Immanuel Kant’s philosophies, and it advocates that both the outcomes and actions have to be ethical. From deontological perspective, the effects of morality are crucial, and the results of wrong actions do not make their outcomes the same. Deontology is a fair trial of wrong or right since it depends on a moral approach that is universally accepted.
Happiness is the most crucial merit of utilitarianism. An act is considered wrong if it brings unhappiness to individuals. For instance, a hospital ward manager can promote happiness by providing nurses with a day off during Christmas while other nurses are likely to feel unhappy since they will have to cover another person’s shift during that day. The main idea behind this is acting in every situation to bring out the highest amount of happiness at the expense of a smaller amount of suffering (Ryan, 2016). In contrast, the deontological theory emphasizes on acting right despite the consequences of every case. The theory is more applicable to the hospital ward manager to ensure that work is done during Christmas. According to deontological theory actions are wrong if they violate the rights of individuals to liberty, property, and life in the pursuit of happiness (Casey, 2016). The main advantage of deontology is the focus on doing the duty required as long as the duty is morally right. Decisions are made despite the circumstances, and people’s rights cannot be overruled by the state’s rights.
The concept of lying distinguishes the two theories. For example, the famous thought experiment that distinguishes two views of deceiving a Nazi Soldier can be used. In a case scenario, Nazi soldiers approach some people inquiring if they had seen any Jews. From deontology point of view, telling a lie is wrong, and thus the person reveals the truth in this case (Baron, 2017). However, from a utilitarian point of view, the consequences imply a greater good and thus, it would be right for the person to tell a lie for the sake of the Jewish family's safety. In this case telling a lie is the right thing to do for the good for a larger number of people.
Consistency is one of the most significant features of deontology. Deontologist apply conventional ways by taking their promises seriously and honoring their duties (Mill, 2016). This kind of consistency is precious and can help solve many problems affecting society. On the other hand, utilitarians exhibits a lot of inconsistency in their behavior and choices. They do not keep their promises at all times (Baron, 2017). Their promises depend on what will bring happiness. This type of inconsistency is likely to result in unfairness and injustices, which are the main weaknesses of utilitarianism.
While the two theories possess many differences, they also have some similarities. Both utilitarianism and deontology can be applied to the whole society. They are also crucial in making moral decisions and can be used universally. Primarily, both theories argue that there is a substantial-good that can be sought. From a deontology perspective people are not supposed to act in ways that can be willed for other people (Gawronski et al., 2016). For instance, individuals are not supposed to lie because they do not want others to lie too. According to utilitarianism people ought to act in ways that produce the greatest good for many individuals (Baron, 2017) Using the same example, individuals should not refrain from lying if it would have a greater impact on many people. This shows that utilitarianism and deontology both incline in the same direction of acting morally.
Differences between Bentham and Mill’s Versions of Utilitarianism
Bentham and Mill had their different utilitarianism versions and were both pioneers of society’s view on morality in ancient times. Bentham was an economist and philosopher who developed his theory of utilitarianism through motivation while Mill developed Bentham’s act (Casey, 2016). Mill noticed some weakness in Bentham’s version of utilitarianism making the difference between the two distinct. Mill was more focused on the needs of the majority people since Bentham’s utilitarianism version was more focused on the amount of happiness (Mill, 2016). Mill aimed for a better quality of happiness for everyone.
The salient difference between Mill’s and Bentham’s versions of utilitarianism is that both had contrasting views on pleasure. As a hedonist, Bentham believed that an action is considered right if it minimizes pain and increases pleasure for the greatest number of people (Ryan, 2016). For instance, and individual is givien a choice of staying at home and doing homework or going to the cinema to hang out with friends. According to Bentham, the right choice is going to the cinema with friends because it causes happiness for the greatest number of individuals (Casey, 2016). A person would not experience pleasure by staying at home and doing homework, and friends will also be disappointed. In contrast Mill’s utilitarianism version different. Mill believed that pleasure could be split into two categories including higher and lower pleasures (Mill, 2016). The higher pleasures include learning and reading while lower pleasures include insisting pleasures such as eating and sleeping. Mill had a belief that higher pleasures were quantitatively and more significant than lower forms of pleasure.
Another distinguishing difference is that Mill’s utilitarianism version was a rule while Bentham’s version utilitarianism was an act. Bentham’s version of utilitarianism directly utilized the principle of utility in individual’s situations and acts (Gawronski et al., 2016). This means that his version permitted some abhorrent acts. For example, two tortures can be justified in their activity if their amount of pleasure is more than the amount of harm imposed on the victim. Mill came up with the rule of utilitarianism as a way of avoiding such situations. He suggested that the principle of utility should be considered a way of determining the moral rules governing utility. For instance, “do not kill people” is one rule that tends to lower the net utility. Mill’s version seems like an improvement of Bentham’s version, but there are several situations where utility is increased by breaking the rule, and it can be expedient to break them (Mill, 2016). People have to make exceptions on every occasion to avoid rule worship which might cause the collapse of the theory into act utilitarianism.
An individual moral right is another area that Mill’s version of utilitarianism was different from Bentham’s version. According to Bentham, the only real rights that a person possesses are the legal rights and that people’s moral rights conflicted with excellence and happiness (Baron, 2017). On the other hand, Mill believed that individual moral rights were a necessity of maximizing the happiness of the entire community. From Mill’s perspective, rights were the constituents of the most basic social utilities and fundamentals for human welfare. This is because human culture cannot progress the society does not protect individual rights. Mill suggested that rights were essential to the principle of utility since they had to be preserved for the sake of sentient beings (Mill, 2016). Mill’s willingness to distinguish the different levels of pleasure as wells as his views on intellectual pleasures are most crucial branding him the name “eudemonistic” utilitarian. Otherwise he could be viewed as a “stratified” hedonistic utilitarian because he was able to retain Bentham’s version of happiness.
Political and Ethical Implications of Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is an ethical system concerned with the underlying consequences of making ethical decisions. The act of making the decision determines whether one is moral or not. As a result, there are two types of utilitarianism; rule and act utilitarianism (Casey, 2016). Rule utilitarianism is inclined to the effects of a decision made that is immoral and affects majority of people. The main purpose of rule utilitarianism is to determine if the decisions made follow utilitarian principles and support the actions of the majority. On the other hand, act utilitarianism focuses on the first instance of the decision, and the act that follows is all that matters.
Even though utilitarianism ethics may be beneficial, there are some political and ethical implications that come with utilitarianism. For instance, utilitarianism ethics are only concerned with the consequences of people’s actions irrespective of the performed deed. However, it may be hard to determine the cost of people’s actions due to the existence of some variables that are beyond people’s control (Ryan, 2016). For instance, officers of the law writing tickets for traffic rules violations may believe that they are creating a safe environment for everyone, but it is challenging to determine if that will be the outcome. Instead, unintended consequences may occur, such as fatal accidents. Therefore, by utilitarian principles, the unintended consequences may be viewed as immoral because of the negative result.
Another ethical implication of utilitarianism occurs when utilitarian decisions are made for the benefit of the majority without considering the rights of the minority. Utilitarian standards often support the ideas of the majority at the expense of individual rights (Casey, 2016). Such an action is against the concepts of modern justice system theories. Therefore, even if one is making a decision that will positively impact the majority, it is crucial to consider the negative effects of the decision on the minorities. For example, consider the crime reduction policies where the sex offenders’ registries are available to the public. In this case, the majority view is to enhance community safety while the minority, the offenders, their rights are not considered due to the loss of privacy (Ryan, 2016). These raises an ethical issue since studies show that such registries are ineffective and do not promote community safety.
Moreover, utilitarian political philosophies provide alternatives to theories of natural rights, law, and the social contract. For instance, to determine which government is best is a matter of determining which government has the greatest actions. This is an evaluation that implicates human nature and behavior and should be considered unethical (Mill, 2016). Also, utilitarianism supports democracy as a way of making government interests align with the general public interest. In that way, individuals become the judges of their welfare. Therefore, utilitarians believe in the possibility of equal rights to promote social change through peaceful interactions between the government and the public.
However, utilitarian arguments and political assumptions can lead to different outcomes. For instance, if the existing government feels the need to monitor all individual activities. This kind of change may threaten the political order leading to an authoritarian or conservative government (Gowronski et al., 2016). Although Utilitarianism is an act to promote happiness and prevents unhappiness, its ethical implications are much greater compared to the benefits.
Virtue and Care Ethics
Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethics is grounded on what an individual wants to be rather than how they should act any moment. It involves the development of virtues that can be admired by others and avoiding actions that are recognized as vicious as way of developing moral sensitivity (Hurthouse & Crisp, 2013). It also incorporates people’s awareness of their actions, and how their actions affect others. Virtuous people exhibit empathy and are able to see issues from the perspectives of other individuals. Virtue ethics centers on an individual’s life’s approach rather than specific actions and choices. It focuses less on specific policies or courses of action. Instead it poses broader questions such as what is the good life, how a person should live, and what are proper family virtues (Annas, 2017). Since virtue ethics poses a broader nature of questions, many ethicists use the theory as an alternative to utilitarianism and deontology approaches. Deontology and utilitarianism are Universalist theories that claim that one ethical principle binds everyone despite their places and time (Mill, 2016). Virtue ethics is different. Proponents of virtue ethics hold that certain virtues such as integrity; compassion, and honesty transcend culture and time. Thus, virtue ethics is the best alternative to deontology and utilitarianism. People’s ethical responsibilities often center on their emotional connections and the things they owe individuals they care about most (Annas, 2017). Virtue ethics encourages people to consider what action will help them become better people in society.
Care Ethics
Care ethics is a moral theory that is inclined to moral implications in the critical fundamentals of dependencies and relationships of human beings.The main aim of care ethics is maintaining a relationship by promoting and contextualizing the happiness of care receives and givers within a system of social relations (Engster & Hamington, 2015). It also builds on the motivation of caring for the most vulnerable and dependent people in society. Care ethics is inspired by both memories of idealizations of self and being cared for. The theory is widely applied in different ethical fields and moral issues, including the environment, animal care, public policy, and bioethics. For these reasons, care ethics is considered an alternative to utilitarianism and deontology (Hursthouse & Crisp, 2013). Care ethics emphasizes that people should show, empathy, compassion, and sensitivity towards each other as moral responses.
Existential Ethics
Existential ethics emphasizes freedom, personal existence, and choice. It can be viewed as human beings defining their sense of living and trying to formulate significant choices in spite of their existence in an irrational world (Ryan, 2016). Existential ethics mainly centers on human existence and the explanation behind human existence. Existentialists hold that God does not exist as well as any other supernatural force and the only means of countering the emptiness can be achieved by embracing existence. Existentialism also believed that human beings are completely free and they have to take personal responsibility for their authenticity of existence (Gawronski et al., 2016). Freedom, action, and decision are highly emphasized, and the only way of rising above the ambiguity in humanity is by practicing personal freedom. According to Kierkegaard human beings can use rationality to respond to their existential concerns and their fears living in an irrational world (Annas, 2017). However, Sartre emphasized rationality being a type of bad faith and an attempt to impose structure on the random and irrational phenomena of the universe. Bad faith obstructs human beings from obtaining their freedom.
Freewill plays a significant role in ethical decision making. The way people take free will when making important decisions in their lives determines the kind of ethical judgments made. Specifically, when individuals mainly focus on shorter goals, their belief in free will is likely to make them believe that they are responsible for their actions (Kokkoris, Baumeister & Kuhnen, 2019). A fundamental difference exists in people’s moral judgments when they make important decisions in their lives. When individuals focus on the means, they are likely to see free will and ethical decision making to be linked. Thus, free will determines the type of moral judgments made by individuals.
References
Annas, J. (2017). Which Variety of Virtue Ethics? In Varieties of Virtue Ethics (pp. 35-51). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Baron, J. (2017). Utilitarian vs. deontological reasoning: method, results, and theory. In Moral inferences (pp. 145-160). Psychology Press.
Casey, E. (2016). A Life in Philosophy in Several Stages. In Proceedings and Addresses of the APA (Vol. 90, pp. 71-89).
Engster, D., & Hamington, M. (Eds.). (2015). Care ethics and political theory . OUP Oxford.
Gawronski, B., Conway, P., Armstrong, J. B., Friesdorf, R., & Hütter, M. (2016). Understanding responses to moral dilemmas: Deontological inclinations, utilitarian inclinations, and general action tendencies. The social psychology of morality (pp. 91-110). Routledge.
Hursthouse, R., & Crisp, R. (2013). Normative virtue ethics. Ethica . 645 .
Kokkoris, M. D., Baumeister, R. F., & Kühnen, U. (2019). Freeing or freezing decisions? Belief in free will and indecisiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 154 , 49-61.
Mill, J. S. (2016). Utilitarianism. In Seven masterpieces of philosophy (pp. 337-383). Routledge.
Ryan, A. (2016). JS Mill (Routledge Revivals) . Routledge.
