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

This is an interesting questions because as the lesson recognizes, virtue and action ethics are interconnected.  That being said, I believe it is more important to perform good acts.  Regardless of whether the person is good, when they perform good acts it has a positive effect on everything else.  I place more weight on doing what is right because the action is what will have an impact.  There are many great people who want to do good things, but never get around to it.  They might be good people, but they never did anything to help out and create a positive impact.  The flip-side is people who perform good acts, but have hidden motives.  Celebrities are a good example because I’m sure many of them only do charity out of self-interest.  Regardless of the fact that they are acting out of self-interest, their actions have a positive effect on the world.  This is not an easy question, but I believe we are judged by our actions, not our thoughts or intentions.

Do the ends justify the means (ends ethics vs. means ethics)?

I believe that there are many situations where the ends justify the means. For example consider a person who was wrongly convicted and sentenced to death. In this case a lawyer would be justified to break the law in order to overturn the wrongful conviction.  There are however limits when thinking about ends ethics.  The means that get you to the end cannot be too extreme.  This is where the essential problem with ends ethics lies.  How do you determine what’s justified and what isn’t?  I believe that for most things the end result is what matters as long as it is positive.  I would rather have someone do something immoral if the end effect outweighs their transgression.  I can however think of many situations where the means would not be justified by the end result.  I think that both types of ethics have a place in society.  Sometimes the means can be justified by the end.  In other cases the means cannot be justified by the end result.  We need to evaluate each situation individually.  I believe that whenever possible we should try to do things the right way, but sometimes it’s ok to use questionable means if the ends justify it.

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

I believe that ecosystems matter or their own sake.  My view is more in line with ecocentric ethics because we as humans do not have a right to everything.  Natural environments and their living organisms have just as much a right to exist as we do.  I understand that humans are the ultimate apex predator and can basically do whatever we want with nature.  Just because we have the power, it doesn’t mean we should use it.  I think that ecosystems should be left as alone as possible.  This being said I do believe that some human interaction with the environment can help save ecosystems.  We need space to live, farm and exist.  Every natural environment cannot be preserved, but we should try to be as sustainable as possible.  If making a forest a national park can help preserve it, that’s what we should do.  It won’t be unspoiled wilderness, but it’s the best we can do.  If houses need to be built they should be designed in the least environmentally damaging way.  Our actions should be sustainable, where both humans and the environment live in cohesion.