What I should do? and How I should live?

seem simple enough at first

glance. For most people, the answers are simple enough. But are they
enough to answer every question that will come up in situations and
circumstances over which we may or may not have control of? The banal
assertion of I should be a good person and do what is good occasionally
works now with time and circumstance making the proverbial line between
good and bad a fuzzy one. That is when one needs a good and rigid set of
frameworks that can, at least, guide in a sort of fatherly manner the person
at the center of the crisis. At times, celibacy from the anti- good seems
impossible when people, especially professionals, find themselves in catch
22 situations. Hence, answering the aforementioned questions need
meticulous thought. History has begot a good number of ethical frameworks
on how to answer those questions. One single ethical theory may or may not
answer these and even if they do, are they universally applicable in all
spheres of our modern day existence?
Here, we try to analyze two classical examples of such frameworks that have
stood the test of time and are still relevant in todays world: The Indian
Ethical Theory and the Theory of Utilitarianism. While the Indian Ethical
Theory is deeply tied with Indian religious practice, the Utilitarian principle is
a brainchild of western philosophical thought.
An Analysis of Indian Ethics
Ethics In India has its roots from the various religious and philosophical
thinking in the country. Many religious faiths have flourished here for a very
long time. It is also clearly evident that all religious and philosophical system
of India has a prominent ethical component and that ethics is the driving
force of all these systems.
Hinduism : Its main ideals are represented in Rig-Veda which is not
only one of oldest knowledge texts of India but also of the whole world. In
Rig-Veda, the concept of an all-pervading cosmic order (ta) is taught which

stands for harmony and balance in nature and in human society and this
concept of ta gave rise to the idea of dharma. Dharma here doesnt mean
mere religion but it extends to duty, obligation and righteousness as well.
The Dharma stras teaches us the various ways and guidelines regarding
what is

considered as appropriate behavior for human beings

. In

Hinduism, all individuals are expected to perform his or her duty appropriate
to his or her caste (Varna) and stage of life (Arama). This division of ones
life into the four Aramas and their respective Dharmas, was made, in
principle at least, to provide fulfillment to the person in his social, moral
and spiritual aspects, and also to achieve to harmony and balance in the
society. The four Aramas are : Stage of studentship, brahmacarya; stage of
the householder, ghastha; life in the forest , vanaprastha; and renunciation,
sanysa. Besides this, the concept of four ends of life (pururthas) is
also

very

important. These four ends of life are the goals which are

desirable in them and also needed for the fulfillment of human goals.
These

are righteousness

(dharma), worldly

gain

(artha), fulfilment

of

desire (kma) and liberation (moka). The completion of all of these

four ends of life is important for man. In this classification, dharma and
moka are most important from the ethical point of view. They give right
guidance and objectives to human life. For instance, gaining wealth
(artha) is a desirable objective, only provided it also serves dharma, that is
for the welfare of the society .
Buddhism: This religion also gives a heavy emphasis to ethics. It is
sometimes called an ethical religion because it does not teach about the
existence of God
humanity.

but instead believes in alleviating the suffering of

The ethical values in Buddhism are based on the life and

teachings of the Buddha where the two most important ethical virtues are
compassion (karua) and

friendliness (maitr). According to him, a person

should have deep sympathy and goodwill for the suffering people and
should have the qualities of a good friend. The most important ethical value

is non-violence or non-injury to every living being. The ethics of this

religion is based on Four Noble Truths. These are: life is suffering, there is
a cause for suffering, there
removed through

the

is

way

eight-fold

to

path.

remove

it,

and it

It teaches the

can

be

path

of

righteousness (dhamma). In a way this is the basic and cental theme of

Buddhist morality.
Sikhism: This religion is the most recent faith in Indian tradition,
and it also gives great importance to ethics in human life. According to Guru
Nanaak, the founder of the religion Truth is higher than everything else,
higher still is truthful conduct. According to Guru Grannth Sahib,
Sikh

Scripture,

the important virtues are : compassion(day),

the
charity

(dna), contentment (santokha), non-enmity (nirvair) and selfless service

(sev).
Jainism is also another important religion of India. It gives great
emphasis to three most important things in life also called three gems
(triratna). They are namely: right vision (samyaka d), right knowledge
(samyaka jna) and right conduct (samyaka critra). Apart from these,
Jain thinkers emphasize the need for reverence (raddh). There are also
other important principles governing the life of Jains. Some of these are ideas
of puya

(merit) and ppa (demerit). They are very important from the

ethical point of view. Ppa is due to evil deeds generated by vice and puya
is the outcome of good.
AN ANALYSIS OF UTILITARIANISM:
John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham were the proponents of this ethical
theory. When we look at this theory, all it ever cares about is quantitative
happiness of the general lot. Logically speaking, utilitarianism makes perfect
sense because whenever we do anything, the one thing all of us never forget
to consider is what becomes of our happiness. If we do something, will we be
happy that we did it or will we be sad? Pain and pleasure are the reasons

humans act and reason the way they do. Jeremy Bentham formalized this in
his statement: we should commend an action if it produces benefits,
advantages, pleasure, good or happiness. We should condemn one if it does
the opposite. In essence, this theory quantifies happiness as some sort of
abstract material that can be garnered by people courtesy of their behaving
in a certain way. Now, Bentham proposed the utilitarian calculus to
determine the amount of happiness that an action will generate and this took
into account four variables, viz., its intensity, duration, certainty and
propinquity. The four distinct theses of utilitarianism are:

Consequentialism: actions are deemed good or bad depending on the

kind of consequence they generate.

Hedonism: Utilitarianism says pleasure and only pleasure is what

decides the conduct of humans

Maximalism: If given the choice of decision, we should decide the one

that can give the maximum amount of happiness.

Universalism: Individual happiness pales in comparison with the
collective good of people. So one way of thinking is, a misdeed is not
necessarily condemnable if it produces happiness way more than pain
for the masses. The consequences for the individual are trivia.

Thus, what utilitarianism says is that actions are easily justifiable if they
produce the maximum happiness for the maximum number of people.
However, in quantifying happiness, Bentham attracted the much jarring
criticism of bringing animals and humans together one category. Critics said
animals are also capable of enjoying happiness, even much more so than
humans. Utilitarianism was labeled a pig philosophy by some merely
because it presented to some a hedonistic view of life where pleasure and
pleasure only controlled the actions of people. As a rebound to the
admonishment, John Stuart Mill asserted the higher pleasures humans are
capable of. Intellectual pleasures are such one example that distinguishes
the kinds of pleasures that differ between us, humans and animals. That

brings us to the question of Socrates, the Greek philosopher. Can

utilitarianism justify his resolve in sticking to his moral humane self of
righteousness and not conforming to the situation that would result in a more
general form of happiness? Mill concluded that it is better to be Socrates
dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. Socrates saw both the lower and higher
forms of happiness and was aware that to uphold the concept of being
human, it is necessary to respect higher pleasures of individual freedom
and liberty of the mind and speech. A fool, on the contrary, fails to see both
sides of the equation and is thus satisfied with only lower pleasures that will
make him equal to the life of an animal. There is also the problem of
assuaging utility. One way of looking at utility is that it is entirely a subjective
notion. Thus, the results of the hedonistic calculus seem absurd and
preposterous at first because happiness is pain to some and pain is
happiness to others. For instance, watching a game of football seems
pleasurable to some and a misery to others. Such is the paradox presented
by the concept of utility. However, exponents of utilitarianism say that such
decisions of whether an action produces happiness or pain can be made with
a lot of certainty. With the context known and the tastes of the person
factored in, the amount of happiness generated can be known or at least
estimated with good confidence.

CONCLUSION:
As benign as our ethical acumen maybe, it behooves us to start thinking of
the concept of a good life in a new perspective. What seemed like simple and
easily comprehensible answers to the questions that we mentioned at the
beginning of this written discourse are not enough. In all of lifes varied
contexts, the situation will arise which we may call moral dilemmas and
the petty answers to moral questions will never suffice.

The vital question of how to live a good life cannot be separated from the
essential question of how one should act. Conceptually both questions are
intimately interwoven and a complete ethical theory will always be
concerned with both issues, independent of whether the theory is of ancient
like Indian or modern like Utilitarian origin. Most of the ancient ethical
theories are theories of individual ethics; they are mainly investigations
concerning the way to live. Most modern ethical theories are theories of
social

ethics;

they

are

mainly

investigations

concerning

persons

responsibility for actions with respect to others. That notwithstanding,

however, both classical and neoclassical theories of ethics, in their own right
help in achieving respectable solutions to myriad ethical quandaries. Though
the concept of morality is more conspicuous in Indian ethics, yet, the ends
which the utilitarian theory aspires to achieve is similar.