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

Bluntly, I would say it is more important to perform good acts then it is to be a good person. However, I would argue that these two are almost one in the same. First, let me explain why I answered the way I did. In a sense, performing good acts is a form of altruism. By performing good acts, you are most likely positively affecting those around you, whether it be on a small scale, such as your family, or a large scale, such as your community or country. That is not to say that the only outcome will be positive to those around you; a “good” act benefitting you and those around you could disadvantage others farther away from you. Therefore, every act has to be taken as a two sided thing because rarely in life are decisions made that have absolutely no negative consequences. Now, regarding my state that being a good person and performing good acts are one in the same, I implore you to question what gives a person the motivation to perform good acts? True, people can be influenced by others to do good deeds, but that is usually accompanied by some intrinsic want to do right by others and by yourself. The real question, in my eyes, is what do we define as good on an individual basis, and how many other people share our same views?

Question 4: Do ecosystems matter for their own sake, or do they only matter to the extent that they impact humans (ecocentric ethics vs. anthropocentric ethics)?

The ecosystems matter for their own sake. I am a firm believer that we are connected to the large scale ecosystem in more ways than just the fact that we coexist with the rest of nature. We like to separate the basic needs of humans for survival from that of the rest of nature, which just furthers the idea of speciesism. While it is true that we are the only animals with the ability to articulate our thoughts into meaningful expressions that have a significant impact on the earth, that does not mean we have any more right to live on this planet than any other living thing or ecosystem. We could have not existed if it were not for the many ecosystems that have survived for so long, which could be taken as somewhat anthropocentric. On the contrary, ecosystems that existed before homo sapiens helped shape not only us, but the world around us into what it is today. It is THIS relationship that makes the answer so clear in my mind; the ecosystem shaped us, and we are only now beginning to be able to shape the ecosystem.

Question 6: Is my own life worth more than the lives of others, the same, or less (selfishness vs. altruism)?

I think in the beginning of life, every life is worth the same. As we proceed through life, our actions and interactions towards the world around us (both living and non-living), the decisions we make for ourselves, and how we live life ultimately determines the net worth of our life (I do not mean in terms of money). Life, also, is a balance of knowing when it is appropriate to be selfish and when it is possible to be benevolent. Ensuring your life and longevity are paramount (assuming this can be done without negatively affecting anyone else) and if being altruistic means sacrificing or endangering one of these core principles, than it may be wisest to be selfish. For example, due to renovations being done at my workplace, I no longer have an income until these renovations are finished. At this point, I can not even consider donating to charity because it may mean I can not afford rent or food. Therefore, I have to be selfish. Does this make me a bad person? I suppose that is for you to decide.