1. One substantially difficult question of ethics is that of if virtue or action ethics are more important.  Virtue ethics, focuses more on qualities, intentions and attitudes toward a matter.  It can impact your actions tremendously.  Likewise, action ethics can shape your virtues.  Action ethics refers to viewing what we should do to take action as the most important approach.

In my opinion, I believe action ethics are slightly more important that virtue ethics in most scenarios, though they typically go hand-in-hand.  I have found in my life that serving others’ needs before my own has shaped me into more of a person of character, than believing in something first and then taking actions.  Performing good acts almost always leads to being a better person, and it is a more productive way to work together with people.  However, one downside of being more action-based ethically, is that sometimes your own beliefs or misconceptions can hinder good work.  If you are more virtue-based ethically, you typically act because you want to help and you believe in a cause.  This can produce more dedication and hard work.

All in all, however, I feel preforming good acts is more important than being a good person.  Only you can change your virtues, but by performing good acts, you are helping others in the process.  One great example is recycling, whether or not you feel it is effective enough.  You open up the opportunity to help the environment, regardless of if you have a strong opinion on it.

2. The difficulty of the ends justifying the means argument is that it is totally situationally-based, as with most ethical situations.  To what degree can one honestly say that it is universally acceptable or unacceptable?  Based solely on my own personally experiences thus far, I would agree that in most cases the ends do justify the means.

When it comes down to the process of deciding how to execute this type of situation, one must consider the consequences of the actions taken, and decide if the payoff is worth the sacrifice.  I feel that most of the time when people sacrifice a little for the sake of a greater ends, their intentions are good.  When a situation occurs where the payoff is not great enough for the ends to justify the means, it is rarely out of ill-will or malice.  Rather, it is usually negligence to fully understand the situation, or a miscommunication.  One example is if a community reconstructed a sewage line to make it more environmentally friendly and cost-effective.  In the process, several species could be driven out of the area, but over all the new line could do more good.  In my experience, the good intentions quite often pay off, and so I do believe the ends typically justify the means.

6. I believe this question is a very powerful one in this day in age.  There are so many different perspectives about this issue, and I think everyone should reflect on their answer to this question.  For me personally, I honestly feel deep down that my life is worth no more or no less than any other human’s.  As someone who intends on serving in the military after college, this is something I have had to think about a lot.  I value everyone else’s lives and rights to freedoms and opportunities, and so I am willing to defend individuals who I will never even meet.  I also value my own life, and know the impact my decisions have on my family.  I believe valuing my life is knowing what I have to offer, in a way.  While I would risk my life for another’s if necessary, I am confident that I can influence others by passing along some of my knowledge and being a good leader.  I think the difficult part is understanding people on an individual level.  Do others value their lives more than mine?  Do they value my life more than their own?  This effects how I interact with others, and in the military, it is a crucial part to establishing an effective team.

As I have found I am inadvertently quite anthropocentric, this question leaves me wondering how much other nonhuman species affect my life.  How much should I value them?