Is my own life worth more than the lives of others, the same, or less (selfishness vs. altruism)?

My life is worth at least as much as the lives of others, especially those who are total strangers and have not been affected by my actions. I lean toward the selfishness side of this argument because our lives are looked out for by ourselves, not others. In order to give ones self a best chance, it is best to put us before others. Not everyone does this but it is important to recognize that each person is, basically, the master of their own fate and is capable of making choices for themselves. Therefore having the power of controlling my actions gives me precedent over someone else because I cannot control their actions. However, obviously this is true for everyone and it is expected that to another person, their life is worth at least as much as mine. This has exceptions in things like friends and family, as there is a relationship there which allows for some degree of action in their lives and them in yours. Saying ones life is less worthy than another persons is against human nature and simply impossible to quantify unless some relationship exists with that other person.

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

Yes, the ends do justify the means. Progress involves sacrifice, pain, and often unfortunate effects along the way. Halting the road to success because there is a pothole is a great way to get nowhere. Obviously this is limited to those with sound judgement, good ethical principals, and who are only seeking the end goal and not any unfortunate thing along the way. It is impossible to say exactly where this line is drawn between acceptable and unacceptable means to an end but that is where the debate comes in. Saying that the ends never justify the means in ridiculous. A homeless man should be able to steal a loaf a bread in order to survive. A homeless man obviously should not be able to beat someone to survive however. Laws exist to prevent people from going overboard in their pursuit of a goal, breaking even a slight law and getting caught results in punishment. However, many times it is okay to break that law. Overall, the ends can and often do justify the means, but there are definitely things to limit this. Someones life cannot be taken to save 2 but probably can be taken to save 20,000. Unfortunately this brings things like racism and speciesm into the question. There are some things that are justified for progress but there is a very big limit to what is justifiable.

Do ecosystems matter for their own sake, or do they only matter to the extent that they impact humans (ecocentric ethics vs. anthropocentric ethics)?

Ecosystems matter for their own sake, not just for their impact on humans. While humans are the “most important” species in the fact that it is wrong to put a human life behind an animals, destroyed an ecosystem which affects a large variety of living creatures is wrong and dangerous. Humans are a part of the ecosystem and the center of it but certainly not the only important part of it. Should humans suddenly die off the ecosystem would change but still exist meaning it already has some inherent value apart from our lives. Taking the view that only things that impact humans are important is wrong, much in the same way saying only things that impact me are important and nothing else matters for its own sake. That is a bad road to go down and while an ecosystems impact on humans is extremely important, there is certainly inherent value outside of that.