Question # 1: Is it more important to be a good person or to perform good acts (virtue ethics vs. action ethics)?
It is more important to do good acts. What is “good” about being a good person if that quality exists only internally, within the person? It may lead to a feeling of contentment and possibly happiness, but that state of being has no manifestation, no realization. In order to truly be a good person, one must interact with other entities, in a way that benefits each of them. Good deeds on the other hand, confer benefits on others, whether they be humans, non-humans or even institutions. Consider this, also: can one be a “bad” person and do good deeds? If so, does that not make them, in the final judgement, a good person? Some argue that just doing good things does not make one a good person, that the inherent tendency to view actions as good and preferable must be a core value, deeply held. Is it possible to accurately judge such a level of values in another person? I do not think so. We must also consider that there is a cultural component to values. What one culture judges to be good may not necessarily coincide with the values of another culture. A further consideration is that of “conflicting” values. Virtues often point toward different actions. Do I tell the truth (honesty), even if it may (uncharitably) hurt another person’s feelings? In the final analysis, I think the doing of good deeds, as opposed to simply being a good person is a better choice.

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

The end results of actions can never fully justify not considering the means which led to those ends. Focusing solely on the “ends” could lead one to make immoral decisions that will presumably lead to greater benefit to more people. The danger in this approach is that it may lead to us to undermine the rights and privileges of individuals, in favor of the effect on the overall group. Consider, though, that it may appear that an end is favorable on its face value. If I steal a ladder being used by a man to exit a burning building, in order to use it to save twenty people in another burning building across the street, is that justifiable? If I use ‘extraordinary interrogation techniques” (i.e., waterboarding) to obtain the action plans of terrorists, am I serving the greater good? Again, the danger here is that one can never know, with any degree of certainty, what the ultimate ‘favorable end’ will be. Our actions, though intended to bring about a greater good, may not turn out to deliver that objective. We should always consider doing the “right thing,” even if the short term results may not be desirable.

Question #5: Do the pleasure and pain of non-human animals matter as much as the pleasure and pain of humans (speciesism)?

The simple, straightforward answer to this question is “Yes,” these qualities of life matter as much for non-humans as to humans. However, we, as humans, have become accustomed to an anthropocentric point of view by thousands of years of conditioning and acculturation. Speciesism is a form of prejudice towards “others.” Our society has made enormous strides (though I would argue, not enough) in fighting prejudice based on ethnicity, race and gender. Speciesism is a prejudice against non-human animals. It allows us to view these “others’ in terms of how useful they are to us humans. By what construct do we presume to value human experiences over those of non-humans? Communication? Whales can communicate over many, many miles, using intricate, non-repetitive ‘songs.” Feelings? It is well-known that elephants mourn their dead. Technology? Birds can fly thousands of miles and navigate to the same breeding grounds year after year. Some argue that because we, as humans, are able to dominate and control other species that we are pre-ordained to do so. We assign value using a measuring stick which is a reflection of ourselves. We need a better tool.

Michael Evangelista