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

As a person that frequently gets involved with discussions regarding a wide variety of topics in philosophy, this is something that I have often thought about. In my conclusions I have come to understand that the means of getting a goal ultimately determine how successful the ends are. Take for example the Soviet Union. The stalinist ideology works on the basis of the state being the most important thing in their society. When it came to scientific investigation, they often took shortcuts which caused a whole heap of troubles and deaths, but they did not matter because the state learned something. Their methodologies caused them to have a cruder space exploration mentality, it caused the Chernobyl disaster, and a lack of freedom for the individual. Though I have heard some good argumentation in favor of this sort of ideology, every time people put the ends over the means it creates unforeseen that could have been avoided by better planning.

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

As a technology major who cares about the environment, I often find myself stuck between the world of exploiting nature to benefit humans, but not wanting to abuse the world of its resources. It is quite the challenge to want technological progress to keep accelerating at the pace it is in without having a toll on our ecosystems. I honestly wouldn’t separate ecocentric ethics from anthropocentric ethics due to their inevitable intermingling. Excessive anthropocentricity will create a need to switch to ecocentric. In this case I would focus more on balancing these in a way we can sustain technological progress at a desirable pace, but considering the ecosystem as well. Until we can mine resources from asteroids, we are going to have to depend on the ecosystem to further human progress. Even cutting down trees in the middle of the Amazon affects humans be it in the slightest of ways, as deforestation is a contributor to the ever rising climate change, which impacts everyone worldwide.

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

I personally think we have no form of justification as to why humans should be considered superior life to any other without falling back to pro-slavery logic. But it is not as easy to dismiss such a complicated topic. Take for example what would one rather take action for, massive mistreatment of animal in slaughterhouses or have a group of people butchering other humans? I admit I would do more for humans than the animals. I eat meat, I am okay with animals being killed so I can cook up a hamburger. Should they torture those animals instead of simply killing them? No. Would knowing its been done and is happening motivate me to do anything about it? Not really. But at the same time I think of say if an advanced alien species that focused on enslaving “lower” lifeforms for their own benefit. Would these beings have the right to abuse of us simply because they are biologically “superior”? Of course not. The fact that we can make informed decisions is enough for me to decide against it. But then, what if they deem our wills not worthy? We fall into the same pattern. I say this even applies to say future autonomous androids we create. If something has the will to survive and decide its own fate, it deserves our respect no matter the origins. This is an incredibly complex philosophical question with no simple answer.