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

American society seems to place a great deal of respect into procedural justice. We appeal court cases because the manner of the trial was wrong, or we weren’t read our rights and in some cases the idea of making sure we get the procedure right is more important than locking a criminal away. We also see this when it comes to insanity cases. We are so concerned with making sure they get the fair sentencing, but we forget, no matter the person’s mental state that they committed this crime. I personally think that distributive justice should matter more. Why should we care about how we got to a decision, when we know that this decision is the right one? However, from a legal standpoint, without the procedures people would have no rights and wouldn’t be given fair treatment. The television show, Prison Break, depicts the struggle in American politics to weight the options between procedural justice and distributive justice. Two escaped criminals are trying to prove their innocence, but in doing so are committing crimes. Which crimes are the worst and which ones can we turn a blind eye too? It seems to me that people take these justice decisions into their own hands. Judges get to give sentencing and we can see with this which crimes are “worse” compared to others. We see natural distancing between white-collar crimes and violent crimes, where even though crimes were committed in both scenarios the ultimate decision cannot be the same. The idea of “weighing the crimes” seems to be distributive in nature.

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

In regards to speciesism, no matter how much of an activist you are, in the end the human race will matter more to you than animals. Think of it this way, who do you save in a fire, your family, or your pet? What is a worse crime, killing an animal or killing people? From a darwin-istic point of view it’s natural to want to protect your species. We as humans do this along with the other species on the planet. There’s a national campaign run by Peta, and animal activists group, that compares animal abuse and the Holocaust saying essentially that “all humans are Nazi’s to animals.” The analogy, which a person can contextually understand as comparable, seems to have many complaints because of how unethical this statement seems. However, the people that are claiming this to be unethical are putting the human race and their own sufferings above the sufferings of animals. Do we, the humans, have a “right” to claim dominance over the animals and non-living things? What makes our species better than the other species on the planet? People may have negative feelings in regards to maltreatment of other species, however the natural drive to preserve themselves and the human species will inevitably override animal activism.

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

In the television show, Friends, one of the characters poses the question, “Can good deeds not be selfish?” The characters goes on to explore this idea and tries to find a scenario where doing a good deed doesn’t offer the person doing the deed some kind of benefit. She finds no answer and I believe this to be true. Whether you are a good person or only doing a good deed to benefit yourself, the act still gets done. Does this then make them a good person, is the true question. Being a good person and performing good acts appears the same on the surface. However, I figure, to make a person who performs good acts become a good person would depend on the moral agenda and if they wish to continue with this “do-good” image. We see this issue arise with politicians in American society. Politicians make donations and support activists and positivity of change. No matter the gain for the politician, they are still getting this good deed accomplished and it will help a cause in the end. The character in the television show found that the want to be a good person comes with bettering yourself and doing good deeds for others, so essentially virtue ethics and action ethics are closely intertwined and both end up positively contributing to society.