A Vision of the Good Life - Assignment Example

The Good Life The Consequentialism Debate:deontology versus utilitarianism. The consequential debate holds that morality demands define the course in which people justify or not justify the end and means (Goodin, 1995). However, despite this need for justification, morality does not necessarily direct people to do that which is right or wrong; rather, it makes the people do that which is best according to their conscience. Of the varied schools of through concerning morality, the ethical systems of utilitarianism and deontology are conspicuous in discussing the entity of justification. Utilitarianism concept, held by philosophers such as John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, holds “the end justifies the means” (Goodin, 1995). This school of thought holds that the outcome of an action has a greater value than the action. Further, this ethical branch also states that the taking advantage of happiness for the good of the society is most ethical; hence, this theory depends on the consequentiality entailed. On the contrary, deontology school of thought holds that action is dependent on the scriptures, which entail the moral laws, rules and intuition (Goodin, 1995). The theory has its origin in Immanuel Kant, an 18th-century philosopher (Goodin, 1995). In this theory, the course is that the action and outcome must both be ethical. Hence, the duty is most binding in the situation applied. Thus, according to the deontological theory, an action must accomplish duty for the sake of duty. According to the utilitarian, the outcome often is the center of the action. For instance, suppose the death of one person will save the lives of ten other people, utilitarianism moral theory will support the notion of killing one person and save the ten (Goodin, 1995). However, in a similar situation, the deontologists will most likely conclude that let the course take effect rather than killing the single individual since killing is wrong from the universal moral truths (Goodin, 1995). In this course, it is evident utilitarianism focuses on the consequence. Hence, the outcome justifying the action taken. On the contrary, deontological philosophy advocates for the best outcome, in which all entities receive the correct oral action depending on the rules, laws and intuition (Goodin, 1995). Thus, the action in deontological philosophy must justify the end. Differences between Bentham and Mills versions of utilitarianism Both John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham are proponents of the utilitarianism theory, in which they both agree on the principle of happiness based on morality and actions (Tännsjö, 2008). However, the notable differences in the course of their school of thought include that Mill in his version states that human intellectual tendencies are superior to physiological tendencies. However, Bentham does not admit of any differences in the human tendencies, and thus no virtue is noble that other (Tännsjö, 2008). Further, Mill also makes the qualitative distinction of pleasures whereas Bentham states that all pleasures are same. For instance, Mill outlines that it is morally better to be human and dissatisfied than to be a pig and satisfied. In this quote Mill illustrates that sensory pleasures from human tendencies is not complete, rather, intellectual pleasure is by far superior (Tännsjö, 2008). Bentham holds his conviction that pleasure is not quantifiable; hence, all pleasure is same. Further, in a difference of ethical principles Bentham advocates that man carries out an activity to yield maximum pleasure to himself without any distinctions. Mill, on the contrary, say that humanity is valuable; thus, the course of the actions of man is to achieve higher and bole quality of great pleasures. Both Bentham and Mill share that pleasure is the supreme end of life for being and all actions of man focus on achieving this pleasure (Tännsjö, 2008). However, Mill does not distinguish between pleasure and happiness, as aspects such as character, health respect among others are all means for achieving happiness. However, Bentham defines accordingly that an activity is giving more pleasure that pain is good and hence a source of pleasure. Further, in the aspect of altruism, Mill explains that the ultimate goal for action is not individual happiness but rather general happiness (Tännsjö, 2008). Thus, the action of activity that is pleasurable for others is morally right for the individual. However, Bentham overlooks this aspect of general happiness as the ultimate end. In effect, Bentham fails to express his stance on the factor of selfless hedonism (Tännsjö, 2008). Thus. These aspects define the variations in the stance taken by Mill and Bentham on the theory of utilitarianism. Political and ethical implications of utilitarianism Utilitarianism remains amongst the most prominent moral suppositions and widely applied in varied societies. The theory is popular for the course that actions are either morally right or wrong depending on the effects (Tännsjö, 2008). Further, in its application, it shifts the balance towards the alignment that only the actions resulting in good effects or results are relevant. According to utilitarianism theory, the intention of morality is to ensure life is better by augmenting the aspects of good things, for example, pleasure and happiness in the globe, while minimizing aspects of suffering pain and unhappiness, which are bad things (Tännsjö, 2008). In effect, this theory has vast implications on the political and ethical establishments in the society. For instance, political constructions established the entity of democracy through classical utilitarianism, in which the actions of election pursue the happiness of the greater majority in the nation. Thus, the choices in the election process although going against the perceived happiness of the minority, gains justification in that the activity that gives the pleasure to most people will rule (Tännsjö, 2008). Further, in ethical establishments, the society makes rules on legal and acceptable actions basing on the theory of utilitarianism philosophy. For instance, in the aspect of religious beliefs, activities such as homosexuality is not acceptable. However, in the course of the established freedoms of worship, the society easily gains root for accepting such activity as homosexuality, since they are not subject to the Christian faith. Thus, in reflection of these illustrations, ethical implication of utilitarianism are vast, both desirable and undesirable, although, in the eyes of many, they all pursue the greater happiness of the people in the society. Virtue ethics and care ethics and how they are an alternative to the deontological and utilitarian Virtue ethics is a broader conceptualization of the moral philosophy which emphasizes the role of character and virtue over the course of duty and doing an action to achieve good (Darwall, 2003). Notably, the virtue ethics have their inspiration from Aristotle, who in his declarations stated that a virtuous person has the ideal character traits (Darwall, 2003). The traits are an internal natural development tendencies that develop through nurturing once established to become stable. For instance, a person who is kind when facing varied situations in life is considered virtuous since this is her character rather than doing it for duty purposes. The virtue ethics focus on the questions of how a person should live and what is good for family and social values among other such questions. Care ethics emerges from the works of psychologist Carol Gilligan and Philosopher NelNoddings who both took the approach to care with bias against the male fraternity (Darwall, 2003). Ethics of care implies the significance of the fundamental elements of relationship and dependencies in life, promoting the well-being of the caregivers and receivers within the network of social relations. Care ethics entails maintaining the world in which all needs of the self and others are met. Further, it advocates for building motivation towards care for the dependent and vulnerable as an alternative to the formulations of the “justice perspective” entailed in liberal human rights (Darwall, 2003). The virtue and care ethics are often and typically a contrast to the deontological and utilitarian ethics. The contrast is that the virtue and care ethics have more affinity to the moral perspectives entailed in Confucian ethics among others (Darwall, 2003). The care ethics face a challenge in that they have shortcomings of essentialism and ambiguity. However, unlike the deontological and utilitarian ethics, the virtue and care ethics are most appropriate in the course of the private and intimate spheres of life (Darwall, 2003). Further, as alternatives, to utilitarianism and deontological ethics, the virtue, and care ethics is applicable in establish understanding of the public support aspects and formulation of care activities in the society. They give an alternative to the aspects of liberal human rights established through deontological and utilitarianism ethics. Political and ethical dimension of existentialism Existentialism has the focus in the individual life of the human and is poignant to the suffering and choice of each. In the reflection of the key themes, among the subject of understanding in this topic include the reflection of freedoms (Tännsjö, 2008). In this effect, the freedom of beings from the political and ethical dimensions establishes that humans are a result of their decisions. Thus, as humans, all choices have to be personally appropriated while appealing to the systems of law in place. Anxiety and bad faith are also key elements in existentialism, as human face the threat of non-being. Among such worries that cause the anxieties in the political and ethical dimensions include, that humans can find themselves thrown into a world with no moral, logical or ontological structure (Tännsjö, 2008). Thus, humans try to hide from the uncertainties entailed, for instance, the bad faith entailed in death. Thus, as humans try hiding, they find themselves in the current formulations of philosophical and literary reflections of their anxieties. Ambiguity is subject to the unfulfillable desires that humans seek to fulfill. The nature orients humans to ask ultimate questions towards achieving an orientation for life, a factor proving unachievable. Thus, humans through the political and ethical confinements, seek choices in the face of absurdity leading to moral heroism in a remarkably chaotic world (Tännsjö, 2008). However, in opposition to bad-faith, authenticity explains the course of authentic existence. In this aspect, through the ethical and political establishments, humans need to face their challenges and make choices courageously realizing their own limitations (Tännsjö, 2008). Consequently, this aids in achieving honest with self, hence, settling the actual anxieties entailed in existence. Luck egalitarianism theory and discrimination on the basis of sexual identity Luck egalitarianism entails the formulation of political philosophers about distributive justice (Voigt, 2008). In this effect, variations of people reflect their choices and the unchosen circumstances do not define the wellbeing of the people who do not choose such circumstances. The course of this theory is that people should suffer consequences of their choices and get protection against losses that are unavoidable. In effect, we allow the developments that are from bad decisions and eliminate those from “bad luck” (Voigt, 2008). An illustration is the recent debate in legalizing homosexuality (Voigt, 2008). The discrimination along the lines of sexual orientation is evident in the society. However, the question is whether it is a sheer bad lack of genetic makeup resulting in the person being homosexual, or it is merely a bad decision from the individuals. In the application of luck egalitarianism, the person becoming homosexual from genetic traits is then receiving unfair discrimination, a course that supports the acceptance of homosexuality. In this effect, the society ought to offer supportive prospects for such sexual orientations from this theory. The theory is notably a course for evaluating the range of opportunity for the person rather than the choice or luck of the individual in this issue (Voigt, 2008). Thus, luck egalitarianism calls for acceptance of the varied situation in which certain beliefs may hold unnatural and inexplicable. Social justice issue and analyze the issue and discuss how some theories might relate to the issue Social justice remains a core formulation that threatens the freedom of religion in America (Crouse, 2014). The subject I effect results from arguments such as helping the oppressed and raising the standards of life for the victims of society progressiveness. For instance, instead of finding solutions for real moral problems, the political and ethical arm in pursuit of social justice is trampling the freedom of religion (Crouse, 2014). For instance, the recent case of Hobby Lobby is an illustration that social justice philosophy harms religious freedom. The business owners, whose personal moral formulations do not allow them to support abortifacient birth control for the employees face the accusation of social injustice toward women. However, this case is notably a reflection of the course against religious freedoms. These birth control means are inexpensively available and very conveniently provided in clinics and at the pharmacies (Crouse, 2014). Thus, this case was a battle of those advocating for future freedoms versus those seeking preservation of religious freedoms. In reflection of varied moral theories, such as utilitarianism and deontological perceptions, every individual has the course to act seeking their happiness. However, for utilitarianism, the end is the justification of means. Thus, in this effect, the religious freedom is under threat as the outcome, which is expected availing of the birth control measures to the employees, is against their individual belief. Thus, it infringes their course of happiness and pleasure. Similarly, in deontological view, the protests for social justice ought to factor the option that the employees could acquire the birth control from the clinic and pharmacy rather than forcing the employers to act against their faith. This in effect would give acceptable outcomes while justifying the means. Similarly, in reflection if the virtue ethics, it is evident that the business owners act accordingly in standing according to their virtue that does not support such birth control administration. Thus, in these aspects, the theory would term them as virtuous and advocate accordingly for their stance. These theories are all morally binding and reflect the injustice entailed in varied political and ethical formulations in the society in pursuit of social justice and liberal human rights. References Crouse S. Janice, (2014, August). “Bullies for Social Justice: A vision of America that is neither just nor reasonable”. The American Spectator. http://spectator.org/articles/60184/bullies- social-justice Darwall, S. L. (2003). Virtue ethics. Malden, MA [u.a.: Blackwell. Goodin, R. E. (1995). Utilitarianism as a public philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Tännsjö, T. (2008). Understanding ethics: An introduction to moral theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Voigt, K. (2008). Luck egalitarianism: Choice and responsibility. Thesis (D. Phil.)--University of Oxford, 2008. Read More