Ethics: Jason C.

  1. Is it more important to be a good person or to perform good acts?

Being a good person and performing good acts go hand in hand. It does not make sense to do good things but not be a good person. I can understand being a good person and not acting on those deeds just not the other way around. Overall, one would have to be a good person before doing good acts otherwise it may just be random act that the person was unaware of being “good”. In addition, if a person was a “good person” then good acts should come naturally and not categorized as something different. Directly answering this question, I would say it is much more important to be a good person for the same reasons I just mentioned. In contrast, what motivation would someone have to perform good acts while being a nasty person? The thought alone contradicts itself therefore leaving the good person the more important and likely option.

 

3. Does the process by which decisions are made matter more than the outcomes of these decision?

Yes. Any decision should be weighed by how one gets to that outcome. For example, if you could gain one million dollars but at the cost of your mobility, I would think most if not all people would chose to leave that deal alone. Of course there are decisions in which the process does not involve anything bad at all but, that process should still be considered. Many great things could be accomplished certain ways but perhaps at the cost of terrible consequences. For some people the burden may not change then or affect them in any way but, personally there are certain things that I would not want to associate myself with. I can see this topic being very relevant in politics considering there are many decisions that need to be made daily and thoughts given to questions such as this, does the outcome outweigh the process.

 

5. Do the pleasures and pain of non-human animals matter as much as the pleasure and pain of humans?

When you think about it, what is the difference between humans and other animals? Though process and looks are really the only two major differences without getting into detail. In addition humans and other animals are all living things and no living thing deserves to be put down or valued less than others. I realize some religions have this view but personally for a non-religious view I see a life as a life and not a human life compared to an animals life. To answer the question, yes, the pleasure and pain of non-human animals matter as much as the pleasure and pain of humans. You can clearly tell when an animal is in pain or happy or even bored and if you consider all life equal then why should humans have better lives? Of course animals will not have luxuries like 100,000 cars or huge houses because their thought process does not comprehend such things and frankly, most animals would probably prefer a nice wooded area to live and hunt in opposed to a loud and crowded city.

One thought on “Ethics: Jason C.

  1. Hi Jason. I agree with your answer to question 1. They definitely go hand in hand. I also said that a good person should naturally do good actions. You ask what motivation a bad person would have to perform good acts, and I touch on this in my post. A bad person can make a good action publicly, for example a political leader. It is a sad truth. Moving to question 5, we have differing views. I stated that human pain and pleasure matters more. I agree that all living things should be treated equally, however without non-human animal lives as food, human life could not be sustained. Great thoughts. Here is a link to my post! http://geog030.dutton.psu.edu/2016/02/03/ethics-questions-kyle-hoke/

Leave a Reply