Rob Hudert-Ethical Views

  1. Is it more important to be a good person or to perform good acts (virtue ethics vs. action ethics)?

It is more important to be a good person. I hold this view because in my eyes being a good person requires in many circumstances and situations one doing good things. However, just because you may do something good for someone or some reason does not necessarily make you a good person. Nor does doing something that is viewed as bad make you a bad person. One example that comes to mind is a CEO of a company. In tough economic times, a CEO may be faced with the tough decision of laying off some employees. This decision to lay off employees may be seen to some as doing something bad, but in many cases it should be seen as doing the right thing. By laying off some employees, a CEO may be saving thousands of other jobs for individuals who provide for their family. I think this exemplifies that we as humans are sometimes put in situations where maybe the good action is not the right action. Another way to look at this is doing things that are seen as good in the eyes of others but in reality they are only acted out because that person has some underlying hidden agenda. This is why I think being a good person, with good moral character trumps doing good things. Your character is a pattern of behavior, thoughts and feelings based on universal principles, moral strength and integrity. It is something everyone has and which everyone can be judged off of.

2. Do the ends justify the means (ends ethics vs. means ethics)?

I think this question is very subjective and depends. First this question depends on what the ends or goals are and what means are being used to achieve them. If the end is something good, and the means used to achieve the end are good, then most would probably agree that the ends do justify the means. But I think when this question is asked it is really referring to using any means necessary to achieve a goal, and therefore I think the answer sits different with every individual. What may be justifiable to someone may not be to someone else. That is because everyone is raised differently, on different values and different moral/ethical standards. If you are a results driven individual, then maybe the ends do justify the means as long as the end goal is achieved. I think three things must go into evaluating this question: the morality of the person, the morality of the question, and the morality of the outcome. This will vary from individual and situation. Looking at murder, society sometimes says that it is justifiable such as the case in wars or self-defense. Sometimes society says it is not justifiable as is the case of cold blooded murders.

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

The pleasure and pain of non-human animals do not matter as much as the pleasure and pain of adults. This is because if the pleasure and pain of non-human animals did matter as much, we would be living in a very different world. Think of something as simple as walking on grass, or as complex as developing a community. With each step a human takes, they are most likely harming and or killing some other life form (ants, microorganisms, etc.). When a tree is cut down or roads are paved, we are harming animals by destroying their environment and their resources. Yet we still do these things, often with no punishment given to the individuals taking part. We must think how animals care about our pleasure and pain. If we were to run into a forest and confront a bear, it would merely look at us as a food source (as with many animals we think the same). Whether or not I think this is right or wrong, society as a general body has clearly determined to a certain extent that their pleasure and pain do not matter and I think this has to somewhat deal with the ideology of “survival of the fittest”. Playing devils advocate here, we as a society have also deemed when an individual oversteps their grounds and you see this in way in which we harm animals, such as the killing process for meat slaughter facilities. It is a very anthropocentric view where we are willing to do what is necessary in the benefit of us, while still making sure it is done in a humane and moral way that is not excessive.

 

2 thoughts on “Rob Hudert-Ethical Views

  1. Hi Rob, I really enjoyed your post. In regards to specieism, I completely agree with you. We see the fact that people matter more than non-human animals every single day. We consider ourselves the top of the food chain. My question to you is, is this right? If regards to your second paragraph, I thought it was interesting how you compared war and cold blooded murder because in some peoples eyes, couldn’t those be the same thing? It feels to me that throughout your post you had a lot more points you wanted to make and I felt the same way. I thought your post was thoughtful and gave good insight into how others may feel about certain topics. If you are interested heres a link to my post:https://wp.me/p3RCAy-bgx

Leave a Reply