- Is it more important to be a good person or to perform good acts (virtue ethics vs. action ethics)?
I believe that overall, it is best to perform good acts rather than simply be a good person. Performing physical action may be more beneficial and show more positive results than just being a person who truly believes in the cause behind these actions (though does not perform these actions themselves). When considering crime, a person who has good moral values and is a “good” citizen may still commit crime, whether motivated by a lack of money, opportunity, etc. This type of person would be fully aware that the crime they are committing is wrong, but makes the choice to proceed anyway. A person who regularly performs good acts, however, would avoid committing a crime no matter the motivation. In short, the most important aspect is physical action, as this is what will produce tangible results.
2. Do the ends justify the means (ends ethics vs. means ethics)?
In my opinion this concept goes hand in hand with the debate between virtue and action ethics. In this case, I find the fundamental issue to be how to judge the means (action) as compared to the ends (consequences). There is often a need for sacrifice or compromise in reality, and this concept considers this idea thoroughly. Continuing with the crime example, if someone robs a store (action) in order to feed his family (consequence) was he/she wrong to do so? We must analyze each aspect of the scenario, and determine whether the situation could have been solved without the use of crime. While we do not have any actual details, we can ask a few questions that may help us: did this person have a job; if not, did they have access to one? Did this person have any money at all, or could they have contacted a friend or family member for help? This type of analysis is critical in determining whether the ends justify the means.
3. Does the process by which decisions are made matter more than the outcomes of these decisions (procedural justice vs. distributive justice)?
This is an interesting situation which considers a persons own ethics and the outcomes of their decision making process. I believe this to be a more complex example of the ends vs means debate. We must consider what brought a person to commit the acts that he or she committed as well as the outcome (or consequence) of the act(s). If whatever brought the actor to commit the act did not have any physical effect, then the result of the act would be all that matters. However, if whatever motivated the actor to commit the act had a negative impact on someone or something, then the process by which the decision was made is more, or just as, important as the consequence of the act.