- Is it more important to be a good person or to perform good acts (virtue ethics vs. action ethics)?
I believe it is more important to be a good person. I think that to be labeled a good person, you ultimately have to perform good acts. It is like the reading states, the two are not mutually exclusive. A true ethically good person will most likely take the actions that show their ethical beliefs. However, it is impossible to ask of someone to always perform good actions. A person may sincerely care about the environment, but may not have the means to take actions to help. Therefore, it isn’t fair to judge someone’s ethics by just the actions they take, rather they should be judged based on their virtues and beliefs. If a person’s beliefs of who they are match what is commonly held as what they should be, then that should be enough to be a good person. Also, someone can donate to charity or another action that is seen as ethical, however in reality, they could have stolen that money from their family members. It is an extreme example, but further proof as to why it is more important to be a good person at the core, than to just perform good acts.
- Do ecosystems matter for their own sake, or do they only matter to the extent that they impact humans (ecocentric ethics vs. anthropocentric ethics)?
In today’s society, I believe that ecosystems matter for their own sake. I think it is important to understand how they impact humans anthropocentrically, but ultimately ecosystems themselves are more important. The natural ecosystems allow life to prosper, and not just human life. Speciesism is important in this topic, because as the reading states, we already live in a world where speciesism exists, and we humans believe we get special treatment. However, humans depend on wildlife for numerous reasons including food, and these animals depend on the ecosystems that humans may destroy for a perceived benefit. To an extent, anthropocentric is necessary to sustain human life, and a topic from Module 2 can even be discussed along with this topic. The carrying capacity of our planet is possibly being altered by humans cutting down forests to make more room for humans to live or travel through. Ultimately, I believe that a sort of “selective ecocentric” view needs to be taken. As shown in the “Hetch Hetchy Valley” essay by John Muir, lands in protected areas such as National Parks need to be protected. Not only for their natural beauty that can be enjoyed by millions, but so that there is always the underlying idea that nature and the vast, diverse ecosystems come first.
- Do the pleasure and pain of non-human animals matter as much as the pleasure and pain of humans (speciesism)?
This is a question that can be quite controversial. At risk of sounding like a monster, I say the pleasure and pain of humans matter more than non-humans. As with all ethically issues, there is no solid line that can be drawn between the two options being discussed. Obviously there are non-human animals that have been domesticated. Cats, dogs, birds, hamsters, and other house pets have found their way into our families on a deep emotional level. The death of a family dog is treated like a lost child or sibling to most, and can be an extremely upsetting event. However, nothing can compare to the emotional pain felt when a loved one or even fellow human is lost or seriously injured. Humans also rely on animals as a food source. Millions of cows and chickens give their lives every day for human consumption (this itself is an issue all on its own). For the most part, this goes unchallenged, and chicken is still one of the most widely eaten foods. For human life to be sustained and continue, the pleasure and pain of us humans is more important.
Hello Kyle, my name is Ralph (TJ) Diaz (link to my post is: https://wp.me/p3RCAy-bi9)
I do not believe you sound like a monster when you say humans’ pleasure and pain is more important than animals’. I think nearly all of us would agree that animal lives matter less than human lives. If this is not agreed, I’m sure it is agreed that nature has decided we are of a greater order or purpose than animals, considering the food pyramid puts us on top. Yes, we should feel blessed, as we are, but it still shows that humans using animals for survival is a necessity. This makes human lives worth more than animal lives by nature’s standards. If our lives are worth more, aren’t our pains and pleasures also worth more? After all, you can’t experience pain and pleasure without life.
Hey Kyle! My name is Kayla. Here is the link to my own post if you wanted to take a look:
http://geog030.dutton.psu.edu/2016/02/03/ethics-learning-assignment-kayla-crestani/
I really liked reading your answer to number 5. I also share your belief that the pleasure and pain of humans is more important. I liked how you talked about both domesticated animals and then those used as food sources. Chicken is such a big part of many peoples diets. I can’t imagine not having it as a meal because some view it as inhumane.
https://wp.me/p3RCAy-biu
Hey Kyle! My name is Shelby Epstein and I am a freshman at PSU University Park! While reading your first response, I noticed that we somewhat agreed on things! When answering this, I believed that it is both important to be a good person and to perform good acts while you believed being a good person is better. However, I also used from the reading that both concepts are also the same. Within your second response, I also agree with you in that human life matters more than the pain of animals. Although animals create bonds between humans, without their sources of fuel such as from cows and chickens, we would not exist. Great work!
Hello Kyle, great points, I enjoyed reading your responses. #1 I can agree with and your post made me think too, someone could perform good acts but with bad intent therefore them not being a good person essentially harming society in a way. Good people naturally do good things. Good job with number 4, a lot of good points and use of examples. Human life would not be the same without other species. As for number 5 going back to the reply you left me, I actually mentioned the same thing on another post about the issue you brought up here. Harvesting animals to sustain human life actually did not cross my mind when writing my post but when I saw it posted else where it made me think. It is a tough decision to write off all animal lives worth less than humans. I was thinking of pets and animals we would generally not eat and how all lives deserve to be content but, good point about food. Humans raise animals just to eat them, sort of contradicting my initial thought. I guess one might say there is an exception if it means survival.
Almost forgot the link to my post even though you already replied to it but, for credit sake.
http://geog030.dutton.psu.edu/2016/02/03/ethics-jason-c/
Hello Kyle!
Your post caught my eye due to your answer regarding the first question; if you want to check my post out and drop a comment feel free: https://wp.me/p3RCAy-bi7.
I do agree with you on several of your points in your response to the first question, but please allow me to share several ideas of my own. I think what defines a “good” person will vary greatly since a “good person” is hard to define. One should not underestimate the power of the actions NOT taken as well; while one may stand out as superior due to volunteering, donating, etc., that does not make the other person bad for not doing so – perhaps they have been a law-abiding citizen (no traffic tickets, not littering, etc.) – does this make them any less “good”? Another factor to consider would be “bad” actions done for good reasons: mercy killings and euthanasia for sick animals who are in pain for example and have little-to-no hope of getting better.
I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts!
Hi Kyle my name is Sabrina and my blog post is found at http://sites.psu.edu/geog30/2016/02/02/module-3/?preview_id=43212&preview_nonce=4f6b519cec&post_format=standard&preview=true
Reading your blog post, specifically your answer to question number 4 was very interesting to me as I have not read anyone’s answer to that question yet. I find it comforting that there are people that understand the environment is important in itself because that is what life thrives off of, not only human life, but all life. I agree that we live in an anthropocentric society but we should start becoming more ecocentric for the sake of running out of, for a lack of a better word, good environment. In all, I believe that you nicely touched on the important points of this topic and I completely agree with you.
Hey Kyle,
I like that you answered the first question differently than I did. It’s nice to see some different perspectives, and I can absolutely understand your position. I also think it’s great how honest you were with the ecocentric and anthropocentric questions. I am having trouble forming an opinion on them, so I avoided the questions on my own blog. I think by reading through yours, I can get a better grip on some of the opinions on the subjects. Thanks!
Hannah
http://geog030.dutton.psu.edu/2016/02/03/43422/