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

An important question in the context of action ethics we must ask ourselves is if what we are doing now will eventually lead to a justifiable outcome. I believe that this is a difficult question to answer without any context, it all depends on what the situation is and who is involved. For instance, America is the only country to have ever used nuclear capabilities in war. Nearing the end of World War II our government had to make a decision, should they drop nuclear bombs on two small cities in Japan? If they did it would kill thousands of innocent civilians but would most likely bring an end to the war, potentially saving more lives than those that would have been lost. However they would still be killing thousands of innocent Japanese and weren’t even sure that the war would come to an end. They decided to use the bombs and it did end the war in Japan,however many people were still killed. This is a case where we really aren’t sure whether the ends justify the means. We don’t know what the other outcome could have been had we decided not to use nuclear capabilities. Of course there are some more black and white scenarios like, if I stay up all night to finish a show on Netflix, is it worth losing sleep and decreasing your productivity the next day at work or school. For me it is simple, the answer is no. Nothing is ever clear cut and no matter what decision you make you are never going to know the ends (results) of what else could have happened had you chosen the other option. In most cases though I would agree, the ends do justify the means.

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)?

We live in a time where anthropocentric ethics is more important than ecocentric ethics. It’s part of the reason for the climate change we are experiencing and why the sustainability of the human race is becoming more questionable. I believe in considering the welfare of non-human animals and their environments just as much as the welfare of humans. Destroying or altering an ecosystem effects the animals and natural processes in that environment. It is like the butterfly effect, one small action triggers a series of other events that can spiral out of control. If too much thought is placed on what is important for humans we neglect the natural world, and without the natural world humans wouldn’t exist. Ultimately what it comes down to is that ecosystems should be held at a higher standard because they are just as important to people as the new Wal-mart they are putting in that field or the road they are running through that forest. Every city, town, store, or restaurant that has ever been built has probably destroyed an ecosystem. It doesn’t matter how small it may seem, if we can’t take care of the ecosystems (some of which are necessary for our survival) then the ecosystems can’t take care of us.

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

This is another complicated question to answer. Speaking from a moral standpoint, no human life is worth more or less than anyone else’s. Ethically I believe this is true in most cases. Now I understand that this is a bold statement but let me elaborate. If you had a choice to save someone who works as a surgeon at the local hospital or a criminal serving multiple life sentences, who would you save. I would save the doctor who is capable of saving other lives. Don’t get me wrong a person is a person and every life matters but in certain situations you may have to look at the bigger picture. I know I would save myself before I would save a person who would spend the rest of their life in jail anyway. Recently I watched a video clip from a show which took place at a hospital. We watched this clip in my management class to learn how ethics works in a business setting. The scene depicted a situation in which a child needed an organ transplant or he would die and a serial killer who was admitted into the ER after he tried committing suicide was found to be a perfect match. This was a great example of what ethical action to take and who is more important, saving a child or saving a serial killer. There is always a gray area in which you really have to sit down and analyze what to do or what you should do.