Reasoning

All of theses texts talk about how your reasoning should be what creates happiness. The difference between how they say this is that Kant says that truth is always what will make people the happiest in the long run, Mill says that when you are reasoning between truth and a lie, go with the one that will bring the greatest happiness in the moment. Nietzsche says that we cant really even come to know truth, you just do what makes you happiest, and it may or may not be true, but you wont ever actually know, because life is so absurd that we will never actually come to know truth. Because of the way of his thinking, he puts Kant and Mill into the same category of believing that there even is a truth. 

Both consequentialism and deontology are about what a person chooses to do. Whether they choose to do it because it is their duty, they feel the need to do it. Or they do it because of the consequences of doing or not doing something. I think that a lot of people mostly follow consequentialism, while at the same time, thinking they are following deontology. They feel it their duty to do something or to not do it, and let some one else take the duty of doing it, but at the same time they wont want to do something without a reward (consequence), so they will find excuses within themselves to make them believe that something really isn't their duty, if there isn't a good reward for them at the end, then they will not want to believe it is their duty. (Hopefully that makes at least half as much sense as it does in my own head...)

Like I previously mentioned above, Nietzche argues- a great example of anti theory- against Kant and Mill, that there is no truth, so there should be no reason to argue against or for it. The world is way too absurd for a person to ever be able to find out a real truth. What one person believes to be true may not be what another person believes to be true, so  how could either of those actually be true.

I have had many instences in my life where reasoning has impacted me. I think one of the biggest examples though is this: 
I have scoliosis and a majority of doctors say, oh we will brace it for as long as possible to maybe help it stop getting worse, and then when that doesnt work, because it usually doesnt, we will do surgery and put big metal rods all the way up and down both sides of your spine. 'Truthfully' this is the only option that you have.  Then, I go to another doctor who does not believe in bracing or surgery, the consequences of that are not right (bracing doesnt work, surgery puts you on disabilty the rest of your life and may not work either). He believes that the right thing to do is alternative chiropractic treatments. After research of the consequences of both of these doctors 'truths' I come to believe that the chiropractic truth is truth for me. As I visit other doctors who hear about my treatment decisions, they reason that there is no way this could work, you cant reverse scoliosis, blah blah blah... (at least thats what i hear). But for them, the consequence of me going to a chiropractor rather than letting them do surgery or make me a brace is that they dont get the money, so how could that be the right truth, if someone else is 'winning' that isnt them. So in this example, it is along the lines of Mills theory of reasoning and truth.