1. Is it more important to be a good person or to perform good acts?

• I think it is more important for someone to perform good acts, than be a good person. If someone has the best morals but never shares them with others, they are not fully contributing to society. Being a good person is not enough, because sometimes good people do bad things. Someone who might not be the perfect person with the best morals is still very capable of performing good acts in their community. People’s actions are generally noticed more than their virtues in our society. Most people have higher expectations for the way people act in public, and do not care as much about what their beliefs are. While being virtuous may be more important in religion, physical acts are generally more important in the world we live in. It also maybe be more important to be virtuous instead of active if you are in a profession where you are giving advice to others. This question of virtue and action makes me think about being altruistic vs selfish. It seems selfish to no contribute to society with good acts. Performing good acts are inherently altruistic, and are much more important than just being a good person.

2. Do the ends justify the means?

• What is often portrayed and encouraged in our society is the ideal that the ends always justify the means. While this may be true in some scenarios like life or death, and war, I do not think this this is the correct way to look at a scenario. I think “the ends justifying the means” is what people tell themselves when they do the unethical thing just because it makes their decision easier. Convincing yourself that what you did was necessary and justifiable is much easier than finding a solution that is ethical and actually justifiable. “Close enough” is what I think of when I hear someone talk about something bad they did, but it was “all okay because because it turned out good in the end.” It is not acceptable to be close enough when there are other, more ethical solutions. Sometime hard calls need to be made in the situation of war, or a threat to someone’s life. These are scenarios where it is understandable for more drastic measures to be taken, that might not always seem like the best option. Ultimately, a life- human or not, should be saved if it will not cost the life of someone or something else.

5. Do the pain and pleasure of non-human animals matter as much as the pain and pleasure of humans?

• I think the pain and pleasure of human and non-human animals are of equal importance. Whether people know it or not, animals are such a big part of our lives and ecosystem, and treating them with the same respect as we treat other humans is very important. The number of species that have gone extinct in the last 1,000 years is astounding, and while some of them are due to natural causes, the majority of their extinctions can be blamed on humans. The extinction of animal species can alter an ecosystem quite significantly, ultimately affecting the way we live. In a situation of life or death, most people say that human lives are more important, and I would have to agree. That being said, it should not be a decision that is taken lightly. All options should be considered before valuing the life of one species over another. Valuing the pain and pleasure of non-human animals equally can also be beneficial to humans. This is particularly true when considering the welfare of animals used for food. There is a lot of evidence that suggests better treatment of livestock leads to higher quality meat, and ultimately human health.