Is it more important to be a good person or to perform good acts (virtue ethics vs. action ethics)?
Performing good acts is far more important than being a good person. Society cannot benefit from a positive idea alone, but may benefit when the necessary resources are made available. For example, a rich man who has acquired his wealth through questionable tactics may donate money to various charities simply to improve his public reputation. He may not even be aware of who his money is truly benefiting. A far less wealthy social worker may wish to revolutionize education in Africa, but simply does not have the resources. The social worker’s motives are driven by compassion and empathy, although she can actually accomplish very little on her own. Therefore, today’s world is far move dependent on action ethics. With that said, virtue ethics are important and can do a great job of motivating people through ideas.
Do the pleasure and pain of non-human animals matter as much as the pleasure and pain of humans (speciesism)?
In some cases, non-human animals should receive similar treatment to humans, but not always. Many non-human animals have shown very advanced behavior, such as strong emotional bonds, task learning and even language recognition. Based on this information, the pleasure and pain of many non-human animals, including most mammals, should be considered when making relevant decisions. However, “non-human animals” is a very broad category. Numerous species of animals rely solely on instincts and have very short lifespans. Fruit flies are a non-human animal and fail to exhibit the qualities that make elephants, dolphins and chimpanzees so intriguing. Because of this intelligence gap, a discussion must be had about which qualities non-human animals must possess in order for their pleasure and pain to be considered. Rats and mice, often considered highly intelligent mammals, are currently subject to an array of gruesome experiments. These two animal types are definitely worthy of exemptions from harsh lab experiments.
3. Is my own life worth more than the lives of others, the same, or less (selfishness vs. altruism)?
To put it simply, all lives are of equal importance with a few exceptions. Geniuses and those with the potential to drastically improve society should be protected in the highest regard. These people are valuable because they may end up saving large amounts of people, species and the environment. As for everyone else, an individual’s altruism should depend on socioeconomic status and physical ability. For example, a healthy middle-class American has a fairly easy life when compared to those living in a third world country. The American should sacrifice some of their time or resources in order to improve the lives of those less fortunate. On the other side of the spectrum, those in third world countries need not worry about improving the lives of others and should focus on making the most of their own lives. This concept is based on the idea that everyone is entitled to basic needs, employment opportunities and an education. The country and household in which someone is born is a major factor, although unfair, in the type of life someone will live.
Hello Tyler, my name is Megan Shrout, and I really enjoyed reading your ethical perception of these questions. Although we may not agree on a few matters, your position was interesting to read from. If you are perhaps interested in reading my own, here is the link: http://geog030.dutton.psu.edu/2016/02/03/your-ethics-views-megan-shrout/
In your first question, the the result of the action had to do a lot with how you weighed good deeds. May you consider if it no longer means as much to be good, than less good would come out of it? You would have to rely on the circumstance that someone with the resources to do good would inadvertently happen. If you view it from a bystander’s position in today’s world, the most good accomplished is usually done by those with resources, however they wish to do good and therefore find virtue in being good.
I personally find that a life is a life, and although I agree that pain and pleasure should be considered in decisions, basing their worth over resembled intelligence of ourselves should make it inherent to do so to ourselves as well. Some people do not function in society, aren’t coherent, or are not as intelligent as others and they are still treated as equals. I have a very strong opinion on that matter.
What determines someone to be a genius or in having potential? Your view on altruism sounds much more realistic in terms of achieving a set of ethical code in a society than mine. I argued that all lives are equal because it didn’t ask if we were talking human lives, but life in general. You determined worth by potential to benefit to society, and and although they could make it a part of procedural justice, I am curious as to why that one characteristic is valued more so to others.
Hey, Megan. I’m a little tied up with work tonight so excuse the short response. You made a strong point defending virtue ethics that I didn’t previously consider. You said if being good was meaningless, rich philanthropist types wouldn’t bother to do good deeds for fame. I have to agree with you on that. Virtue ethics plays a bigger role than I previously thought. However, in today’s current world, things like fame, making it to Heaven and even punishment sentences all lead people to do good and the benefits are often the same as deeds done by people with good intentions. I still view results as being more important than the motives that made them happen.
Hi Tyler! My name is Karissa and I chose your post because of our similar views. Check my post out here https://wp.me/p3RCAy-bj0
I really liked the example that you used in your first question relating to the rich man and poor man. I definitely agree with you that our modern day society is driven on actions more than words. I also like how you demonstrated that good actions don’t necessarily make good people. You were clearly able to show how some actions are done selfishly and only for one’s own gain.
Another aspect of you post that I liked was your approach on the animal life question. I think it’s a very hard question to answer, but you were able to show both sides of the argument without becoming offensive.
Awesome job!