Module 3: Johnna Puhr

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

I think that it’s more important to be a good person rather than performing good acts. Being a good person is having the ability to let everyone be who they are without judgement. A good person gives themselves even when there is nothing left to give, but someone needs them. However, people may argue that being a good person comes with performing good acts. Being a good person isn’t necessarily about setting time aside to do good deeds. It’s about making decisions where no one is harmed by your actions or choices. A good person understands that we’re all connected and that our choices have impacts on others. Unlike performing good deeds it doesn’t take extra time and energy to be a good person, it takes the right attitude and approach to life. Being a good person means you’re doing things and living your life to make a change, even if that change is minuscule. You could have a horrible attitude and do good things in spite of what you are deep down. Doing a good deed doesn’t necessarily mean you’re a good person because it’s for a finite amount of time. A good act is just a simple activity like donating to the Salvation Army while walking into Walmart or shoveling your neighbor’s driveway after you’ve done your own. On the other hand, being a good person is something that’s infinite. It’s a lifestyle that includes countless good deeds that you don’t keep a tally on. A good person naturally does good acts without even noticing.

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

The question “Do the ends justify the means?” is a question that needs to be answered based on the situation. The question depends on what the end goals are and what means are being used to achieve them.  It’s important to use context and weigh judgments and keeping the big picture in mind. If the end results are noble and the means we use to reach them are good, the ends do justify the means. However, some take this expression as it doesn’t matter how you get what you want as long as you get it. It becomes an excuse to achieve goals through any means necessarily even if it’s illegal or immoral. Although, this expression can involve doing something wrong to achieve a positive ending. An example is lying on a resume. You may get a good job, but this doesn’t justify you lying.  It’s hard to draw a line on this expression because it can be interpreted in many ways. For example, if you could kill someone to save your family would you do it? Do these ends justify the means? Does your family’s life justify taking the life of another? Honestly, in a way it’s based on morality. In this situation killing someone is immoral, but saving the family is good and a moral outcome. With that being said, this question can’t apply on everything unless the mindset is right. Although, I also believe that the ends never justify the means and this is just an excuse for people to get what they want.

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

I do not believe that my own life is worth more than others. I believe that all lives are equally important. We are all born equal, we have the same emotions, and feel the same pain. So, why would one life be more important than another?  We all have the same needs and wants. There’s nothing that makes one person more important than another. My life is just as important as a 100 year old woman, or the president. However, I do believe we subconsciously value the lives of some more than others. For example, we tend to value the lives of family and friends over the lives of others. If given the chance to save a life of a family member or a stranger, I’m sure almost all of us would save our family member. Although, this doesn’t mean that their life was more important than the strangers. It’s merely a selfish thing because we love them and their death will affect us. It doesn’t in any way mean that the stranger’s life wasn’t important.  Also, we do value some lives of some strangers more than others, such as the president. If the president dies we’re all affected by it, but this doesn’t mean his life was more important. All people have the same rights and responsibilities as one another. Every human life has value. In a moral sense no one can be superior or worth more.

2 thoughts on “Module 3: Johnna Puhr

  1. Hi Johnna, My name is Nick and I was very interested as I read all through your post. Although we took different views on whether its better to be a good person or do good deeds, we were both delving into dealing with this inception like question were we need to compare two things that seemingly coincide with each other. We also connected on our feelings that everybody’s lives are equal. Your idea that we value certain lives more then others makes me think about how I used the idea of personal enjoyment being the driving force for this. If you would like to read my post and try and find more connections in our ideas the link to my post is http://sites.psu.edu/geog30/2016/02/02/module-3-3/

  2. Hi Johnna, my name is Josh and your post intrigued me, especially your first paragraph. We took different outlooks on the question and therefore ended up with different answers. In your second paragraph you talked about the question being very situational which I really agree with. All of these can be based off different situations which form what answers we give. My blog is at:
    http://sites.psu.edu/geog30/2016/02/02/ethics-of-our-lives/

Leave a Reply