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

I think that it is more important to perform good acts. Both the ability of performing good acts and being an inherently good person are connected though. However, if a decision must be made, I think it is more important act ethically. I hold this view because the question of what we should do seems to have a greater direct impact on the betterment of society as a whole. While being a good person and practicing virtue ethics will ultimately lead to the population performing a greater amount of ethical actions, if all effort is spent merely discussing what we should be, the practical applications seem to be lost initially. The example that comes to mind is a bureaucracy of some sort that is unable to preform even the simplest of actions due to time spent discussing what should be done. Due to this, I think it is better to preform ethical actions instead of discussing them.

3. Does the process by which decisions are made matter more than the outcomes of these decisions (procedural justice vs. distributive justice)?

I firmly believe that the process in which decisions are made outweighs the overall outcome of the decision. I think this because the procedure in which we make a decision can be repeated in order to produce the same results. Having a set of clearly outlined processes seems like it would ensure that better outcomes are more frequent. When contrasting procedural justice with distributive justice, one question above others presents itself repeatedly “If the outcome is good or bad, how did it occur?”. Obviously, if the outcome is good people will be less likely to care about how it was reached. However, when an outcome is negative we often wonder what led to it. The most prevalent example would be any type disaster, whether it is a terrorist attack or ecological disaster. The first question posed in either of those situations is most likely “How did this happed?”. Due to this, I think that understanding the process which led to an outcome matters more.

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

I think that the pleasure and pain of human is more important than animals. While I do believe that the suffering of animals matters to an extent, it does not outweigh that of humans. This was a question that presented itself earlier in my life when I asked myself if eating meat was ethical. I was concerned because I had never fully investigated the depths of this question. After watching a few debates and documentaries dedicated to exposing the cruelties that exist in our culture as they relate to animals, I was shocked to say the least. However, seeing the gruesome process of how the meat supply is met within the U.S. did little to curb my feelings on the matter. I understand that animals feel and suffer greatly but ultimately I believe they are food. Similar to how this valuation is different in other cultures, it is the same with me. It is not uncommon to serve horsemeat in certain areas while in others eating beef is looked down upon. While I have no problem eating beef, I have had pet rabbits before and would never eat one.