1. It is more important to be a good person. I hold this view because anyone can perform a good act but not have good intentions behind it. There are people in this world that publicize the good deeds they do to earn some level of respect, however, they might not have any wishes to be a good person. While on the other hand you might have someone who is truly the nicest soul on in the world but might not have the means to do everything they wish to help others. Now, I also know that this scenario is just one of many cases and not necessarily true every time. In my opinion, I think the two go hand in hand, for the most part. I say this because someone who believes it’s good to be a good person will more than probably perform good acts. Whereas someone who performs good acts would also believe it is important to be a good person. Even though these two topics are very much alike, I feel there is a silver lining there. The silver lining being that there’s always that possibility that someone doing the good act might have the wrong intentions behind it. Which is why i feel the way I do.

3. The outcomes of decisions matter more than the process of how that decision was made in my opinion. I feel this way because more times than other, people won’t concern themselves with how we made such decisions, unless of course you are acquiring a million dollar company. I’ve learned at a young age that everything has a consequence, and it’s likely that those consequences affect others as well as ourselves. I also believe that this can vary depending on each individual situation. One might not care too much about how a mayor decides on what to wear that day, but sure will share their opinion if the mayor decides to bring a casino to town. The consequences of any decision is what people tend to remember, and that is why I believe the outcome of the decisions are more important than the process. I’m not trying to dismiss the idea that the process isn’t important. The process in how one makes a decision plays a key role in the outcomes of that decision. If one thinks about all of the negatives and positives of a decision before acting on it, the chances of the outcome to be a positive one is more likely. On the other hand, if someone doesn’t think at all, the chances of a negative outcome is more likely. Even with both having an important part, I still believe the outcomes matter more because that’s what affects our lives moe.

5. I believe that the pleasure and pain of non-human animals do not matter as much as the pleasure and pain of humans. I do understand that this indeed is a form of speciesism, but I feel I have reason to feel the way I do according to the specific scenario. This is a very touchy subject and I am by no means trying to promote violence towards other animals. Being a meat eater alone, I feel like I have to take the side I am. When eating a burger, or a steak, I’m clearly not thinking of the pain and pleasure of other animals. This doesn’t mean I don’t feel for animals. If I ever see a dog in distress, it truly does break my heart. Not just for dogs, but even the animals we use as food. I know I wouldn’t enjoy a steak or chicken wings if I actually witnessed the butchering of those animals. Is it cruel? Of course it is, but we justify it by claiming ourselves the top of the food chain. To potty train house pets, people often will keep them in a cage. If we were to walk in to someone’s house and saw a human baby in a cage, those parents would be behind bars really fast. That is why I believe that the pain and pleasure of non-human animals do not matter as much as the pain and pleasure of humans.

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

In order to answer this question, I feel that we need to understand what it means to be a good person versus being a person who performs good acts. Being a good person means that you do, say, and believe in doing things for others simply because you feel it is the right thing to do. Being a person who does good acts just makes you someone who does good things. You could be doing those things for an alternative motive. For example, a student may bring his teacher an apple to class everyday; but that student is hoping that because of his good act, his teacher will reward him with an A at the end of the semester. In my opinion, under this definition, being a good person is way more important that being a person who performs good acts.

When analyzing this question, we need to also take into account, virtue ethics versus action ethics. Virtue focuses more on what we should be whereas ethics on what we should do. In this situation, the virtue is the good person whereas the action is the person who performs good acts. In my opinion, the good person who genuinely cares will be of more importance than the person who just performs these good acts.

3. Does the process by which decisions are made matter more than the outcomes of these decisions (procedural justice vs. distributive justice)?

When making any decision in life, people need to weigh out the pros versus the cons; also known as distributive justice. They base a decision on which outweighs the other. If a decision is expected to result in something beneficial, than that person will have taken steps that lead them to believe this. The actual result is irrelevant. As long as the process in which the decision was made was done in the best way possible, the outcome cannot be guaranteed. What I mean by this is nothing in life is one hundred percent guaranteed. If an NFL team wins all 16 regular season games and has a 99.99% chance of winning the Super Bowl, a chance of failure still exists. If someone was going to place a bet on that team winning the Super Bowl and they end up losing, they know that the steps they took to take that chance and to make that decision were more than logical.

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

When answering this question I feel that it is very biased based on how you were raised. In my opinion, my life is worth no more or less than anybody else’s. Growing up in my home, helping others was very important. I always had to help my little sister with homework, my mom to bring in the food packages every week, and my dad to shovel the snow as well as other physical labor. Being raised in this manner, I have grown to try to help others as a second nature. When I help others I feel good about myself. It is for this reason that I feel my life is worth the same as everyone else.

Selfish people do not like to help others. They do what is best for themselves and only themselves. They usually feel a sense of entitlement and do not care about the opinions of others. For this reason, they feel that their life is of more worth than somebody else. Someone who is altruistic or selfless is much more likely to help somebody else and to feel that they are of the same worth.

1.) I think it is more important to perform good acts than to be a good person. Don’t get me wrong, in reality I think both are essential, but if I had to pick one over the other it would be performing good acts. In the virtue vs action section of the reading it gives the example of “is it better to be someone who cares about the environment or to be someone who takes action to help the environment?”. In the grand scheme of things its the action of doing good deeds that is going to better the world, not just thinking about doing them. As with the example with the environment, sure someone may really love the environment but their love isn’t going to stop pollution, deforestation, ect. Even if the person doing the action of cleaning up litter doesn’t actually care about the environment, it is at least being helped, and thats more important.

2.) The pleasure and pain of non-human animals absolutely matters just as much as humans’. The concept of speciesism holds true for a lot of people I feel. Its easy to only be focused on the well-being of mankind, and to just assume that every other species on the planet can’t feel or doesn’t care. However, I have had plenty of hands on experience with animals ( I work at a veterinary hospital) to know that they do indeed have feelings. Even if an organism that is not considered to be very intelligent, perhaps a fish, should still always be taken into consideration. We are not the only species on the planet and it is completely selfish to disregard other species. Our planet is one big ecosystem and thinking just for the human race, being selfish could really be self destructive, as all of our resources come from many parts of the environment and animals. Just because non-human animals don’t have a voice doesn’t mean they should be ignored. In fact we need more people in the world to be their voices.

3.) I believe ecosystems matter for their own sake. In relation to the previous question, I think humans overall are very selfish. Many people hold the feelings of speciesism, and many people also view the environment from an anthropocentric perspective. Too many people look at a forest and only see the tons of trees that can be cut down to provide wood to make profit. When I look at a forest I see a home to many different organisms and an amazing self-regulating ecosystem. Anthropocentrism and Speciesism pretty much go hand in hand. Both view that humans are ultimately most important. Ecosystems are a huge part of our lives both indirectly and directly. Everything we need to survive comes from the environment. If all of our actions were based solely on what benefits humans we would end up destroying all of the ecosystems. We are intelligent enough to compromise between the two and to find ways that benefits both humans and ecosystems or that at least do not damage ecosystems.

1. Is it more important to be a good person or to perform good acts (virtue ethics vs. action ethics)?
   1. I believe it’s more important to be a good person as opposed to someone who performs good acts. People with good intentions usually focus more on the long term effect of things, which can sometimes mislead opinions of that person, however disprove people wrong in the end. While people who are doing something good, may only be doing so for personal gains. For instance, one person with $10 in their pocket donates $3 to a homeless person, while another with $200 gives them $5, which do you consider the better person? A good person’s actions may not always be as visible as we wish they would be, but I feel that we eventually realize why did they did certain things. An example of good actions not being as prevalent would be a corporate company initializing a charity campaign in order to avoid governmental taxes, many large companies have been noted doing this for their own gain. Do we value these good actions more than a single person with more heartfelt intentions?
2. Does the process by which decisions are made matter more than the outcomes of these decisions (procedural justice vs. distributive justice)?
   1. I believe that yes, the process by which decisions are made is way more important than the outcomes from the decisions. In October 2015, Alabama shuttered around half of its DMV offices and claimed it was due to budget constraints. This decision came about a year after a law requiring voters to have a new ID to vote was issued. These actions led to affect roughly 20 percent of the Alabama population, disproportionately impacting poor, rural communities consisting of mostly black people, disfranchising black voters. State officials denied these accusations and insist that the decisions were not race-based. However, I strongly believe that the government strategically played their cards with these actions, considering the powerful suppression of black votes they caused during an upcoming election. This example shows that the outcomes are not as important because if the process isn’t done properly, the outcomes could be altered, or unfairly decided upon.
3.  Is my own life worth more than the lives of others, the same, or less (selfishness vs. altruism)?
   1. This question strikes me every time I hear it. I like to tell myself that I consider all lives to be equal, however, it is not always the case. Although I generally don’t value my life more than others’, I do value some lives more than other. A strong example we can all probably agree on is the life of a family member or loved one, in comparison to a stranger’s and how much more we’d do for the ones we know. I have very humanitarian views on life and I believe we all deserve equal opportunities and rights. Although equality is a strong value I like to uphold myself to. I think it’s hard for everyone to say they’ve never been selfish or committed selfish actions. This even includes doing something recognized as “good” for personal gains. An example of this is someone who only gives to the homeless when others are watching as opposed to when in solitude in order to get that recognition or give a “good person” image. As an Arab-Latino, discrimination and belittling is easy for me to affiliate with. It’s easy for me to understand what it’s like to be looked down on and thought of as less of a human. I like to think of everything that’s happened in my past as a “life lesson” as opposed to a good or bad thing, because in the end, our past is what we make of it and we could either cling onto it, or move on and learn what the next step is in order to move forward.

Question # 1: Is it more important to be a good person or to perform good acts (virtue ethics vs. action ethics)?
It is more important to do good acts. What is “good” about being a good person if that quality exists only internally, within the person? It may lead to a feeling of contentment and possibly happiness, but that state of being has no manifestation, no realization. In order to truly be a good person, one must interact with other entities, in a way that benefits each of them. Good deeds on the other hand, confer benefits on others, whether they be humans, non-humans or even institutions. Consider this, also: can one be a “bad” person and do good deeds? If so, does that not make them, in the final judgement, a good person? Some argue that just doing good things does not make one a good person, that the inherent tendency to view actions as good and preferable must be a core value, deeply held. Is it possible to accurately judge such a level of values in another person? I do not think so. We must also consider that there is a cultural component to values. What one culture judges to be good may not necessarily coincide with the values of another culture. A further consideration is that of “conflicting” values. Virtues often point toward different actions. Do I tell the truth (honesty), even if it may (uncharitably) hurt another person’s feelings? In the final analysis, I think the doing of good deeds, as opposed to simply being a good person is a better choice.

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

The end results of actions can never fully justify not considering the means which led to those ends. Focusing solely on the “ends” could lead one to make immoral decisions that will presumably lead to greater benefit to more people. The danger in this approach is that it may lead to us to undermine the rights and privileges of individuals, in favor of the effect on the overall group. Consider, though, that it may appear that an end is favorable on its face value. If I steal a ladder being used by a man to exit a burning building, in order to use it to save twenty people in another burning building across the street, is that justifiable? If I use ‘extraordinary interrogation techniques” (i.e., waterboarding) to obtain the action plans of terrorists, am I serving the greater good? Again, the danger here is that one can never know, with any degree of certainty, what the ultimate ‘favorable end’ will be. Our actions, though intended to bring about a greater good, may not turn out to deliver that objective. We should always consider doing the “right thing,” even if the short term results may not be desirable.

Question #5: Do the pleasure and pain of non-human animals matter as much as the pleasure and pain of humans (speciesism)?

The simple, straightforward answer to this question is “Yes,” these qualities of life matter as much for non-humans as to humans. However, we, as humans, have become accustomed to an anthropocentric point of view by thousands of years of conditioning and acculturation. Speciesism is a form of prejudice towards “others.” Our society has made enormous strides (though I would argue, not enough) in fighting prejudice based on ethnicity, race and gender. Speciesism is a prejudice against non-human animals. It allows us to view these “others’ in terms of how useful they are to us humans. By what construct do we presume to value human experiences over those of non-humans? Communication? Whales can communicate over many, many miles, using intricate, non-repetitive ‘songs.” Feelings? It is well-known that elephants mourn their dead. Technology? Birds can fly thousands of miles and navigate to the same breeding grounds year after year. Some argue that because we, as humans, are able to dominate and control other species that we are pre-ordained to do so. We assign value using a measuring stick which is a reflection of ourselves. We need a better tool.

Michael Evangelista

Is it more important to be a good person or to perform good acts (virtue ethics vs. action ethics)? In my opinion, virtue ethics: to be a good person and action ethics: to perform good acts are both very important characteristics an individual should have. Both virtue and action ethics are not totally separate and go hand in hand with each other. If someone were to be a good person, they most definitely would perform good acts. For example, my cousin is a very good person because she cares about bettering students within poor communities that do not get a lot of opportunities within the education atmosphere as others do. By giving back to these children, she performs action ethics. She takes action out of her own time to care for these children and give them the education that every child deserves. For example, she gives them new school supplies and a curriculum in which they can learn to better their futures. Since she takes these actions, she is performing good acts and is also being a good person/teacher. To me, these ethics are combined in value since a good person also performs good acts, and a person that performs good acts is considered a good person.

Do the ends justify the means (ends ethics vs. means ethics)? Personally, I believe that this question depends on what the means or consequences are and what ends (actions) are being used to achieve them. If the consequences are noble, and the actions that are also noble, than I believe “the ends do justify the means.” However, I do believe that too many people too often use this expression as an excuse to achieve their goals through any “ends” necessary, no matter how immortal, illegal, or horrid their “means” may be. For example, a lot of people believe that it does not matter how they get what they want, as long as they get it. If their goal is morally important enough, than any method of achieving it is acceptable to them. A real world example would be cheating on a test. If a student takes the “ends” of cheating on a test, their “means” are unacceptable and immoral, but it will help them get a better grade. Their “means” could also be horrifying if a teacher or another student caught them. In most cases however, I do believe that the “ends do not justify the means.”

 Is my own life worth more than the lives of others, the same, or less (selfishness vs. altruism)? My life is equal worth than the lives of others. Growing up, I have always been taught to be altruistic, but there is a limit in how much altruism we should practice. My parents always said, “However much altruism I give to someone is usually how much I will receive back.” Personally, I find it hard to choose how much altruism I should give to a certain person because they never give it back to me. I am always willing to try and help others with anything, but I expect it back as well. However, I do also believe that in specific scenarios, it is okay to be selfish and less willing to help others. For example, if I were in competition against a friend for a job in my dreamed professional career, I would do everything I possibly could to make her look worse and myself look better. To me, others lives are equally as valuable as mine and everyone should be altruistic to others.

1. One substantially difficult question of ethics is that of if virtue or action ethics are more important.  Virtue ethics, focuses more on qualities, intentions and attitudes toward a matter.  It can impact your actions tremendously.  Likewise, action ethics can shape your virtues.  Action ethics refers to viewing what we should do to take action as the most important approach.

In my opinion, I believe action ethics are slightly more important that virtue ethics in most scenarios, though they typically go hand-in-hand.  I have found in my life that serving others’ needs before my own has shaped me into more of a person of character, than believing in something first and then taking actions.  Performing good acts almost always leads to being a better person, and it is a more productive way to work together with people.  However, one downside of being more action-based ethically, is that sometimes your own beliefs or misconceptions can hinder good work.  If you are more virtue-based ethically, you typically act because you want to help and you believe in a cause.  This can produce more dedication and hard work.

All in all, however, I feel preforming good acts is more important than being a good person.  Only you can change your virtues, but by performing good acts, you are helping others in the process.  One great example is recycling, whether or not you feel it is effective enough.  You open up the opportunity to help the environment, regardless of if you have a strong opinion on it.

2. The difficulty of the ends justifying the means argument is that it is totally situationally-based, as with most ethical situations.  To what degree can one honestly say that it is universally acceptable or unacceptable?  Based solely on my own personally experiences thus far, I would agree that in most cases the ends do justify the means.

When it comes down to the process of deciding how to execute this type of situation, one must consider the consequences of the actions taken, and decide if the payoff is worth the sacrifice.  I feel that most of the time when people sacrifice a little for the sake of a greater ends, their intentions are good.  When a situation occurs where the payoff is not great enough for the ends to justify the means, it is rarely out of ill-will or malice.  Rather, it is usually negligence to fully understand the situation, or a miscommunication.  One example is if a community reconstructed a sewage line to make it more environmentally friendly and cost-effective.  In the process, several species could be driven out of the area, but over all the new line could do more good.  In my experience, the good intentions quite often pay off, and so I do believe the ends typically justify the means.

6. I believe this question is a very powerful one in this day in age.  There are so many different perspectives about this issue, and I think everyone should reflect on their answer to this question.  For me personally, I honestly feel deep down that my life is worth no more or no less than any other human’s.  As someone who intends on serving in the military after college, this is something I have had to think about a lot.  I value everyone else’s lives and rights to freedoms and opportunities, and so I am willing to defend individuals who I will never even meet.  I also value my own life, and know the impact my decisions have on my family.  I believe valuing my life is knowing what I have to offer, in a way.  While I would risk my life for another’s if necessary, I am confident that I can influence others by passing along some of my knowledge and being a good leader.  I think the difficult part is understanding people on an individual level.  Do others value their lives more than mine?  Do they value my life more than their own?  This effects how I interact with others, and in the military, it is a crucial part to establishing an effective team.

As I have found I am inadvertently quite anthropocentric, this question leaves me wondering how much other nonhuman species affect my life.  How much should I value them?

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

I believe it is more important to be a good person.  In my eyes being a good person means being the best self you can be.  This means putting others before yourself and keeping a positive attitude and kind heart.  Regardless of how kind a person can be, they are not entitled to be that way all the time.  It’s important to remember that everyone is human and everyone has a bad day from time to time.  We learn from our mistakes and bounce back after defeat.  Nobody is forcing you to be a good person and the way you act is dependent on you and only you.  Good people choose to act the way they do and do good things because they want to. Just the same, a not so great person can choose to do good things as well from time to time.  Being a less than good person is a choice, but those who choose to live this way only do good things with themselves in mind.  A bad person will do good things if it benefits them or gives them a false image as a hero or overall good person.  Truly good people will do kind things because they want to help and want to better others, not themselves. Take for example someone who donates tons of money to an organization.  This donating to a cause is perceived as a positive act of charity, but what if the good samaritan had stolen the money he or she donated?  My point is that people can perform good acts all the time, but in the end, they are still not truly good.  This is why i believe it is so much better to focus on being a better person than performing good acts for the wrong reasons.  When someone is doing good for all the right reasons, honestly, and selflessly, the image of them as a genuinely good person will follow.

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

In my personal opinion, I do not believe that my own life is worth more than the lives of others.  While I love the life I live and can be selfish at times, I do not believe that gives me the right of a more worthy living.  While it can be hard to grasp this sometimes, everyone’s life matters.  We as human beings are selfish by nature.  Everyone is trying to do the best for themselves and their families by working hard in their day to day lives. It is because of this that we sometimes lose sight of how our actions are affecting others.  Take for example fighting with a store clerk while buying groceries or clothes.  People often talk down on sales associates and clerks, blaming them when the item is not marked right, or not eligible for a discounted price.  You can observe this time and time again in any store.  People are selfish in thinking that their lives matter more than those of a store employee and talk down on them, and make them upset over something that is out of their control. In the end, everyone is just as important, entitled, and worthy as you are. 
3. Do the pleasure and pain of non-human animals matter as much as the pleasure and pain of humans (speciesism)?

I do not believe that the pleasure and pain of non-humans matter as much as the pleasure and pain of humans.  While I do not believe in animal abuse or cruelty, I do see a need in animals for the meat they supply.  As a hunter, I see nothing wrong with shooting a deer or other game for food.  I see most animals as food and lower than me.  While both animals and humans live on the earth, we must learn to coexist.  Just as animals do,  we hunt others who are lower on the food chain.  This is not to say that I support animal abuse or animal cruelty in any way, in fact I love my two dogs and treat them like part of the family.  I respect the animals around me and do not believe in torture or inhumane means of killing.  I simply see game animals as a way to survive.

Question 1: I believe it is better to be a good person. If a person is a good person, then they will always act with good intentions, but if a person is a not a good person, then when they commit good actions they’re likely doing it for personal gain. The type of person that acts only selfishly is unreliable and I believe their actions are not actually good actions because they are self-serving. I believe the impact of their actions may be good, but the action itself is not. I believe all people should strive to be virtuous and not selfish because it is better for society, which in turn is better for the individual.

Question 2: I do believe the ends can often justify the means. I believe we should all live with the intentions of maximizing utility for all people and this means some people will have to do things and give up things that they don’t want. This may be money or time or a host of other things, but the only way for man kind to truly be at peace is for all of us to take care of everyone. When we think of it in terms of the following: we can kill a perfectly healthy man and harvest his organs to save 5 lives that will die without it, this point of view becomes difficult. I do not believe we can make this man give up his life, nor could we fault him if he did not, but I believe he should do this action for these people. In general philosophy, this point of view is called consequentialism, but this view often falls short in that we are humans and in the moment we make decisions we often do not have the knowledge to know if the ends will actually justify the means.

Question 5: Though I do not believe animals’ pleasure and pain is of the same magnitude as humans, I do not believe it is of no magnitude. Nature often describes that those able to survive survive at the cost of those that are not able to survive. Humans are no exception to this rule. Humans experiment on animals to discover new medications. This is obviously without the animal’s consent, but it is necessary for the survival and progression of the human race. That being said, when we experiment on animals, they should be kept in the most comfortable environment possible. We have the privilege of being able to use these “lesser beings,” so we should treat them with the most respect we can. I believe we should treat everything and everyone we have the privilege of experiencing with the most possible respect. Everything we experience has made us who we are; regardless of the painful or the beneficial impact this experience has had on a life, the experience was a opportunity to not only experience, but build oneself into a better person.

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

In an environmental sense I believe it is more important to be performing good acts. Although virtue ethics are very important, positive changes will not occur unless they are put into action. Being a good person is very beneficial to society, acting on a cause has much more if an impact. I have always believed the famous phrase “actions speak a lot louder than words”.  For example, caring about environmental degradation is extremely important but putting those thoughts into action, and physically helping the environment is much more beneficial to the ecosystem. It is also important to consider that most good acts are performed by good people. Adversely, it is possible for a bad person to commit a good act. For example, good people who care about the environment will not pollute but a criminal sentenced to community service is performing a good act by helping clean up the pollution. If a bad person does not perform bad actions, he has no impact on the environment but if a good person performs bad actions, the environment could be at a disadvantage.  Conclusively, action ethics have a higher relevance and importance on the environment and society as a whole.

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

I believe ecosystems matter for their own sake. Although human benefit and welfare is important, the ecosystem shapes how humans are able to live their lives. If everyone had an anthropocentric view, our ecosystem would deteriorate and life simply could not exist. Unlike anthropocentric ethics and speciesism, I believe every living being is equal in importance. All species have an important role in our environment. Without biodiversity, there would not be natural sustainability for all forms of life. Biodiversity is critical for all species survival, as well as the survival of humanity. As stated in the basic ethics concepts lesson, humans do not have more of an advantage to other species, we are not the only ones that use reason or feel emotions. Other species have proven to show empathy and altruism. Every living being has a vital role on this planet and when working together, life is sustainable. Without species diversity, all life would go extinct. I believe we should all think prudently and consider ecocentric ethics, in order to sustain life

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

Although I appreciate my life beyond measure, I believe my life is worth the same as others. As mentioned in my paragraph about speciesism, I consider all life as equally important. Every living being has a significant role to society and the environment. I believe it is important to treat yourself how you treat others. One can not take care of others, if they can not take care of themself. I believe all living beings have an equivalent balance in this world. It is important to consider that everything is good in moderation but too much of  a good thing can ultimately end in a bad thing. Practicing too much altruism could negatively impact oneself but not practicing enough could have a bad effect on others or the environment. For example, if someone only has $10 to their name for the rest of the week and feels obligated to give the rest of their money to a homeless person, the giving person could ultimately become malnourished from not being able to afford food all week. Similarly, practicing too much selfishness could have contradictory effects on others but not practicing enough could result in unfavorable effects on the person acting. For example, if a person devotes 24 hours a day to helping the impoverished, they would not have time for personal relationships, family or enjoying life. This could cause the person to become depressed and unhappy. They would be sacrificing their well-being to help others. Nonetheless, I believe there should be a proportionate balance between selfishness and altruism. No life is worth more or less than the next.

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

Being a good person and performing good acts go hand in hand. It does not make sense to do good things but not be a good person. I can understand being a good person and not acting on those deeds just not the other way around. Overall, one would have to be a good person before doing good acts otherwise it may just be random act that the person was unaware of being “good”. In addition, if a person was a “good person” then good acts should come naturally and not categorized as something different. Directly answering this question, I would say it is much more important to be a good person for the same reasons I just mentioned. In contrast, what motivation would someone have to perform good acts while being a nasty person? The thought alone contradicts itself therefore leaving the good person the more important and likely option.

3. Does the process by which decisions are made matter more than the outcomes of these decision?

Yes. Any decision should be weighed by how one gets to that outcome. For example, if you could gain one million dollars but at the cost of your mobility, I would think most if not all people would chose to leave that deal alone. Of course there are decisions in which the process does not involve anything bad at all but, that process should still be considered. Many great things could be accomplished certain ways but perhaps at the cost of terrible consequences. For some people the burden may not change then or affect them in any way but, personally there are certain things that I would not want to associate myself with. I can see this topic being very relevant in politics considering there are many decisions that need to be made daily and thoughts given to questions such as this, does the outcome outweigh the process.

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

When you think about it, what is the difference between humans and other animals? Though process and looks are really the only two major differences without getting into detail. In addition humans and other animals are all living things and no living thing deserves to be put down or valued less than others. I realize some religions have this view but personally for a non-religious view I see a life as a life and not a human life compared to an animals life. To answer the question, yes, the pleasure and pain of non-human animals matter as much as the pleasure and pain of humans. You can clearly tell when an animal is in pain or happy or even bored and if you consider all life equal then why should humans have better lives? Of course animals will not have luxuries like 100,000 cars or huge houses because their thought process does not comprehend such things and frankly, most animals would probably prefer a nice wooded area to live and hunt in opposed to a loud and crowded city.

1.  Q:Is it more important to be a good person or to perform good acts (virtue ethics vs. action ethics)?
   1. As this chapter has stated I believe these two ethical ideas most of the time go together.  People who are good generally act good, and people who do good do so because they are good.  If I have to chose one though I believe you’d have to perform good acts for it to be of any benefit to others or the environment.  I do not mind someone who is faking being a good person by simply performing some random good acts, I’d rather that than have a good person who sits idle while good things need to be done.  The only time I really see my answer changing is if someone is a bad person but is intentionally doing good acts with the hidden agenda to do a greater evil with the favor that they earned from doing the acts of good.  In this case I would rather have a good person who neither does good nor bad.
2.  Q:Do the ends justify the means (ends ethics vs. means ethics)?
   1.  I believe in most cases you have to look at the end, or the goal you which to achieve.  I think this lessen simplifies it a bit by using trees as an example because it is a lot easier to say yes lets just chop down some trees to save the rest of the forest.  A much more difficult question might be, would you be willing murder a select few people just because you think that will save the majority?  I believe the ends are important but one who focuses solely on this and does not concern themselves with all the possible means of achieving this end will almost always regret their decision and in hindsight see that there were other means to achieve their  end.  That’s why I would put a lot more focus on the means so I could have a clear conscience when I reach the end.
3. Q:Is my own life worth more than the lives of others, the same, or less (selfishness vs. altruism)?
   1.  I personally value my life as the same as all others.  I do not believe in necessarily going out of your way for others or accepting less from them.  I think you should look to make yourself comfortable, but you reach that level you should then look to boost others up to your level.  You do not look down upon someone or something as if they deserve to be below you, but you also don’t just accept a lower status.  I think this even view is sustainable for the environment as well, you simply don’t use resources because you can, you use them out of necessity and comfort but no more.  If we all looked at our life as equal to everything else it would promote a much more sustainable planet.

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

I think it is more important to be a good person rather than to perform good acts. I personally think that action comes with virtue. Virtue ethics emphasizes what we should be. Anybody can pretend to be a good person by perform good acts, but this is just a formal action, not comes from the heart. The important thing that I believe is if you are a good person, that person will perform a good act automatically. For example, even criminal can act like a good person but this doesn’t mean the criminal is a good person, they can perform bad acts and good acts at the same time. Bad action could be very serious. In this case, ever so criminal did perform good acts this doesn’t have truth. Of course it is also   important that people acts good action, but I think it is more significant to be a good person before act.

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

My answer for this question is absolutely yes. I think the pressure and pain of non-human animals matter as much as the humans. All creatures have to treat equally. For example, people use rats in the experiment. Many rats are sacrificed by medicine experiments, cosmetic experiments and many clinical demonstrations. This is an example of anthropocentrism. People use non-human animals for their good even if it is painful or crucial for them. It doesn’t mean they can’t feel the pain or feel emotions because they can’t tell or speak. Animals can use reason or feel emotion too. Non-human animal welfare should be equally considered as human welfare. I think speciesism is coming from people regard non-human animals not as valuable as human. Even in non-human animal speciesm, there is speciesism according to what their species. People keep dogs and cats while people hate ants or insects and kill them without any pity. But I think we should think about non-human animals and acknowledge they can feel pain and pleasure too.

6. Is my own life worth more than the lives of others, the same, or less?

From my perspective, my life is more important than others for the following reasons. To begin with although there are many responsibilities that I have such as supporting my family, working duties and so on, I live for myself. Responsibilities that I have on others are all related to me, but that is not solely for me. I take care about others for sure, however, that doesn’t mean others’ lives are more important than mine. Secondly, no one lives out for my life. During the season of career fair, many students are seeking for their jobs. This is because they need to make money for their lives. Even if we donate money or do volunteer, this doesn’t mean we consider others’ lives more important. This is because I am part of my society and I have social responsibility. For this reasons I think my own life is more important than the lives of others.

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

I think it is more important for a person to perform good acts compared to being a good person. I feel that this is more important because people should take action for things they care about or are passionate about. For example, if someone cares about keeping the environment clean, they will do things about it rather than saying they care about it and then do nothing. If someone cares about the pollution in areas, they will organize a clean up committee. They can clean up beaches, parks, streets, and the side of highways. We see trash in these places way too often and if people were to perform a good act and clean the environment around them the world would be a cleaner, better place. I know for me it makes me angry when people just throw their trash all around. Why would you want to harm the planet we live on? If I am out walking my dog or hiking in the woods andI see garbage, I will pick it up and properly throw it away.

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

I agree with this question because in some circumstances the pleasure and pain of non-human animals’ matter as much as the pleasure and pain of humans. I think they matter in the setting of animal testing. Animals should not put through that torture and pain just for our enjoyment of certain products and clothing. I also think animals pleasure and pain matter when animals aren’t being taken care of properly. For example, the over crowdedness of some farms and animal shelters is an issue. In this situation, animals do not get the proper care.  As people, we do not want to be tortured or kept in overcrowded places so I think the pleasure and pain of non-human animals matter as much as the pleasure and pain of humans.

On the flip side, I could give examples on how I do not think that matters. I grew up in a family of hunters and now I am a hunter myself. When the module asked “Would we be able to completely be okay with it of we gave a human death sentence for hunting a deer?”, I would say I was not okay with it. When killing certain animals, we are feeding people and helping over population with some animals. Where I am from, there are always deer getting hit my cars and causing trouble. This is because for awhile they were very over populated. Hunting is one way to control this. Also, I know in my family, we do not hunt animals we cannot bring home and eat.

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

I believe people can be both selfish and altruism. I am one of those people. There are some ways my life is worth more than others. I think my life is worth more than people who are sitting in jail for life for committing a crime (ex: murderer or rapist). That is the only time I believe my life is worth more than others. As the module says, being selfish means you are less likely to help someone. So no, I would not help those type of people in any way. I feel that way because I am doing things with my life. I am going to college, getting a degree in something I love, and will work and make my own life compared to those people who will sit in jail for the rest of their lives. Contrast to being selfish, I believe I am an altruism too. I think my life is worth the same as other people. My family’s lives are very important to me. I would never want anything to happen to them and I would do anything to make sure that they stay safe. I am willing to always help them with whatever they need help in and I will be there for them.

The first question I chose to answer is the question on virtue vs. ethics. Is it more important to be a good person or to perform good acts? To start this question off I feel like I have to first address that these two go hand-in-hand. If you are a good person and make bad decisions, you are bringing yourself further away from being that good person. If you are a bad person and you make good decisions, you will start to redeem yourself and slowly become a good person. I could never be one to judge whether you are a good person or a bad person, but this would be my logic behind it. With this being said, my answer would have to be ethics. By actually performing the actions themselves, they have a way of diminishing your personal character or lifting it. However, if someone is a really good person and works for several charities, it is not always safe to assume that their actions are good outside of their work. These can be things to consider when distinguishing between virtue and ethics.

The next question I chose to answer is the question on ecocentric ethics vs. anthropocentric ethics. Do ecosystems matter for their own sake, or do they only matter to the extent that they impact humans? Without healthy ecosystems, many plants and animals wouldn’t have the same chance to live and be free like we do. However, ecosystems also benefit us humans and our survival. My answer would fall somewhere in-between for this question. I find both extremely important. For the sake of having an actual answer though, I would have to say that ecocentric ethics is more important. Preserving our environments and ecosystems for future generations to appreciate has long been an opinion of mine. If humans believe they should be able to live and matter for their own sake, I believe animals and ecosystems should be able to as well. Almost every scenario would result in me being for the ecocentric ethics.

The last question I am choosing to answer is the question on selfishness vs. altruism. Is my own life worth more than the lives of others, the same, or less? I would never in a million years consider my life to be of more worth than someone else’s. I believe that everyone’s life and worth is absolutely equivalent. Whether you are the president of the United States or a schoolteacher, you have the same amount of human worth. Each individual places a role in our world. Some people’s roles are a little more important than others, but that doesn’t take from their worth. Just because someone is a janitor at a school does not mean that their worth is any greater or less than someone working for the government. There wouldn’t be a scenario where my answer would change. Even serial killers’ worth would be the same as mine. That doesn’t mean that our values or status is anywhere near each other’s, but I wouldn’t say that someone’s actions would devalue them as a person.

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

I believe that in order for a person to be good, a person must definitely perform good acts. We are constantly performing some action that affects our lives, the lives of other’s around us, and the environment that we live in. We have a constant interaction with these things, and could not be functioning human beings without this interaction. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that our actions speak to our goodness rather than how believe we should be. It is very easy to understand that we should take hold and to minimize the trash that is thrown away to the environment. This concept is understood to be ethically good, and we can think that this is good, and furthermore think that we are good for having these thoughts, but if I were to constantly throw litter out into the environment whilst having these thoughts, the unethical nature of this action severely outweighs how good having the thoughts are.

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

I believe the pain and pleasure of non-human animals is just as important as the pain and pleasure of humans, but not every species is as important as another. Human society occupies almost every single environment on this planet, and it is inevitable that the decisions human beings make will benefit or harm some other animal species. And in determining which species we consider as important as human beings, we need to consider the pain an animal endures. Like Jeremy Bentham said, “The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?” We need to critically analyze how our actions impact the suffering of a single individual of the species and the species as a whole. But we need to determine to what extent the animal experiences suffering.  For example, humans need to understand how an animal experiences physical pain upon death. On a systematic large scale practice, we raise cattle for the purpose of killing them and feeding us. I look at a cow and see an individual being, perfectly capable of experiencing fear and pain, and in that moment before death, possibly experiencing the same reactions and feelings as a human would before their death. Although we can realize that cows experience these reactions and feelings, we care more about the taste of the food that we are getting more than feelings and reactions of the cows. On the other hand, I see a bug, and I do not believe that it is capable of experiencing the pain and suffering before death that a human or a cow can endure. And yet, as a society we cannot even bear to think about cultivating insects as a food source to replace. Maybe it is necessary to reevaluate how we can possible accept the pain and suffering of a cow during slaughter, and embrace the idea of using insects as a primary source of food.

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

This is such a difficult question to answer. I believe in every situation we need to evaluate whether or not our lives are more important than others. We are all individuals living our own lives, and are almost always completely focused on our own lives. But we do have family, friends, acquaintances, and strangers that are all sharing a similarly unique experience until we die. It is easy to believe that we are entitled to live our unique lives exactly like we want it, but at the same time there is absolutely no difference in the uniqueness of one’s life versus another, and therefore I believe we also have a responsibility to others just like to ourselves. Our lives are just as valuable as everybody else’s, and I believe you need to consider both aspects in every situation that you experience. I may be particularly selfish in one situation, but I know that the person is not going to be severely harmed by my action, and I can proceed with my action. I need to consider the harm that a person might endure at the expense of my benefit and determine whether or not I feel comfortable with my action. Likewise, to the benefit of another person, I need to consider how much my action will harm myself. But, I believe this question is particularly difficult to answer when considering the life and death of yourself versus another person. I do not think I can give my own life at the expense of another’s. It makes me feel bad to say so, but I believe at the core of my ethical values, I put my own life before the lives of others. Fortunately, this is not a case that I have to deliberate with every day.

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

I believe that good works or acts are more important than being a good person. The quantifiable aspect of good acts (i.e. you would know how many someone did and like be able to measure the outcome of them) outweighs the value of being an intrinsically good person. You could be a good person and not seek human contact or interaction for decades. You could be a good person and not do anything harmful, but not do anything good for anyone either. You could be a “good person” and have a definition of “good” that registers as a very low bar for others, so would not have anything to show for that definition. In these examples, goodness doesn’t hold water where good acts would. Even if the individual doing the good acts was filled with malicious intent, if the act was genuinely good, it wouldn’t matter because it wouldn’t impact the outcome, which would benefit others.

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

I believe that it is important for a person to perform good acts versus to be a good person. I think this because it is important to be someone who cares about the environment, but it benefits the actual environment more to perform acts that improve the environment. For example, a person that practices recycling daily is having a physical impact on the environment unlike someone that gives a speech about the benefits of recycling for the environment. In both situations, the people are promoting recycling but the person that is physically practicing the act of recycling is having a larger impact on the physical environment. In a situation when people are seeking to learn about environmental awareness, then virtue ethics is more applicable than action ethics. In this type of situation, people are seeking how to become “good” to the environment in hopes of taking future action. Both virtue ethics and action ethics are related because typically if a person cares about being good, then they will most-likely take action to help practice their beliefs.

3. Does the process by which decision are made matter more than the outcomes of these decisions (procedural justice vs. distributive)

In my opinion, outcomes for the decisions being made matter more than the process by which decisions are being made. This is why I believe that distributive justice is more important that procedural justice, because distributive justice is focused on actions and the circulation of the consequences of those actions. An example of the concept of distributive justice would be the government funded program titled, “Free and Reduced Lunches” in schools around the country. This tax dollar funded lunch program is designed to provide lunch and breakfast for students living at or below the poverty level in public schools. The students that do not meet the requirements for the program are unable to receive any benefits from this program and have to purchase school lunch or are required provide their own lunch because their families earn enough to provide food for them. An example of when procedural justice would be more successful than distributive justice would be a situation involving a town hall wanting to create a place or space in the community that will benefit all human members. At a town hall meeting, it’s important for members of the community to help with making decisions about the future decisions and actions that will be happening in that community. This form of procedural justice affects all members of the community, which means the decision making method should be more democratic as opposed to distributing the consequences of the decisions.

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)

In my opinion, ecosystems are matter for their own sake as oppose to the extent that they impact humans. I believe this since ecosystems involve all members of the system, humans, non-humans, and non-living things. For example, TreePeople is a the Greater Los Angeles, CA Area program run by Andy Lipkis that helps to restore local forest ecosystems. The purpose of this project is to help with Los Angeles’ long-term sustainability. TreePeople has the goal of putting the ecosystem first in order to help benefit all aspects of the Greater Los Angeles Area Ecosystem, humans, non-humans, and even air quality. A situation when an anthropocentric view would be more important than an ecocentric view would be in the case of a natural disaster that endangers the lives of a great population. For example, repairing the city of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina flooding left most of the city underwater killing over 1,000 humans. During the repair of the river valley, the natural ecosystem, after the storm, was altered by shipping in dirt and sand in order to prevent more flooding and damage to the city. This decision of repairing the city was ultimately putting human lives before that of the new, natural environment. This situation of putting humans first was necessary in order to save more lives from being lost to flooding and natural disaster.

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

Personally I can see a side to both being a good person and performing good acts, but for the purpose of this question I think that it is more important to be a good person (virtue ethics). I think that if you perform good acts (action ethics) just to be altruistic, but are a bad person on the inside, a day will come when you no longer do good acts. I believe that being a good person has to come before someone consistently does good deeds. It is important to be a good person because before you can develop healthy relationships with others and recognize what others need, you have to love yourself and be content. I think that an important aspect of being a good person to others is to be a good person in one’s own eyes. Being a good person means, among other things, doing what’s morally right, having a positive outlook on life, and treating other people with respect. Being willing to perform good acts will naturally follow from being a good person. However, just because a person does some good acts does not necessarily mean that he/she is an entirely good person.

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

   I would like no better than to say with 100% conviction that the pleasures and pains of non-human animals matter as much to me as that of humans, because I believe in a God who created all living things. I’d like to vow that I’d never hurt another living/breathing thing for my own wellbeing. After all, I continue, who am I to say that my living, breathing moments here on Earth are more important than the living, breathing moments of a cow or a mosquito? Who am I to say that it is OK to slaughter a chicken so that I may have meat to nourish my body? However, by raising animals specifically to later slaughter and eat so that my body can function well, I am actually acknowledging speciesism (humans are more important than chickens, cows, pigs, and all non-human animals). It would take a very major change in my lifestyle before I could say that I do not believe in speciesism. The truth of the matter is, I don’t know if I could ever survive not being dependent on non-human animals. I think that eating meat, fish, etc… and wearing leather shoes is so much a part of my existence that it would take some major life-changing event for me to live a life where I treat all non-human animals as if they were irreplaceable. 

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

My answer to the question of whether my own life is more, the same, or less important than that of others has two parts. First, I believe that my life is as valuable, if not more valuable, than the lives of others because it’s the sense of good self-worth that keeps me satisfied in my day-to-day life. Thereafter, it is only once I am satisfied with myself that I can then truly reach out to help others and become somewhat altruistic. When I am satisfied and/or happy with myself, I can analyze what others need and focus on what I can do to help them. Being altruistic then feeds my self-worth and I am, again, able to help others achieve a better lot in life. When I am unhappy with myself and/or my where I am in life, I have a very difficult time providing for the welfare of others (perhaps that is selfishness at my core). I believe that I am responsible to first “feed” myself physically, psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually (value my life), so that I can then recognize the needs of others and help them achieve their needs/dreams.

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

I think it is more important to be a good person than to just perform good acts. My thinking is that by being a good person you will naturally perform good acts. Also, someone that performs good acts may be doing so just for looks, publicity, whatever it may be. So by just performing good acts doesn’t mean that someone is actually a good person at heart. If someone is a good person, then they will do good things when no one is looking because it is in their nature. If someone is just performing good acts then in their mind they may be thinking why am I doing this and not feel the same satisfaction of doing something good than someone who is a good person. The most important point of my argument is that a person who just performs good acts may be looking for attention and in the future may not be as willing to do a good deed than someone who is a good person at heart.

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)?

I believe that Ecosystems matter for their own sake. So my ecocentric idea is that the Ecosystem was here before humans were. Whether humans were here or not, there would still be an ecosystem. Although, I do understand that the ecosystems would be different with out humans on earth, its still important to know that the ecosystems help us keep sustainable more than we can help the ecosystem stay sustainable. In The Fight for Conservation article Gifford Pinchot describes that conserving our resources is the way for our species to prevent from going extinct and to gain national success. So if we keep using our resources as if they will never run out will be detrimental to human life. But as long as we conserve our resources and renew them, then human life can be sustainable.

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

I believe that my life and someone else’s life are of equal worth. I’ve grown up thinking that everyone is equal and I believe that. Unfortunately the past doesn’t show everyone treating others as equals, but we can learn from the past. The decisions I make for myself can be thought of as selfish, but if I don’t make some of the decisions I do then I won’t put myself into a position to help others to the extent I want. I believe that in any situation that would make me decide between helping myself and someone else that I will always choose to help the other person. Regardless if the person is a family member or not I think it is important to help others if you’re in a position to do so. Although, this may not always be true but I think that if you help others then at some point someone will help you in the future when you need it.

1. Question 1-Variation: Is it more important to be a good person, perform good acts or both? I think it is most important to be both a good person and perform good acts. These two things go hand in hand. It is true that you can be a bad person and do good things, or you can be a good person and do bad things, but it is most important to be both. First of all, a good person has a natural tendency to do good things. A bad person, however, will most likely do something good for an anthropocentric reason. In other words a bad person is usually selfish. Being a good person doesn’t mean you always do good things. Temptation can lead to lying or utilizing loopholes to gain something without getting in trouble. Of course there is a whole separate question as to whether all bad acts are truly bad. It is my belief that if you are a good person and do good things then you will have the largest possible impact. Demonstrating good values like honesty can lead to others having a desire to also be honest. Performing good actions can also have the same ripple effect on others. But the true combination of both being a good person and doing good things will lead to real change that effects many other people. In this case two positive aspects of a person can effectively make a positive impact. If you compare this to the other scenarios where a bad person does good things or vice versa then you can clearly see that being both a good person and performing good acts is the most important thing.
2. Question 4- Ecosystems matter for their own sake. Nature was here before humans were. We live in a world conquered by humans because humans have one of the most complex thinking and decision making mechanisms out of all life. However, humans cannot survive without the environment around them. If there were no trees, no animals and no fresh air, humans would not be able to live as they do today. I do have more of an ecocentric approach to this subject. I’m not saying the impact ecosystems have on humans is to be ignored, but we cannot be selfish as the “dominant” organisms and destroy all of the world around us. Sustainability of ecosystems is about being able to maintain the needs of humans and the needs of the natural environment in the world without hurting one or the other. However, we should not approach sustainability as a way to ensure the sustainability in favor of humans. The environment should be regarded mutually if not more so than the sustainability of humans. This doesn’t mean that I think humans are less important than the environment, but I do think the focus is too heavily, and selfishly, directed towards humans. There needs to be a balance and before that balance can occur we have to focus more on ecosystems for their own sake more than for humans sake.
3. Question 6- To be honest this is the hardest question on this list for me. It is hard to give a definite answer, but I would have to say that others lives matter more to me than my own. In the readings it did say that generally people put their friends and family’s lives before their own. I would have to agree with that and take it further. Although I do not serve in the military, I would say that I would give my life for this country if it came to it. If I were to be drafted or in a state where I had to try to defend my home land from invading enemies I would gladly make that sacrifice. It may sound untrue, but I truly value the experience other people get out of life than I do. Everyone has a family, friends and hopefully a drive to live life to the fullest, and I would feel guilty if I didn’t offer my life so that they could return home to that at the end of the day. If today someone walking across campus stepped out in front of a bus for some reason, I would push them out of the way to make sure they were able to continue with their life. This is just in my blood I guess. I don’t know why I feel this way. Maybe this is selfish of me though in its own way. Putting others lives before mine is natural to me, but I don’t tend to think about what this would do to the people in my life. Sacrificing myself would surely cause misery and pain for my loved ones, but I would hope they would find comfort in knowing I sacrificed myself because I put other lives before my own.  There are certain circumstances where I feel as if I would not put my life before others, but it is a very specific circumstance. For example, if it was a choice between mine or the life of a terrorist, child abuser, or  a murderer I would not have the same feeling. I do not hold the lives of someone who hurts people above my own. Of course it is extremely difficult to tell if anyone you walk by in a single day is guilty of those offenses, but if I knew I know that immediately their life is not worth as much as mine. I still hold true though that overall the lives of others are more important than my own even if the reasons for this are both altruistic and selfish at the same time.

1. Question 1: Is it more important to be a good person or to perform good acts? (virtue ethics vs. action ethics)
   • I think it is more important to perform good acts than to just be a good person because ultimately performing good acts makes you a good person. Performing good acts not only affects you but, affects the ones around you. Holding the door for someone, saying Thank You and, volunteering or raising money for charity are several examples of performing good acts. Growing up I have always been taught to treat people the way you would want to be treated. Performing good acts of kindness can go a long way. People will remember the ones who made a difference in the world and who were kind to others through actions and through words. Even though people might perform acts with the wrong intentions, their actions will make a positive impact on others which, indirectly makes them a good person.
2. Question 2: Do the ends justify the means (ends ethics vs. means ethics)?
   • In my opinion for this question, both the ends and the means should be considered in the type of situation. The situation should depend on what the ends or goals are and what means are being used to achieve them. Sometimes people use the expression, “It doesn’t matter how you get what you want, as long as you get it.” People can achieve their goals through any means necessary, no matter what the circumstances might be. An example of this, is when people lie on their resume to get a job that they are not qualified for. By lying on their resume they are trying to make more money so they can provide for their family. However, lying on their resume can be beneficial or detrimental in one’s ability in getting the job. In the end, is it worth it to compromise your morals in getting a job that might not be a good fit for you.
3. Question 6: Is my own life worth more than the lives of others, the same, or less (selfishness vs. altruism)?
   • I believe that my life is worth the same as others. I am a strong believer that everyone here on earth was brought into this world with a reason to do good and to benefit society as a whole. Often times, people are classified lower than others due to race, gender, beliefs, etc. but, we are all human and all at the same level. No one is above or below another person, we are all here to get along with each other. At times, I could be selfish but, I believe there is a part of that in everyone. I am compassionate about my values and my beliefs and I will do anything to make those things happen. I have goals and dreams and I won’t give up until they become a reality. In the end, I am here as a member of society and to do good and be good to the people around me and to get along with others.

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

Ethically, I highly believe in both being a good person and performing good acts, but if I had to choose one over the other I would have to say you should be a good person above performing good acts. My reasoning on choosing ethical virtue over action in this situation is because I think that if you are a good person, you will perform good acts but performing good acts does not necessarily mean you are a good person. For example, we sometimes see celebrities get into trouble on the news, and then days later we might see them doing good acts, however, just because they did a good act does not mean they are a good person. It makes them look like a good person but it is very possible that they are not. Another reason I pick virtue over action is because if you are a good person doing good acts you are more likely to care about what you are doing and will have more success in your actions opposed to somebody who is not a good person doing a good act and less likely to be successful.

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

Ecosystems definitely impact humans without question but they impact other things as well. All living things matter and from an ecocentric view the animals and plants that live in the same ecosystem. The ecosystem would be completely different without the other mammals and plants, which would change the entire ecosystem for humans. Basically what I am trying to say is that humans rely on the ecosystem along with other living things, meaning the ecosystem is here for its own sake and we’re just here living in it. A given ecosystem could probably be more successful without humans do to the waste that we produce that typically destroy the environment. If humans did not live in these ecosystems then the ecosystem could easily sustain itself but due to anthropocentrism views, more humans do not care about what happens to their ecosystem and most humans probably believe that the ecosystems sole purpose is to serve them.

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

My life is worth the same as anyone else, whether rich or poor, or black or white, we are all human beings breathing the same air and living on the same planet. Unfortunately some people disagree with this but I believe that if you have a great balance between selfishness and altruism then you will have the same or similar points as me in this question. I personally like to picture comparing ones selfishness and altruism as a scale where altruism is lowest on a scale from 1 to 10 and selfishness being 10 or the highest on the scale. If you are 10 on the scale then you think too highly of yourself and you should care more about the people surrounding you. If you are 1 on the scale then you need more confidence in yourself and maybe a little ego boost to meet selfishness at five with a balance of the two.

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

Like a lot of my other classmates, I think it is more important to be a good person. You can be a good person and do good things. But, a lot of the time you can do good things and not be a good person. For example, if you’re a volunteer at a soup kitchen, you are doing something good. But, the reason you are volunteering is because you need a certain amount of volunteer hours as part of your probation sentence. You most likely aren’t a good person if you’re committing crimes. A good person would volunteer for the sake of helping others. Or you could be volunteering just for the recognition, like how celebrities give to charities to get more fame. The difference is that an action is completed once, while a virtue is in your personality/mentality for life. A good person (virtue) has the natural capacity to do good things (action). There are specific cases where you can do both, but in general, that isn’t true.

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)?

I think in the culture in America, we say we care about the ecosystem, but really we only care for the sake of our human lives. You hear people talking about the polar ice caps melting and how the east coast is going to be underwater. How will humans survive underwater? You don’t hear about how all the plants, not only in the ocean but on the east coast, will survive. Or talk about how that will affect our resources on the east coast. I think we aim to be ecocentric, but we only do it for ourselves, which is anthropocentric. Another example could be how people say we’re using up all our natural resources. But, are they upset that the resources will be gone or that humans will not be able to sustain life without them? Going back to other points in this module, humans do not allow for distributive justice when it comes to the sake of the ecosystem or humanity. To me, as long as humans stay self-centered like they are now, the ecosystem will not matter just for its own sake.

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

I don’t think the pleasure and pain of non-human animals matter as much as humans’ pain and pleasure. Like the module says, speciesism is already prevalent in our society today. That is why humans make decisions, rule countries, and are basically at the top of the food chain except for freak accidents with animals. Clearly, it is not okay to purposefully abuse animals. But, I think it is okay to kill animals for food. Like most people, when I eat chicken nuggets, I’m not concerned about whether that chicken had a good life or was in pain. Speciesism is in place in our society so that we don’t have people electing dogs as president or worshiping cows. I think it makes sense because we are the dominant race on earth. We care about our pets’ feelings, but not as much as the feelings of our best friends or family. Non-human animals feel pain and pleasure but I think to say their feelings matter as much as humans is hard to back up considering the speciesism in our society today.

1.

It is more important to be a good person then to be a person who performs good deeds. I think that virtue ethics are superior then action ethics. This is because you can perform good deeds day in and day out but you might not actually be a good person. Someone might be doing this everyday just for show, publicity, or because they have to. The people who do good acts just to have the recognition are not good people. They might be out and doing stuff in the community but deep down they know this is all a lie. Instead a good person is good at heart. A good person does good acts at the same time as just being a good person. They know what they are and so does their creator and they do not feel that they have to perform good acts, but they want to. Just because you perform good acts does not mean you are a good person, and that is what is most important.

5.

The pleasure and pain of non-human animals do not matter as much as the pleasure and pain of humans. I believe this to be true because humans are entirely different than animals. We are all after life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and in order to attain that goal, some animals will be hurt along the way. I do believe that all beings are created equal, but in order to live animals are going to get slaughtered. They are going to be eaten in order for humans to survive. If I had to make a choice I would inflict pain to an animal over a human every time. I do not go out looking to hurt animals whatsoever, it is just what I believe. I look at animals as food not as equals in that regard because we are at the top of the food chain. But once again I do believe we are equal as having a right to the Earth. So I do value a human’s pleasure and pain over an animal’s.

6.

I believe my own life is worth the same as anyone else’s. When it all boils down, all that matters is who the guy is next to you. No human is in the position to say whose life matters more than another. All lives matter. Yes,there are times when I just lookout for myself and do what is right for me, but I do not make the decision because I think I am better than someone else. I make it because it is what is best for myself. In order to help others, I have to make decisions for myself first to even be able to begin to help others. Also my family is important to me, but someone else’s family does not have any less importance. We all should take that into consideration. Equality is key to a happy world.

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.

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

When someone is a good person one can assume they participate in good acts. If an individual was a bad person one may assume they participate in bad acts. If a bad person participated in good acts they would not be as bad of a person in respect to their actions. However if a good person was to participate in bad acts it would make them a worse person in respect to their actions. Therefore I believe it is more important to do good acts then to be a good person. A person can be considered bad and still do good actions to redeem themselves or their character. The acts themselves make a person good or bad so it is better to have good actions then to be a good person. A preacher is a good person and assumed to partake in good actions. However some priests have been convicted of inappropriate incidences with minors. Just because the priest is good doesn’t mean that his actions will be good as well. If the priest partook in good actions then it would matter little if he was good or bad as a persons because he would be judged or seen by his actions as well as changing the perspective in which we view him or his character.

Does the process by which decisions are made matter more than the outcomes of these decisions? (procedural justice vs. distributive justice) When making a decision on a large scale it is important that the process by which the decision is made is fair and just otherwise the decision itself does not carry merit among the populations of people in which the decision effects. The decision itself is less important than the process by which it is determined because it must be considered justified and fair by the people it effects. If the process of the decision is not chosen to fit the situation accordingly it will not be upheld by the local populations. If the the people involved don’t feel that the process in which the decision was made was fair they will not support the outcome of the decision no matter what the conclusion was. If there was an election for a new leader and the people whom vote do not feel that the way in which they vote is fair will not vote. There will still be a leader elected but the leader is not actually endorsed by the people in which the leader now has responsibility and control. The people have lost trust in their leader and processes and no longer feel that they are represented by the new leader and now choose to overthrow him or vote him out. There is much unrest with the process of the decision and the people are back at square one. Even if they actually wanted the new leader elected they have to hope in the process that gives them the choice.

Do ecosystems matter for their own sake or do they only matter to the extent that they impact humans? (ecocentric ethics vs. anthropocentric ethics) It is clear that ecosystems matter in relation to human existence. However ecosystems have been present on the earth long before human life. In fact you could argue that ecosystems are the reason why the earth is able to support such a diversity of organisms. Ecosystems play a major role in the earth processes. The earth recycles every chemical through elaborate processes that are connected to the different ecosystems found in the world. Ecosystems are larger than human needs they are earthly needs. If the human population infringed on every ecosystem on the earth to the max for human resource gain it would hurt the earth tremendously. In fact we have already done this with carbon. We have released millions of years of concentrated carbon into the earths atmosphere that would not be there any other way except for mass human extraction and consumption. This carbon threatens the diverse ecosystems of earth and every living organisms future on this planet. Although ecosystems can be reconstructed naturally it takes a long time because of the naturally occurring processes that make this happen, humans are destroying them at a rate that puts out own future existence into question. The deep rooted nature of the earths many ecosystems in the health and balance of the planet itself deems them more important then just the extent on which they effect humans.

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

I believe that it is more important to perform good acts than to be a good person. I feel like performing acts are what makes you a good person. If you are a good person and do nothing, how does that result in you being a good person? I believe that good acts are what the world itself needs right now. Without it, I believe that the world will continue to spiral into a disarray that will end in another world war. With good acts, I believe that good people will arise. Within that thought, I do agree that good acts can be done by people who aren’t good people, but at the end of the day, I do believe that good people are defined by good acts done by people. I believe thoroughly that good people could also not do anything good other than things for themselves, and not for other people. Therefore, good acts lead to good people.

1. Do the pleasure and pain of non-human animals matter as much as the pleasure and pain of humans (speciesism)?

Being an owner of a cat and dog as well as lifetime owners of cats, hamsters, dogs, fish and even geckos, I am a huge advocate for animals and animal rights. I believe that their pain and pleasure matter just as much as humans. I believe that it goes back to the earlier question of virtue ethics vs action ethics. I believe that any person who abuses are mistreats animals, has no ethics whatsoever. Animals and things that can not completely defend themselves as a human can not be considered lesser because of the fact that they rely on other things and humans to survive. I also believe that animals are important to the lives of humans. The help the environment and a lot of them are able to give humans comfort as well as assist them in other ways, such as K-9 units in the cops or service animals. Someday we may need to rely on them for more things than we do now, so it is always important to keep their pleasure and pain in the focus of our lives.

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

This question has come up a lot in my personal life in recent years. My mother had passed away, there would come up the question of my problems being more important than others and I relate this to the meaning of lives. I believe that all lives are equal. No matter the thought of if someone is smarter than someone else, or if they’ve accomplished more than another person, I thoroughly believe that everyone is of equal importance. This follow along the thought that people of higher wealth may believe that they are more important. Or if someone has invented something or have done more than another person. A lot of time, homeless people are looked at as unimportant and less of life than others, but we all came from the same place and will eventually all die, so what’s the point of looking at people different. It’s just a waste of energy and focus.

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

At first when I went to answer this question, I couldn’t quite make up my mind. I thought it would be an easy question to answer, but it turns out that it took me a while to debate both sides. After thinking about it and going back and forth for a little while, I decided that I believe it is more important to be a good person. To me, being an overall good person means being considerate and kind to others. It doesn’t mean you have pleasant 24/7 or perfect. People make mistakes, but it’s what they do after the mistake that matters. If you are a good person, you will naturally perform good acts out of the kindness of your heart. However, a “bad” person can perform good acts, whether it may be to make themselves look good or some other reason that will benefit them. I can think of a few people that I know that do plenty of kind, good acts, but at the end of the day, they still are not that great of a person. In closing, I do believe that being a good person is more important than performing good acts.

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

It’s definitely easy to say that one’s own life is more valuable than someone else’s. It’s easy to put ourselves first and do what’s best for us and we see that happening all of the time. For example, if we are late for work, we might cut someone off and speed by to ensure that we get to our destination on time. If we are hungry, we might secretly cut the food line so we get our food first. The list of examples could go on and on. People definitely put themselves first at times when their situation seems more important than others. In reality though, no one’s situation should be valued as more important or less important because it all matters to each individual person. The same goes for someone’s life. Every person on this earth matters. Every person is a mother, father, daughter, son, brother, sister, friend, etc., to somebody. Each and every person is loved by someone and is that person’s world. With that being said, I absolutely do not view my life as worth more than others. I simply view all lives as equal.

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

In my personal opinion, the ends do not justify the means. People can achieve great things and create huge fortunes for themselves and others. However, if they got in that position through unfair methods, it does not make it okay and I don’t view it as a success. I like to think of a successful, but deceitful lawyer for this situation. He may be doing well and be able to buy his family everything under the sun and look like the picture perfect family from the outside. But if he is doing so by stealing money from other sources and lying and cheating others out of their money, his “success” means nothing. To be truly successful and accomplish whatever it is you wish to achieve, it should be done fairly and honestly. To me, if the end result is achieved properly, then the means should be something to be proud of in themselves.

1. I personally believe that it is much better to be a good person rather than to perform good deeds. I believe this because being a good person is completely and utterly different then performing good deeds throughout your life. You can perform good deeds throughout your whole life and still be a terrible person. For example there is Pablo Escobar. Being one of the worlds biggest drug dealers he is not a good person at heart. He violated many laws and personal ethics while also performing good deeds. While he was performing these outrageous acts he was also known publically for building homes and schools for the poor while also running for governor. Although these public acts made him look good and gave him great publicity he was an awful human being at heart. In conclusion Pablo Escobar shows the ultimate difference between performing good deeds and being a good person. This shows that being a good person can include both sides while performing good deeds can not always include both.

5. In my eyes I value the pleasure and pain of non-human animals to be equal and just as valuable to those of humans. I believe this due to my religious believes and the fact that all being beings were created equal. I feel as if all deserve the same respect and rights. Although I believe and feel this way I can also see the other side of this debate. Although it may be believed that for humans to survive and remain at its dominant state on the food chain, they must not value other beings nearly at the same level of there own kind or species, I believe this to be incorrect. Although I believe that non human species should be valued as equal I believe that this only corresponds to BREATHING species. I think that if we counted other non-breathing species as equal then we would be in a completely different world and it would be almost impossible for the human race to survive and thrive.

6. I personally believe that my life is just as important as anyone else’s. But, not to seem arrogant or egocentric but I believe that I have worked hard to come to the point where I now am in my life just as all of us Penn State students have. Although I believe that I am just as important as others I believe that it is our duties as citizens and members of this world to protect and watch the back of others. We live in a survival of the fittest type world and if it becomes a race to the finish over who may get a job or a new position or anything similar to this than I would have to say that I would value my own life over others. But with this being said I would never put another persons live in jeopardy just to make mine better.

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

The concept of being a good person and performing good acts are very closely related but are not exactly dependent on one another. It is possible to be a good person without performing good acts and it is possible to perform good acts without being a good person. This matter of virtue vs action brings up the question: What does it mean to be a good person? I believe it is more important to perform good acts because without action, there is no change. People may have good intentions and positive thoughts but in order to make the world a better place, we must turn those thoughts into something tangible. Under most circumstances, actions speak louder than words. When determining whether or not the ends justify the means, a person’s virtue must come into question. If a result makes a large positive impact on the world but the means for obtaining this result had some negative effects, this would procedurally justifiable. For example, if a person finds a new method for growing more crops but in the process had to sacrifice a few farms, the ends justify the means. The total benefit of this person’s actions outweighs any potential negatives. Destroying a farm’s crops is not seen as virtuous, but the actions were with positive intentions for change.

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)?

Ecosystems matter for their own sake far more than for how they impact humans. Humans have existed for a significantly small portion of our ecosystems entire existence. To have an anthropocentric attitude is to say that the ecosystem is here only for our benefit. Often humans will sacrifice the environment for their own welfare. When humans use natural resources and harm the environment with over consumption, they often think little as to how this affects the ecosystem in the long run. It is more important to have an ecosystem that will be around for generations to come than it is to have an ecosystem that supports the current society. Ecocentric ethics addresses the concept of distributive justice and how the consequences that we as humans create are distributed in the environment. Improving the lives of humans does not justify destroying our ecosystems. Just because tearing down a forest will provide shelter for people does not mean we are justified in doing so. Ecosystems matter because they will be here long after our present society is. Sustaining the environment and not making a negative impact is the way we can ensure that this will happen.

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

I do not believe my life is worth any more than the life of another person. While I value my own life very much, I do not think there is any person on this Earth that deserves to be alive more or less than I do. An altruistic person can be defined as someone who contributes to the world. I believe that is what makes a person’s life worthy: how much they can contribute and make a positive impact on our world. While I care more about my family and friends than I would a random person, I do not believe my friends and family’s lives are any more valuable. While this is something I strongly believe in, I cannot truthfully say that I would be willing to sacrifice more to a total stranger than I would to a family member. Under certain circumstances, being selfish can mean not only benefitting yourself but also benefitting the people you love and care about. Being altruistic is about balancing how you value yourself and others. You can value all human life by doing things to help our world, like living sustainably.

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

I think that it is more important to perform good acts and the saying “actions speak louder than words” definitely applies here. For example, there is a difference between people who say they want to help with the drought in California compared to those people who actually do something about this problem. It’s important for an issue to be resolved through actions because it then shows you are a good person who wants to make a difference for the good of society. Just by saying that you think people should conserve water in different ways doesn’t help fix the problem even though it makes you a good person for expressing your beliefs. Actions show people you want to be a good person and have good ethics because people can clearly see you making a difference.

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

I do believe the ends justify the means because for the most part, people’s resolution at the end is typically positive so causing some issues along the way to solve a problem isn’t a big deal. Positive goals do justify means at the end but it’s completely different for the few things that have a negative outcome because the means to get to it aren’t worth it in my opinion. For example, going to war is usually never a good mean to solve a problem in the end. It would make more sense to think of different ways to fix the problem rather than war because even if the outcome in the end solves your problem you still hurt a ton of people, possibly an economy somewhere, and many other things. I think it’s important for people to weigh the pros and cons of situations to see if it’s worth it in the end.

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

I think that we know whatever effect we have on the environment, the environment affects us in a different way. Humans know that we can’t put too much strain on ecosystems so when we do put stress on the environment we will do something after to improve it again. For example, people cut down trees all the time to use for all different kinds of things but there are also a lot of companies that have programs saying for every product you buy of theirs that has used trees in the process, they will plant a new one in its place. This type of thinking allows us to do what’s best for society and use the environment at whatever expense we need but we also make changes to fix what we did or improve the environment in some other way.

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

I personally believe that it is more important to perform good acts than to just be a good person. If you are a good person or say you are, then that doesn’t help at all. Good people are supposed to protect the environment or help people who are not as fortunate as most people. I believe that most people would have more respect for someone who helps a person in need rather than someone who believes that they should help a person. It is better to donate to charity or volunteer at a soup kitchen than to believe that it would be a good idea to do it.  I am not saying that it is not important to be a good person and have good virtues because it really is. It says in the lesson that most of the time by having good virtues directs a person to doing good deeds. Although overall I do believe that doing good deeds is more important than being a good person.

2: Do the pleasure and pain of non-human animals matter as much as the pleasure and pain of humans?

I do believe that the pleasure and pain of non-human animals matter just as much as humans. Just because the animals do not think like humans do, it doesn’t make them less important. I know for a fact that animals still feel love, pain, hunger, sadness, and because I can tell just by my dog. I can tell that my dog feels hunger because he moves his food bowl when he wants food. I can tell he feels compassion because when I am sick he does not leave my side until I feel better. Because of all this I treat my dog like he is a part of my family. I believe that animals have the same feelings as humans and it is unethical to think or act otherwise. Humans should not kill animals for sport because the animals are just like humans. They just do not think the same.

3: Is your own life worth more than the lives of others, the same, or less?

To me this is the most difficult question on the list. It is hard to decide which to choose because most people believe that they should put themselves first and that you are the most important person in your life. I do believe that I should do whatever makes me happy in life but overall, I do not believe that my life is more important or is worth more than the life of any other person. A person should not be considered to be worth more just because they have more money or is healthier. Every single person is born and eventually dies no matter who you are, what you do, or how much money you have. I believe that a person’s life should have equal value whether you are the President or just a homeless guy on the street. It is obvious that people value their family members more than other people but overall, I believe that all lives have the same worth.

Question 1: Is it more important to be a good person or to perform good acts (virtue ethics vs. action ethics)?

Question 1 answer: I think it is better to do good acts than being a good person because I believe that actions speak louder than words. I cannot think of a situation where I would not do something to help another person. When I was younger I found a twenty dollar bill in the middle of an isle I took it immediately up to the cahier and she and I look to see if anyone else was in the store. She saw that my mother and me where the only ones in the store at the time. She gave me the money back and told me since I helped her look to see if anyone was in the store that I may keep the money for my good deed. She told me that I did the right thing by trying to find the rightful owner of the money so I should be rewarded for my good behavior.

Question 2: Do the ends justify the means (ends ethics vs means ethics)?

Question 2 answer: I think it depends on what the goal is that you are trying to achieve. If you are trying to get good grades and you stay up late to study and miss a couple of hours of sleep to do so and your grade is good than it was worth staying up late. I believe that if your grades or good and you feel tried the next day and still get a good grade than the lack of sleep is worth the grade. On the other hand if you stay up late to study and your grade is bad then it was not worth it in the end. I believe than the sleep is worth more than the grade because you did not improve with less sleep. If your grade improves with less sleep than the late night studying is worth the lack of sleep the next day but if it does not than it is not worth the lack of sleep the next day.

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

Question 6 answer: I think my life matters the same as anybody else’s because I believe my life is not less or more important than anybody else’s. I believe that everyone’s life matters equally no matter who they are. For example, if me and a friend were being held hostage by a gunman I would try to come up with a plan to save both of our lives and get out of the situation safely. I would even try to get the gun away from him using some of the self-defense moves I learn while I was a girl scout. If me and my friend were able to get out safely I would consider this plan a success but if one of us is killed or injured during this than I will feel guilty if I survived and my friend did not. If we were able to get the gunman to be capture without anyone being hurt that would also be a good thing.

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

When it comes to being a good person vs. performing good acts, I think it is more important to perform good acts because ultimately performing good acts is what MAKES you a good person. I think the best way to explain what I’m trying to say is through the quote, “actions speak louder than words.” Without actually going out and SHOWING what you are saying, those words are just letters pieced together. If you are a “good person” that doesn’t do good acts, then you’re not truly a good person to begin with. When you back up your words with actions, you are giving your words meaning and life. And THAT is what ultimately makes you a good person. Doing those righteous acts and making them come to life is what makes you the good person that is being described here. It’s not about what you say, it’s about what you do that really matters and makes the difference.

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

When it comes to whether or not the pleasure and pain of non-human animals matters as much as the pleasure and pain of humans, I think ultimately that we are (or should be) equals. I really struggled with this decision because I do see both sides of the argument. I know a lot of people might argue that animals were created FOR humans and at the end of the day, aren’t as important, and I understand where that is coming from, but I have to disagree. I just have such a strong belief that everyone and everything was created equal and it breaks my heart when something is viewed as anything less than another. While they may not be humans, they ARE still living, breathing beings that deserve the same respect and love of any other living being. And even those that may not agree with this, I would hope that at least they would respect animals because everyone and everything deserves respect.

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

In life, every single one of us is an equal. Regardless of race, ethnicity, sexuality, social status, income, gender… anything; we are all equal. And so I do think that my life is worth the same as others. However, I like to live my life as if my life is worth less than others. I know that might sound weird and contradictory, but what I mean is that I like to make sure everyone around me is ok before I worry about myself. To me, it is much more important that my friends and family are safe and happy before I am, because truthfully, if they are happy, I am happy. For me, I feel the most happy and in the best place when my loved ones are at their happiest. With that being said, though, I do view each and every life just as important and special as the next and it is very important to me that no one is ever seen as less than another.

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

I believe that it is more important to perform good acts than to be a good person. There are a lot of good people that do bad things.   It’s great to say that we should change something or tell people to go make a difference. There is no real way to label someone as a good person without evidence, and the only way I see good people is people making a difference. If people do good things then they are usually good people. I think this just goes back to the saying actions speak louder than words. . If people are forced to do good things like for instance, required community service it might make them a better person and it as a result helps others. Saying you are going to do something may make people think that you are a good person but going out of your way to do good and actually doing an action that has an affect is more important.

Do the pleasure and pain of non-human animals matter as much as the pleasure and pain of humans (speciesism)?

The wellbeing of all creatures on earth is important, but considering the intellectualness of humans and our impact on the environment I would assume that the pleasure and pain of non-human animals matters less than the pleasure and pain of humans. I feel as if some animals are on earth for humans to use, as food and it may be scpecieism to say that some animals are more important, but food is important for human survival. For instance I am involved in the sport of hunting, I enjoy seeing my food go from the field to the table. Yes the animals do feel pain and yes it is sad but, humans are on the top of the food chain and therefore we eat animals below and equal with us. I do feel sympathy for the animals that expire due to the improper disposal of waste.

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

I think that my own life as of now is worth more than others. I still do think that other human lives are still important. I think that if I had children then I would say that their lives are worth more to me than that of my own. I think also if I was married I would say that my life means less than that of my spouse. I think that my brothers and sisters lives are worth more than that of mine. I think what it boils down to is if you love someone then you would give up everything for him or her, this being said, I think that you should personally think about whom you would take a bullet for and that be the deciding factor of whose life is worth more. All frontline soldiers, firefighter, police officers would probably say differently than I.

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

   In my opinion, action ethics means a lot more than simple value ethics. However, this being said, I also think that without value ethics, action ethics would not be possible. It is important to consider both of these sides of ethics as valid and important. Also, it is perhaps even more important to stand up for what you believe in, which is exactly what action ethics portrays. It is not simply enough to think about living a fulfilling and ethically-sound life without acting upon it. Action ethics creates the idea that people who see something morally wrong will do anything in their power to set said thing right. For example, someone who thinks deforestation in the Amazon is morally wrong, but practices value ethics would keep their opinion to themselves. Someone practicing action ethics would perhaps attempt to educate their peers on the wrong-doing that is happening. Although that example only provides a simple action, it accomplishes more. In order to lead a morally-sound life, action ethics is important to set an example for others to do the same.4.

   4. I see ecosystems existing for the benefit of all species that take part in its daily life. Although humans have indeed impacted pretty much every ecosystem, I think that it is important for us to remember whom it belonged to first- non-human animals. I am a believer in ecocentric ethics; however, accomplishing this in practice in today’s culture is almost impossible. Ecosystems have existed before humans and in many cases some have severely suffered because of us as a species. Although the human impact cannot be ignored, as we are so prevalent, we also must remember there are other species trying to share the same resources. Although humans are supposed to be the “most intelligent” and other things, we cannot figure out how to share evenly with nature. Throughout history, we have always taken more than we actually need, creating too many extinct species, in my opinion. Ecocentrism benefits the non-human animals and plants that depend on their habitat to care for them; in the same way, if we as a species were to adopt this view, I would not doubt that we would also flourish.

   6. Is my own life worth more than the lives of others, the same, or less (selfishness vs. altruism)?In this age, our culture makes each and every one of us want to believe that we are special little snowflakes and that each of us are exponentially more important than the people standing on either side of us. However, in my opinion, my life is worth the same as any other person on this planet. This being said, I think that a certain level of altruism is important, while a level of selfishness should also be present. Don’t get me wrong, I think that selfishness is bad and that we need to care for others as well as ourselves. There is a point, however, where being completely altruistic is harmful to one’s well-being. If everyone were completely altruistic and good, there would be no harm; we all know there are bad people out there, however, and they would not hesitate to take everything one had to offer. By creating a balance in these characteristics, I think that you can achieve the point where you can see how you, your personality, your talents can be used in the right way in this world.

Question 1: Is it more important to be a good person or to perform good acts (virtue ethics vs. action ethics)?

Bluntly, I would say it is more important to perform good acts then it is to be a good person. However, I would argue that these two are almost one in the same. First, let me explain why I answered the way I did. In a sense, performing good acts is a form of altruism. By performing good acts, you are most likely positively affecting those around you, whether it be on a small scale, such as your family, or a large scale, such as your community or country. That is not to say that the only outcome will be positive to those around you; a “good” act benefitting you and those around you could disadvantage others farther away from you. Therefore, every act has to be taken as a two sided thing because rarely in life are decisions made that have absolutely no negative consequences. Now, regarding my state that being a good person and performing good acts are one in the same, I implore you to question what gives a person the motivation to perform good acts? True, people can be influenced by others to do good deeds, but that is usually accompanied by some intrinsic want to do right by others and by yourself. The real question, in my eyes, is what do we define as good on an individual basis, and how many other people share our same views?

Question 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)?

The ecosystems matter for their own sake. I am a firm believer that we are connected to the large scale ecosystem in more ways than just the fact that we coexist with the rest of nature. We like to separate the basic needs of humans for survival from that of the rest of nature, which just furthers the idea of speciesism. While it is true that we are the only animals with the ability to articulate our thoughts into meaningful expressions that have a significant impact on the earth, that does not mean we have any more right to live on this planet than any other living thing or ecosystem. We could have not existed if it were not for the many ecosystems that have survived for so long, which could be taken as somewhat anthropocentric. On the contrary, ecosystems that existed before homo sapiens helped shape not only us, but the world around us into what it is today. It is THIS relationship that makes the answer so clear in my mind; the ecosystem shaped us, and we are only now beginning to be able to shape the ecosystem.

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

I think in the beginning of life, every life is worth the same. As we proceed through life, our actions and interactions towards the world around us (both living and non-living), the decisions we make for ourselves, and how we live life ultimately determines the net worth of our life (I do not mean in terms of money). Life, also, is a balance of knowing when it is appropriate to be selfish and when it is possible to be benevolent. Ensuring your life and longevity are paramount (assuming this can be done without negatively affecting anyone else) and if being altruistic means sacrificing or endangering one of these core principles, than it may be wisest to be selfish. For example, due to renovations being done at my workplace, I no longer have an income until these renovations are finished. At this point, I can not even consider donating to charity because it may mean I can not afford rent or food. Therefore, I have to be selfish. Does this make me a bad person? I suppose that is for you to decide.

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

It is more important to perform good acts. I hold this view because I believe performing good acts benefits you as a person. Doing something good does not only affect you but also the ones around you. Performing a good act is as simple as holding the door for someone, donating a dollar to a charity or to a little girl who is raising money for her basketball team. Any person can look at themselves as a good person, but not have actually done anything to make them a good person. Sometimes they actually do bad things and they don’t want anyone to know. I know when I help someone it brings happiness to me and to them. Performing good acts for the right reason will make you a good person and will have many positive effects. Without good acts, there are no changes happening in the world. Doing good acts will always make a positive difference in your life and also others.

Question 3: Does the process by which decisions are made matter more than the outcomes of these decisions?

The process by which decisions are made matter more than the outcomes of these decisions. I hold this view because I would rather take time and process on the decisions I can make rather than jumping ahead to the outcome of the decisions made. Everything we do is a process. Considering the options you can make will allow you to have an insight on what might the outcome will be. I wouldn’t want to be held for a bad outcome because I didn’t take time to properly process all of the decisions. When my grandmother was in the hospital last October due to having a massive heart attack, three doctors came out and confronted my family saying they wanted to rush her in for emergency open heart surgery. Another doctor then came out and disagreed with open heart. The doctor waited Friday through Sunday to process the decisions he was going to make on what the right procedure he was going to perform. My family was grateful for his long decision process because my grandmother wouldn’t have survived the recovery of open heart surgery. The ideas of distributive and procedural justice go together and are both important concepts, but I believe that procedural justice is more beneficial.

Question 6: Is my own life worth more than the lives of others, the same, or less?

My own life is the same as others, no more or no less. I hold this view because I wouldn’t want to be treated less than anyone else. It depends on how you look at it. If a person was in jail for murder, I would obviously want to be treated differently from them because of what they did. Just because someone may have more money than me doesn’t mean I should be treated differently. We are all humans even though we may have different lives. I want to be a teacher in the future and I would not even think about treating a student different than the others. The thought wouldn’t even cross my mind because of how I would make the students feel. Not all children live the same lives or are smart as some of the other classmates. There’s no reason they should be treated differently by teachers due to some of their slight differences. Your life is just as equally important as others. I tend to put other people’s needs before my own, but I don’t look at my life differently from theirs. I do it because I care about that person.

1. Is it more important to be a good person or to perform good acts (virtue ethics vs. action ethics)? I think being a good person and performing good acts are both important. I think maybe being a good person is more important because the first thing to start off with is intentions and good intentions are always the best.  We want to feel good so being a good person to others would in turn, make them feel good as well. Performing this act of making other feel good is action ethics. I believe most of us are taught to have good virtues and wanting other to feel good as well is important, that constitutes altruism. However, just because we have good virtues doesn’t always mean we act upon them. I want what’s best for the environment but I find myself not doing everything that I can to help. For instance, recycling is important and helps the environment. However, when I live by myself I don’t recycle. Why? It’s easier to throw everything in one bag and hurl it into the dumpster. I know what I’m doing and I feel bad for it. In opposition, I mostly believe that performing good acts almost requires you to be a good person. My cat was using a critically injured bird as a chew toy outside the other day and I felt awful so I went and grabbed the bird. I put it in a box with towels to make it comfortable even thought I knew it was going to die. I did this because I cared. In contrast, some people that are in trouble with the law are forced to do community service, such as picking up garbage on the highways and such. This doesn’t mean that they are a good person; it’s simply something they have to do to avoid other consequences.

5. Do the pleasure and pain of non-human animals matter as much as the pleasure and pain of humans (speciesism)? I believe that the pleasure and pain of ALL animals is equally important. Speciesism is very complicated, I believe. I do understand the thought process of people thinking we are of the “hierarchy” of animals. They tend to think this because technically, we are. We build structures, create economies, have higher levels of thinking, and well, just look around. However, I don’t believe that this undermines other animals. I think that every animal understand suffering. They know when they’re hurt and when they’re dying. We can feel that pain, what’s to say the animal can’t? It has organs and when things go wrong in the body it naturally hurts. If a cat is ill, the cat cries when you touch it and lays there, almost completely inactive. Why? Because they know it hurts when they’re touched and they know it hurts when they move. Animals are also more helpless than we are. We have doctors and medicine, and technically they do too but that’s if a human takes them. Who are we to say that we are more important that another living being? Shouldn’t we be compassionate to the hurt and suffering of a more helpless animal? I’ve spoken a lot about pain. But, if I wouldn’t want to see an animal in pain that basically means I want the animal to be in pleasure. I’m happier than a pig in mud when I see my cat happy and playing and purring. It makes me happy. All animals are living and all of our emotional states are or should be equally important. This is just my vision, I understand there are others.
6. Is my own life worth more than the lives of others, the same, or less (selfishness vs. altruism)? I don’t believe my life is more important than anyone else’s. I’ve tried thinking of multiple circumstances where my mind may change and I can’t think differently. I value human life and I had to see pain and suffering. So if I were ever in a circumstance where it was me or another person, there is about a 99.9% chance that I would sacrifice myself for the other person. No matter who it was. I understand not everyone will think this way and even I may be wrong. Our body has the natural sympathetic nervous system which gives us our “fight or flight”. So I might say that I’ll sacrifice myself, however I don’t know what I’ll actually do because I don’t know what my body will tell me to do. We are instinctive. In terms of ethics, I would say I’m altruistic in this particular manner, I believe I value my life less than other’s lives. However, in other instances of less severity I could be more selfish. I believe it’s human nature to be selfish and altruistic. We’re complicated beings and emotions and feelings are one of the most complex things.

Does the process by which decisions are made matter more than the outcomes of these decisions (procedural justice vs. distributive justice)?

American society seems to place a great deal of respect into procedural justice. We appeal court cases because the manner of the trial was wrong, or we weren’t read our rights and in some cases the idea of making sure we get the procedure right is more important than locking a criminal away. We also see this when it comes to insanity cases. We are so concerned with making sure they get the fair sentencing, but we forget, no matter the person’s mental state that they committed this crime. I personally think that distributive justice should matter more. Why should we care about how we got to a decision, when we know that this decision is the right one? However, from a legal standpoint, without the procedures people would have no rights and wouldn’t be given fair treatment. The television show, Prison Break, depicts the struggle in American politics to weight the options between procedural justice and distributive justice. Two escaped criminals are trying to prove their innocence, but in doing so are committing crimes. Which crimes are the worst and which ones can we turn a blind eye too? It seems to me that people take these justice decisions into their own hands. Judges get to give sentencing and we can see with this which crimes are “worse” compared to others. We see natural distancing between white-collar crimes and violent crimes, where even though crimes were committed in both scenarios the ultimate decision cannot be the same. The idea of “weighing the crimes” seems to be distributive in nature.

Do the pleasure and pain of non-human animals matter as much as the pleasure and pain of humans (speciesism)?

In regards to speciesism, no matter how much of an activist you are, in the end the human race will matter more to you than animals. Think of it this way, who do you save in a fire, your family, or your pet? What is a worse crime, killing an animal or killing people? From a darwin-istic point of view it’s natural to want to protect your species. We as humans do this along with the other species on the planet. There’s a national campaign run by Peta, and animal activists group, that compares animal abuse and the Holocaust saying essentially that “all humans are Nazi’s to animals.” The analogy, which a person can contextually understand as comparable, seems to have many complaints because of how unethical this statement seems. However, the people that are claiming this to be unethical are putting the human race and their own sufferings above the sufferings of animals. Do we, the humans, have a “right” to claim dominance over the animals and non-living things? What makes our species better than the other species on the planet? People may have negative feelings in regards to maltreatment of other species, however the natural drive to preserve themselves and the human species will inevitably override animal activism.

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

In the television show, Friends, one of the characters poses the question, “Can good deeds not be selfish?” The characters goes on to explore this idea and tries to find a scenario where doing a good deed doesn’t offer the person doing the deed some kind of benefit. She finds no answer and I believe this to be true. Whether you are a good person or only doing a good deed to benefit yourself, the act still gets done. Does this then make them a good person, is the true question. Being a good person and performing good acts appears the same on the surface. However, I figure, to make a person who performs good acts become a good person would depend on the moral agenda and if they wish to continue with this “do-good” image. We see this issue arise with politicians in American society. Politicians make donations and support activists and positivity of change. No matter the gain for the politician, they are still getting this good deed accomplished and it will help a cause in the end. The character in the television show found that the want to be a good person comes with bettering yourself and doing good deeds for others, so essentially virtue ethics and action ethics are closely intertwined and both end up positively contributing to society.

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

I think it is more important to be a good person over performing good acts. I believe this because I think if everyone was a good person it would benefit the world more than if everyone performed good acts. When you are a good person you go about every single daily task with certain mindset of being good. Just by being a good person you’ll tend to perform good acts throughout your day. While on the other hand people may perform good acts sometimes, but other times they may be doing something bad. For a real life example Al Capone, the famous mobster, would perform good acts by going to poor neighborhoods and giving out money to families in poverty and other charities. However since he wasn’t necessarily an overall good person he made a lot of this money by manufacturing and pushing drugs into those same streets that he was giving money too. Although he performed the good act of giving out money to families in poverty he was hurting them in the end by being a bad person and providing drugs. Even if I perform a good act by helping someone in need, if I was an overall good person I probably would have helped that person anyways. Sometimes people perform these good acts just to make themselves look better which isn’t something a good person would do.

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

I think the debate of ends ethics vs. means ethics is a very difficult question to give one straight answer to. I believe that this debate could never be decided as a whole but instead would depend on every single scenario individually. Even on an individual basis the answer to this question would depend on the person answering it as well as that person’s’ values and beliefs. In some cases the ends absolutely justify the means. For example killing someone is almost never a justifiable means of accomplishing something, but an example in which these means do justify the ends would be in a case of self defense. I believe that if someone is attacking you then you should be able to stand your ground and defend yourself even if the end that means you killing someone attacking you if you feel your own life is threatened. A very debated example of this would be the idea of torture. I think that the ends do justify the means in cases in which one person’s suffering could cause the saving of many innocent lives.

1. Do the pleasure and pain of non-human animals matter as much as the pleasure and pain of humans (speciesism)?

I think this is a very interesting questions, but shouldn’t be grouped together all as one. I believe the pain of animals lives doesn’t matter as much as pain of humans. The main example that comes to my head that makes me believe this is in the case of an animal who poses a threat or is currently attacking a human. If an animal attacks a human I absolutely believe that the human is of higher importance than the animal and whatever is necessary should be done to stop the human pain such as killing or wounding an attacking animal. As for the second part I don’t believe the pleasure of humans is worth more than the pleasure of animals. I don’t think animals homes should be wrecked in order for any type of entertainment source for humans to be placed there instead. This is why I don’t think these two questions should be grouped as one because they involved a different set of ethics.

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

It is more important to be a good person. I hold this view because in my eyes being a good person requires in many circumstances and situations one doing good things. However, just because you may do something good for someone or some reason does not necessarily make you a good person. Nor does doing something that is viewed as bad make you a bad person. One example that comes to mind is a CEO of a company. In tough economic times, a CEO may be faced with the tough decision of laying off some employees. This decision to lay off employees may be seen to some as doing something bad, but in many cases it should be seen as doing the right thing. By laying off some employees, a CEO may be saving thousands of other jobs for individuals who provide for their family. I think this exemplifies that we as humans are sometimes put in situations where maybe the good action is not the right action. Another way to look at this is doing things that are seen as good in the eyes of others but in reality they are only acted out because that person has some underlying hidden agenda. This is why I think being a good person, with good moral character trumps doing good things. Your character is a pattern of behavior, thoughts and feelings based on universal principles, moral strength and integrity. It is something everyone has and which everyone can be judged off of.

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

I think this question is very subjective and depends. First this question depends on what the ends or goals are and what means are being used to achieve them. If the end is something good, and the means used to achieve the end are good, then most would probably agree that the ends do justify the means. But I think when this question is asked it is really referring to using any means necessary to achieve a goal, and therefore I think the answer sits different with every individual. What may be justifiable to someone may not be to someone else. That is because everyone is raised differently, on different values and different moral/ethical standards. If you are a results driven individual, then maybe the ends do justify the means as long as the end goal is achieved. I think three things must go into evaluating this question: the morality of the person, the morality of the question, and the morality of the outcome. This will vary from individual and situation. Looking at murder, society sometimes says that it is justifiable such as the case in wars or self-defense. Sometimes society says it is not justifiable as is the case of cold blooded murders.

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

The pleasure and pain of non-human animals do not matter as much as the pleasure and pain of adults. This is because if the pleasure and pain of non-human animals did matter as much, we would be living in a very different world. Think of something as simple as walking on grass, or as complex as developing a community. With each step a human takes, they are most likely harming and or killing some other life form (ants, microorganisms, etc.). When a tree is cut down or roads are paved, we are harming animals by destroying their environment and their resources. Yet we still do these things, often with no punishment given to the individuals taking part. We must think how animals care about our pleasure and pain. If we were to run into a forest and confront a bear, it would merely look at us as a food source (as with many animals we think the same). Whether or not I think this is right or wrong, society as a general body has clearly determined to a certain extent that their pleasure and pain do not matter and I think this has to somewhat deal with the ideology of “survival of the fittest”. Playing devils advocate here, we as a society have also deemed when an individual oversteps their grounds and you see this in way in which we harm animals, such as the killing process for meat slaughter facilities. It is a very anthropocentric view where we are willing to do what is necessary in the benefit of us, while still making sure it is done in a humane and moral way that is not excessive.

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.

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

I think it is more important to be a good person rather than to preform good acts. It is possible for anyone to donate money to a charity, but it isn’t possible for just anyone to be a good person. Good people are characterized by how they treat others, carry themselves, and act. This means that a good person is likely doing good acts because that is the type of person they are. Even the worst people in the world could do a good act, but it doesn’t make them any better than they were before. There may be some scenarios where someone who isn’t a good person should do a good act rather than try to become a better person. This could be seen when certain countries need the help of a dictator from another country. In these cases, the dictator shouldn’t try to become a better person; they should do a good act and help the other country.

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

I think the ends justify the means more often than not. As long as the end result is good, the means to get there shouldn’t really matter. Even if the means to get to the end result are bad or unethical, the end result should make up for it. An example of this is the US government. Our government does many covert acts that the citizens do not know about because we may not agree with what the government is doing. In the end, the end result will be positive and it will be better that we didn’t know about what was going on. If the end result and means to get there are both negative, then the ends would definitely not justify the means in any way. In my opinion, even if the means are bad, the end result can make up for it by being very positive and beneficial.

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

I view my own life as more important than the lives of others and I think this is the way most people should think. As humans, our main goal every day is to keep ourselves alive, not others. We live in a dog-eat-dog world and everything is competition, even survival. It is important to value your own needs before the needs of others. This doesn’t mean the lives of other people aren’t important; however, it means that my own life is the most important to me. I still think the lives of others are important and value the lives or certain other people highly. The only time I would value other’s lives more than mine is if I was fighting in a war and serving my country. In this scenario, the lives of the people in the U.S. would be more important than mine cause that is who I am fighting for and willing to give my life for.

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

If we are going for an answer that would attempt to include any possible situation, then I would have to say no, the ends do not justify the means. Dealing with means and ends ethics can be tricky, due to the myriad of situations that one can find themselves in. However if we take a look at a successful individual, one who has achieved a high ranking position in a company or in the government, doesn’t the way by which he got there and achieved such things matter? If he lied and stole on his way up the ladder of success, doesn’t that somehow “undo” the end result? Someone once told me that “two wrongs do not make a right”, so if we do whatever we have to, whether that be right or wrong, in order to achieve a particular goal, I would say that we have lost our sense of direction in the ethical sense. If individuals only focus on the end goals, they may not be good role models to others in the community either if they conduct shady business on the way up to the top. Another quote which comes to mind is “It’s the journey, not the destination that matters”, meaning that it is the choices we made and the actions we took along the way. Whether the end result turned out exactly how we expected it to or not, we would know that we tried to make the best decisions we could at the time along the way.

3. Does the process by which decisions are made matter more than the outcomes of these decisions (procedural justice vs. distributive justice)?

I tend to think that as long as the decisions made are good and appropriate ones, it may not matter how they were arrived at. The reason that process might need to be focused on more than the actual decision is so that we can sort of come up with a set of guidelines for how to make good decisions, kind of a “how-to” book, if you will. By creating these rules, laws and orders in government (and other areas), we are attempting to accommodate nearly all individuals and situations that one might face in a particular field/area of government or business. Thus just because a set procedure is established for certain types of decision making, does not mean that certain individuals would not corrupt that system or use it in a way unintended for a particular end. My thought is that if the decision is ultimately a good and honorable one, then it doesn’t necessarily matter what the thought process was or what obstacles the individual had to overcome in order to arrive at the decision.

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

This is definitely a challenging question, because it is incredibly difficult to say whose life is worth more. In my life in general, I would tend to side with the argument for more altruism and less selfishness, simply because I do tend to see far too much selfishness out in the world. I would say that my life is worth about the same as someone else’s however I would more likely give things up for someone else (especially for those whom I care a lot about), rather than keep them for myself and be miserly. However, this is not to say that everyone should consider themselves as a “doormat”, that is to say they must still require things such as respect, etc. This is the main problem though with too many people acting selfishly. If everyone was to act even the slightest bit more altruistically, then we would be able to better look out for others since we wouldn’t have to worry quite as much about ourselves because others would also be looking out for us. It’s an interesting positive or negative feedback loop, depending upon how you look at the situation. One could also look at it as a question of “for the good of the one? Or for the good of the many?”, as we hear in Star Trek. Sometimes to do the right or appropriate thing is to put the needs of others before the needs of oneself.

(These of course are my own opinions from my own experience and teaching, so I invite any and all commentary on the subjects presented above.)