Rachel Denny Module 3: Ethics

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

As stated in the module, virtue and actions are not totally separate. I think the core of this is deciding how goodness is perceived. You can be a good person, but if you never perform good acts, nobody will know you are a good person. If nobody other than yourself knows you are a good person, then are you really good? I don’t know. I guess I like to think that performing good acts (action ethics) is more important because action speaks louder than words. As Ghandi says, “The future depends on what you do today”, not what you “think” about today. Sure, it’s great to hypothesize about what we should be, but without action, thought is irrelevant in terms of ethics. You can talk about and think about what the people on this planet should be doing to sustain our resources, but until action is taken to actually sustain the resources, there is nothing really being done. That’ why I think performing good acts is more important than being a good person.

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

In order to answer this, I feel like I need a definition for ecosystem. Ecosystems are widely varied, and I think the answer changes depending on the ecosystem. I think that ecosystems do matter for their own sake, and other people have had these same thoughts, because national parks are a product of ecosystems mattering for their own sake. On the opposite end, I some ecosystems really only matter to the extent that they can impact humans. Many ecosystems are maintained by humans for the sole purpose of benefitting humans, whether it be for firewood or food. It’s hard to answer the question about why ecosystems matter, but if I had to choose an answer to this questions, I think that in this world they only matter to which the extent that they impact humans. But along with that, it’s not like humans are going out destroying a bunch of ecosystems because they think they don’t matter. Humans are doing their best to preserve ecosystems, while still sustaining the human population, which is a difficult task.

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

I think all of our lives are worth the same and we really should try to help people as much as we can, but at some point you have to put your efforts into helping yourself. In my HDFS class, we have been discussing Patty Hawley’s Resource Control Theory. In this theory, she argues that to be the BEST group member (or societal member), you must have a balance of getting along with group members and getting ahead (obtaining more resources). This is an idea that fits very well with the discussion of selfishness and altruism. On the altruistic side of things, it is our duty to help others (getting along with others). On the selfish side, it is our duty to obtain our own resources and pursue ourselves (get ahead). So to answer the question, the worth of my life is dependent on my own ability to obtain that balance of the Resource Control Theory.

 

3 thoughts on “Rachel Denny Module 3: Ethics

  1. Hi Rachel,
    My name is Jordan. You can read my entry here: http://sites.psu.edu/geog30/2016/02/02/a-conversation-on-ethics/

    I just wanted to challenge your statement on ecocentric ethics vs. anthropocentric ethics as I don’t completely understand your statement. It appears that your answer is wrapped in an anthropocentric viewpoint because you don’t understand the ecosystem as being separate from human interaction with ecosystems. I watched a supplemental youtube video by Eileen Crist, in which she talks about the Earth as a natural resource. She states that we have a department of Natural Resources in our government and she postulates how we would change our policy approaches if we changed that to the Department of Nature? In an ecocentric view, humans wouldn’t be treating nature however it likes for its own resource, as you suggest humans do, without the intention of harm. However, those actions can inevitably cause lots of harm. You can’t just ignore the ecological damage humans have done and say “we didn’t mean to do it. We’re just trying to survive.” That’s not true. I think that humans are capable of better reasoning. How would life be different if we approached nature as if it didn’t belong to us? I am not sure our current culture is capable of grasping how different our actions might be, but it is an interesting concept. Thanks for sharing your views.

  2. Hello I am Kara! I like your way of explaining the ecosystem class it is true we humans do not just run out destroying ecosystems just for the sake of it. We do what we have to do in order to survive longer. Also, we actually do have parts in order to save ecosystems so I guess there is a balance until those parks are needed for human survival I guess. I took some HDFS classes too! I like them!

    Check out my post:
    http://geog030.dutton.psu.edu/2016/02/03/virtue-process-of-decisions-and-selflessness/

  3. Hi Rachel, my name is Ryan and a link to my blog is here (http://geog030.dutton.psu.edu/2016/02/03/ryan-hegedus-module-3/)
    I agree with you on the idea that all lives are worth the same. I also agree with you about the fact that there are times where you have to put yourself before others. You need to be able to take care of yourself first and foremost. Your entire view of question six lines up almost exactly with mine and it is why I responded to your entry.

Leave a Reply