2. Do the ends justify the means? This is a question comes up a lot and is always a sort of good versus evil argument. Yes, the ends justify the means, but that sort of requires a rethinking of the way we look at the ends. Let’s say that the means is becoming a millionaire, and we can go through many different options, intricate and elaborate bank heist, investing earned money into mutual funds and starting a Roth IRA with a plan to have a million dollars by retirement, lottery scratch cards, high stakes poker, or any other sort of method to accruing the millionaire status. You can say they all have the same end, millionaire status, but let me argue that the ends have changed. When someone says they would like to be a millionaire they do not include the caveat of the situation your life will be in. So this becomes the idea that the means will not change and cannot change that much if the ends are to remain truly the same. The difference between the millionaire who may one day be caught for the masterful bank heist or the man who won it all in online poker becomes the actual ends.

3. The process by which the decisions are made matters more than the outcome of the decision itself. Take for example you are a boss at a worksite and you assign one of the newer employees a difficult work item to complete. When he completes the assignment the final result is a failure setting people back on the work that is completed. Looking at yourself as the boss in the situation which response is going to be the more frustrating one for you when you critiqued the situation: 1) The employee had prepared the tools and required items and had legitimately thought through the expected actions and just fell short of expectations because of inexperience or 2) the employee had no thought legitimate process thought out for the maintenance item. From just personal experience, I have had a much more sound response to the former over the latter. This can be accounted for and paralleled in many ways while the dynamic may change and the situation may change but personally and externally I find that results are a function of the steps that go into them. While 2 + 2 = 4, the 4 being the final result is an important part,  there would be no 4 without any 2s.

4. Ecosystems do matter for their own sake, only because of the argument that is made that humans also matter. This is a case of perspective, while we can look inwardly and look to ourselves and out families and friends and say that we matter. The same bonds and connections, the same instincts of self preservation all exist, very differently at times but these bonds are there that cohere families together. The major argument I want to be made here is that our own self preservation, or in fact every creatures self preservation, is a selfish instinct, but for the very sake of self preservation there is no goal other than a continued existence. When you look at a singular existence and you take away any sort of self appointed level of importance, and once everything becomes just a matter of absolutes, does a thing exist or not, if we matter, then so does everything else. They are complementary, and at times mutually dependent.