The good life

Imagine a young child going out of the candy store eating her favorite chocolate
candy bar. Imagine a young lady who just came home from shopping all
afternoon, filling satisfied because she was able to buy that shoes she has been
eyeing for a long time now. That young boy who was noticed by his crush for the
first time and he just feels so ecstatic. The person who has been looking for a
job and finally found one or a person who got his business proposal accepted
and is bound to have a promotion. Imagine a simple family, contented to having
food on their table and being together always. That one person who gets to
marry the love of his life and cannot wait to start life with her or that person who
wins a million-dollar lottery and save himself and his family from poverty. All
things considered, is this what a good life is made of?

Life's biggest question for us, is " what is the good life?" So many philosophers,
intellectuals, scientists, historians, anthropologists, psychologists and even a
simple office worker has attempted to answer such question. But so far, no one
has found the absolute, concrete answer for what a good life is.

They said, "a good life" is something subjective. The meaning of good life would
depend on the perspective of a person. A good life is a reflection of a person's
choice, principle and fulfillment of one's desires. But if one tries to widen his
views of the world or life in general, he would know that his idea of good life is
just the tip of the ice berg. Everyone wants to life a good life, who doesn't?
Everyone wants to live a life where they are happy with what they are doing and
they are contented with what they have. Either it is achieving your goal, getting
rich or marrying the love of your life, all that matters is you are living the life
that you want. But let us try to look a little bit deeper into the perspective of a
good life.

This paper attempts to explain good life from different perspectives and
comprehensively discuss these schools of thoughts and relate them to ethics.

PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVE
The classical Philosopher, Plato, proposed an argument that life is more than just our
daily routine. In his written account entitled Apology which was inspired by the teachings
of his teacher, Socrates, he stated that merely waking up in the morning, going to work,
watching TV thereafter then go to bed and doing that every single day of your life is not
living. It is not enough by itself to live a good life. What is important for Socrates is that
person must become the master of himself, being able to make use of his reason to
improve himself and contribute to his community.
In another dialogue by Plato, the Republic, it was in his dialogue with Glaucon
where he was asked that why do people need to be just in order to give a good life. It
seems like in deceit people can gain power, money and reputation. Why is it necessary to
be just in our lives and not appear to be just instead, these are the question thrown by
Glaucon to Socrates. Socrates, then clarifies that the meaning of just in this sense is not
only political but all sweeping. Being just is also needed to achieve the fullness of soul
because one can avoid being consumed by his own desire and has control over himself.
Thus, in a society, it is necessary for people to mind their own business. This is the best
way for people to contribute in the community.
More similar to Aristotles argument, Socrates and Platos concept of well-being also
pertains to a limited individual freedom. For these philosophers, that if a person lives
outside this restricted freedom, there would be disorder, chaos and lawlessness and it is
more likely for a person not to attain at good life at all.

On a philosophical level, Aristotle discusses good life in comparison to

luck. He believes that a person can only have a good life if he is lucky enough to
land on one. A persons existence must occur at the perfect timing. For Aristotle,
a person cannot lead the good life unless they are a male of thirty to forty years of age, of
good health, of many friends, have many good children; enjoy beauty, strength, stature; and
be fortunate enough not to experience illness, bereavement or isolation. You must be all
these so you can live your life but you should be lucky to have all these at the
same time.
The extent of luck, in Aristotles perspective, is limited. Basically, Aristotle
defines luck as just what does not happen through his or her own agency, what just
happens to him, as opposed to what he does or makes". There is an interplay of external
factors when dealing with luck. However, Aristotle points out as well that if we solely depend
on luck as regards to our fate and destiny in life then we will lose the point of living. Since
everything happens depending on luck, then there is no reason to dream, to aspire
something and to hope to make our lives better. And to reconcile, his contradicting
arguments, he thinks that there must be a limit on the role of luck in a persons luck.

As mentioned in subsequent paragraph, Aristotles picture of a good life is too perfect and
flawless which is opposite to a human beings life in the real world. If we try to visualize the
concept of a good life, we can see a man in his mid-forties, of good health and has
everything that he wants from lifevast wealth, friends, powerful and happiness. But this
person cannot stay forty forever nor be in good health. A person grows old, his health
declines as he ages and misery will dawn upon him sooner or later. Everything that this man
enjoys at the peak of his life will slowly fade away through time. It will come to a point that
the concept of good life goes downhill and in the end, the limitations imposed by Aristotle to
live a good life instead makes ones life empty and meaningless. It has cost a persons
freedom to choose on how to live his life invalid since a good life is restricted to Aristotles
point of view alone.
A virtuous life, then, does not necessarily reflect a good life. you can follow all the rules of
the law or have been good all your life but you will still feel inadequate and incomplete. A
good life is not measured as to how good you are as a person in terms of following a
standard. It does not simple equate to you being a good child, good husband or wife or
even a good citizen and doing what is required to you. A persons existence is so much
more than doing his or her responsibilities.
In a more modern concept of good life, it was Nietzsche that created another kind of
philosophy in his metaphorical declaration that God is dead. In his philosophical point of
view, he attempts to debunk the traditional belief that good life is self-denial which has been
the belief from Socrates to Aristotle and even the Catholic Church. He believes that there is
a dire need to re-evaluate morality and our belief in asceticism. As what has been discussed
earlier, Plato and Aristotle have been promoting self-denial acts in order to live a good life.
they want to inculcate equality, compassion and self-sacrifice thus, forcing a person to level
down suppress greatness because they have to be at par with everyone else in the society.
Nietzsche, strongly encourages excellence, individual development and nobility. He wants
people to practice values that are life affirming. He avoids giving a set of restrictions and
limitations and what to act. He only attempts to disrupt the old notion about morality and
educate people that they have to build their lives in accordance to the society they live in.
There is a great emphasis and self-reflection. He puts priority on the self, wherein a person
can only truly live in a meaningful life if he has accepted his history and continuously strive
hard to reach his full potential.
Another philosopher attempts to define good life. Immanuel Kant proposes that good life is
when one has attained both virtue and happiness. For Kant, virtue is possessed by
individuals to resist bodily inclinations to do what is right. Human reason is not a preemptive measure to attain happiness but to make us worthy of happiness. An individual can
only perform a moral act when they have performed freely. A human action is free when he
acts in line with the moral law. It is not enough to adopt principles freely even if they act in a
good manner. It has to be guided by a moral maxim that is universally accepted. Kant
believes that a person can only be morally praiseworthy and virtuous is through education.
Kant also believes in self-respect and strength not to give in bodily inclination and adapt on

the moral actions freely. Therefore, Kant proposes that in order to attain the highest possible
good one must believe that there is a supreme being who is able to co-exist virtue and
happiness. We can only realize this if we have faith in a God. A good life means we must be
able to generate moral law and act on these principles.
During the 18th century or the Enlightenment period, the greatest concern of philosophers
that time is self-actualization. Generally, they believe that a person can only have a good life
once they have reached their full potential and they have attained genuine happiness. More
recently, during the 19th century, philosophers have shifted to another believe that is
utilitarianism. Primarily headed by John Stuart Mill, in utilitarianism, they believe in the
happiness for the greatest number. A person should not only think and act on what is good
for himself alone, he must also think of other people. One man must always be cautious in
his actions so as not to step on the rights of other or affecting the happiness of the
multitude.

SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE
On the dawn of postmodernism during the 1960s, the major concern of the society now is
politics and economics. The economic situation of a person has become the new indicator
of one quality of life. Several postmodern philosophers have proposed the idea that a good
life means a person can afford his basic needs. This train thought emerged at the time when
there was a global economic crisis wherein the stock markets have crashed and inflation
was rampant.
In a paper writer by Ruut Veenhoven entitled The Study of Life Satisfaction, he tries to
define the new meaning of quality of life in the modern concept. Veenhoven (1996), claimed
that 'quality of life' denotes two meanings: 1) the presence of conditions
deemed necessary for a good life, and 2) the practice of good living as such. He
explained that these two meanings can be applicable in different situations. On
a societal level, the quality of life can be determined in relation to ones
finances. It is possible that in a developing country, the quality of life of the
people would be poor considering that they do not have the necessary
conditions for a good life unlike in rich countries. But if we take the two
meanings in a personal level, both can be applied. A person can be rich and
power but is not happy with his life or another person can be poor and
struggling but is contented with his life.
Life satisfaction in the modern age is related to the economic status of the
person. Several studies conducted in 1970s through 1980s show that lifesatisfaction aim at socio-economical differences, such as income, education and
employment status. Furthermore, this modern concept of satisfaction is akin to
happiness and contentment, thus it refers to a subjective well-being of an
individual. Veenhoven (1996), proposed four criteria on how to measure life

satisfaction: (1) global life satisfaction, (2) satisfaction with housing, (3)
satisfaction with finances, (4) satisfaction with social contacts. It is notable that
the ideological perspective of a good life was somewhat abstract and intangible
unlike the modern and scientific perspective of good life, it is already
measurable and concrete because it is measured by money or social class.
Moreover, personal satisfaction and societal satisfaction is now correlated. An
individuals satisfaction may not be that of the nation but the quality of the
country where a person lives in greatly affects a persons satisfaction. For
example, a person who aspires to work in a good company with big pay and
wants to own his own company someday but unfortunately, he lives in a country
where there is inadequate resources to provide for his basic needs so much
more the job that we wants to have. This might cause dissatisfaction on the
person since his needs and wants are not met.

Another study conducted by Jussi Suikanen, he proposed the theory of Whole

Life Satisfaction of Happiness, a persons happiness is determined by the
fulfillment of his or her ideal life plans. It is a common knowledge that when a
person is happy, then he must be having a good life because all his dreams,
aspirations, needs and wants are within his reach. When one is satisfied, one is
happy. This two causes are inevitable.
By now, we can already grasp that in the scientific perspective, a good life
correlates to personal satisfaction. This concept of personal satisfaction is wholly
subjective in nature. A good life differs from the needs of the people and to their
concept of ideal life.
To further discuss this point, a remarkable research con