Question #1.

In terms of the importance of virtue ethics as opposed to action ethics, the answer lies within the perception of what should be and what should be done. Both of these types of ethics deal with subjective views on right and wrong, good and bad, and should versus should not. Ultimately, this distinction entails the difference between simply stating one’s beliefs (virtue ethics) and taking the actions necessary to make a change for those beliefs (action ethics). As far as environmental ethics are concerned, both of these concepts can be extended to sustainability as well as human-environment interactions. In relation to environmental ethics, I believe that it is more important to perform good acts; therefore, action ethics are far more influential than virtue ethics in regards to creating a sustainable environment by way of human-environment interactions. I maintain this opinion because it takes more than just a belief of how the environment should be, but rather a unified approach to what should be done to maintain a sustainable environment. Action ethics relate both sustainability and democracy because the voice of a democracy creates a movement towards a sustainable environment for present and future generations. I believe that this distinction holds true for a vast majority of scenarios due to the fact that actions speak louder than words. This concept is important in terms of personal, professional and romantic relationships. This approach is also apparent as we begin to select possible presidential candidates and a leader must not only want change, but also take actions necessary to make that change.

Question #2.

In regards to action ethics, both the ends and the means must be considered in order to validate a particular action. Ultimately, though, one must rationalize the other. I believe that this question is very circumstantial and comes down to priorities, depending on the particular action. In terms of sustainability and human-environment interaction, sometimes-particular actions do have to be taken in order to provide food, shelter, and other basic necessities. In this case-scenario, I believe that the ends did justify the means. I also believe the ends justify the means if it involves a decision of life and death. If cutting down trees will prevent forest fires, and in turn save more lives, I would warrant that the outcome overrides the process. However, on the contrary, I do not believe that the ends justify the means when ecosystems are ruined for the purpose of building shopping malls, business complexes, restaurants, etc. This opinion is altered outside of the topic of human-environmental actions as well. For instance, the cost to attend a graduate school, such as law school, medical school, or dental school, is increasing every year and it becomes difficult to justify spending that much money. I believe that the cost of such a program can justify the means if the net financial gains after graduation surpass the debt and student loans.

Question #3.

Decision-making is particularly important when dealing with ethics as it involves both the process as well as the outcome. Both the process and the outcome relate to one’s own core values, goals, and opinions. Decisions are made when we think ethically or make observations about certain situations and compare these observations to our own ideals. The decision making process lies within our own internal intuitions which embody our personal views on right and wrong, good and bad, should and should not. I believe the process by which decisions are made matters more than the outcomes of these decisions, therefore; procedural justice takes priority over distributive justice. I believe that procedural justice is more significant as the emphasis on how decisions are made leads to an explanation for why decisions are made. Procedural justice is unique to each and every individual as it combines each of our opinions, views, and thoughts. The process behind decision-making explains the consequences, but the consequences do not always explain the process, and so that is why I believe that procedural justice matters more than distributive justice. Procedural justice includes several aspects of democracy, which is especially important when environmental change is at stake. Obviously, every individual’s plan of action cannot be considered, but within a democracy we are able to speak up with our ideas and vote on those ideas. I think that the significance of procedural justice is apparent in a wide variety of scenarios, as it is the closest way to attempt to include any number of ideas and views in implementing change.