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

I think these two concepts, virtue ethics; what we should be, and action ethics; what we should do, go hand in hand. However, I feel that it is more important to preform good acts. The quote, “actions speak louder than words” is in a way supportive of this. Anyone can say they are a good person, but until they actively go out into society and show that they are a good person, being a good person is not important. Therefore the people that do not necessarily come out and say that they are a good person but are constantly volunteering in the community, or helping others every chance they get are known as good people. So in order to be good a person has to do good.

3. Does the process of how decisions are made matter more than the outcomes of these decisions?

Distributive justice is described as the emphasis on the consequences of decisions across a population, while Procedural justice is described as focussing on how these decisions were made. I personally feel that how the decision was made out weighs the distributive justice. If a person or group of people have to make a major decision and while trying to make that decision they consider their options and the consequences of their options before they make it then they are doing their best to make the best decision with as little negative effects as possible. If there is some how an effect that was unforeseen then they should be able to be forgiven. However, if someone makes a decision without consulting others, or considering the effects then they should be held responsible for any negative consequences to come. Again the ideas of distributive and procedural justice go together, but the procedural matters more than the distributive.

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

Altruism and selfishness are at the heart of this question. However, I feel that this is a tough question to answer. In reality my life is just as important as every other life on this planet. Different situations bring out different responses. For example, my boss’s granddaughter who is three years old is at the end of her battle with cancer. She is the sweetest and happiest little girl I have ever had the pleasure to meet, and if there was anyway I could switch places with her I would. Not because I want to die, but because she deserves to grow up and live a life just like every other child does. In that case I would consider my life to be less important than hers. I do not think my life has ever been or will ever be more important than someone else’s though. I think everyone is here for a reason and those reasons are equally as important. Therefore, I think I’m more of an altruistic person and believe in selflessness versus selfishness.

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

I would say that it is more important to make ethical decisions than it is to be a good person. These kinds of things are all relative; If I own an oil company that employs 100,000 people, where the ability to produce and distribute product influences governments and economies all over the world (much like today’s world), I want my CEO to care as much for the environment as POSSIBLE, however he/she needs to focus on keeping the company operating at an efficient capacity and that WILL involve unethical decisions that have major consequences in the environment. If I’m an environmentalist that forces legislature that shuts down said oil company, there’s going to be major economic consequences that include 100,000 people possibly losing their jobs, not very ethical in regards to the human side of things (pretty terrible, actually) but very ethical in regards to the environment. The ‘terrible’ CEO and the ‘terrible’ environmentalist are both bad people making ethical decisions, and both of them wouldn’t be able to make these important decisions if they were ‘good’ people. Without these types of individuals there would be endless debate about what is right is wrong resulting in no progression, but if you had ‘bad’ people that stayed in their lanes of focus and make ethical decisions, you would at least have progress towards whatever ends await.

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

The pain or pleasure of other animals does not matter as much as humans. If the entire race of human beings thought that the opposite was true, they’d would’ve gone extinct a very long time ago. Humans didn’t start off by eating plants, we started eating meat and if you think that another animal’s pleasure or pain is more important than your own, you’re probably not going to eat very much healthy meat. You can actually ask this question in different context, one where I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO GIVE ME A REASON AS TO WHY I’M WRONG: To any parent; would you rather let a lion eat your baby, or kill the lion?  The bottom line is that it would literally be impossible for humans to exist right now if we had put other species before our own. It does matter though, and should be taken into account. Ethics should be maximized when taking animals for meat, but until a Star Trek style “food synthesizer” is invented, there will be cattle slaughtered for food, hopefully as painlessly as possible. You can even apply this to other humans; If other people’s pain and pleasure was more important to you, how would be able to feed yourself knowing that there’s millions that go hungry? The answer to this question is no.

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

This question is very interesting. I’m currently serving in the military, so to answer anything but “all of the above” would be seriously hypocritical. Is my life more important than any civilian citizen of the U.S.? No. Is my life more important than ANYONE other than an American’s? Yes. Is my life EQUALLY as important to my fellow service men or women? Yes. There’s obviously nuances within the military with rank, allies, and whatnot, but basically when it comes down to it, it doesn’t matter what rank a service member is, their lives are expendable when it comes to the defense of citizens. That same service member will (or should) be willing to kill another human in that same defense. To not make myself sound so indoctrinated, you can apply this to any family group in many different species. A parent will most likely be willing to sacrifice themselves in defense of their offspring. They will also be willing to take life in defense of their offspring. There is no one word answer to this question, it just depends on the circumstances.

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

Yes I believe that the pleasure and pain of non-human animals matter as much as humans. Humans are also animals; we cannot say we are better than other animals. Have you ever had a pet, and something happen to it and it whimpered? When I was younger I had a dog and her paw got caught in a mousetrap, and she barked and shrieked that almost sounded like a human scream. That is when I knew that animals could feel pain the same way that I did when I would get hurt. To me that demonstrated that pain is pain, regardless if is human or non-human. Now pain may be different for everyone or even every species, but suffering no matter what should be treated equally. I have seen videos of how some of the animals are treated very poorly and live in terrible conditions. At one point I became a vegetarian for over a year because of what I had seen. Again suffering is suffering no matter what.

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

I personally think it is more important to perform good acts rather than just being a good person. You can walk through life and be the type of person who does not harm to anyone, or anything good for others. They take care of themselves and their own surroundings, but never give themselves to others. Yes there are good people because they bring no harm others, but in my opinion making no impact on life. For example, take one of my neighbors. He keeps to himself, he takes extra care of his lawn, he drives nice a nice car. One-day my other neighbor who is in her 60’s, she was out shoveling her driveway. He drove by and waved, but never stopped to see if she needed any assistance. During her shoveling, she slipped and broke her arm. Now again he was nice and waved, but never offered to lift a finger to help her out, and she ended up getting hurt. Would this have happened if he offered to help, I say probably not! As the phrase goes “action speaks louder than words”.

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

I feel that my own life worth is equal to others, no more, no less. No matter how much money a person makes, the job a person does, or the place someone lives, ultimately we are all of the same equal species. Power or monetary value does not determine the worth of the person’s life. Once I was with some people and there was a story on TV about a homeless Man getting shot and killed on the streets of Philadelphia. One of the people in the group says, “Well at least it was just a homeless guy that got shot, he was probably glad to not be here anymore and no longer suffering”. I was shocked by the response that someone would feel this way. He was still a human, a soul, an individual who got shot and killed. We may have different backgrounds and have different color skin but we all bleed the same color and can experience pain. His life did matter, no matter what he had in life.

1. I believe that the actions a person takes are far more important than their particular virtues.  A person can say anything they want, but they will not be taken seriously if they do not follow what they say.  If a politician speaks about how pollution is a rising problem and must be stopped, yet continues to pass laws favoring high-pollution companies, most of the public won’t consider them an ecocentric person.  Likewise, if a person complains all day about how global warming is a huge issue, but continues to drive a gas-guzzling Hummer to work everyday, their words mean nothing.  However, this does not mean that virtues are not important.  Moral virtues are what, most of the time, lead to moral actions.  If a businessman truly does not believe that global warming is a real issue, he most-likely will not take any steps towards fixing it.  Virtue and action may go hand and hand, but what you think means very little if it is the opposite of what you do.

4. In my opinion, the ecosystem should matter more in the way it impacts humans rather than its own sake.  The first reading for this module consisted of a man trying convince an audience that a certain national park should not be turned into an energy-creating dam.  Although this article is very well written, I disagree with his main argument.  While the park may be a “grand” place, the benefits we can gain from building a dam a far too important to overlook.  The clean energy that a dam will provide can power almost an entire city,  which, in the long run, will end up helping the ecosystem.  This is just one example, however, I feel most situations like these should be looked at from an anthropocentric point of view.  If we pass up on opportunities to evolve and benefit as a species just to preserve nature,  we miss the chance to progress as humans.

5. I also believe that the pleasure and pain of humans is much more important than that of non-humans.  One of the reasons why humans are on top of (or even removed from) the food chain is because we learned to work together to get things such as food and warmth.  Ever since the beginning of our species, this will usually result in the death of other animals to be used as meat and/or clothing.  While we shouldn’t go out of our way to harm these other species, we also should not hesitate if we need to use them to benefit ourselves.  While a horse or a dog may still be able to suffer, it comes nowhere near close to the severity of a human-being, our own kind, being in pain.  Species sticking together is a natural part of life and while we shouldn’t go out of our way to make non-humans be in pain or suffer, we should still prioritize us over them.

2. Do the ends justify the means? This is a question comes up a lot and is always a sort of good versus evil argument. Yes, the ends justify the means, but that sort of requires a rethinking of the way we look at the ends. Let’s say that the means is becoming a millionaire, and we can go through many different options, intricate and elaborate bank heist, investing earned money into mutual funds and starting a Roth IRA with a plan to have a million dollars by retirement, lottery scratch cards, high stakes poker, or any other sort of method to accruing the millionaire status. You can say they all have the same end, millionaire status, but let me argue that the ends have changed. When someone says they would like to be a millionaire they do not include the caveat of the situation your life will be in. So this becomes the idea that the means will not change and cannot change that much if the ends are to remain truly the same. The difference between the millionaire who may one day be caught for the masterful bank heist or the man who won it all in online poker becomes the actual ends.

3. The process by which the decisions are made matters more than the outcome of the decision itself. Take for example you are a boss at a worksite and you assign one of the newer employees a difficult work item to complete. When he completes the assignment the final result is a failure setting people back on the work that is completed. Looking at yourself as the boss in the situation which response is going to be the more frustrating one for you when you critiqued the situation: 1) The employee had prepared the tools and required items and had legitimately thought through the expected actions and just fell short of expectations because of inexperience or 2) the employee had no thought legitimate process thought out for the maintenance item. From just personal experience, I have had a much more sound response to the former over the latter. This can be accounted for and paralleled in many ways while the dynamic may change and the situation may change but personally and externally I find that results are a function of the steps that go into them. While 2 + 2 = 4, the 4 being the final result is an important part,  there would be no 4 without any 2s.

4. Ecosystems do matter for their own sake, only because of the argument that is made that humans also matter. This is a case of perspective, while we can look inwardly and look to ourselves and out families and friends and say that we matter. The same bonds and connections, the same instincts of self preservation all exist, very differently at times but these bonds are there that cohere families together. The major argument I want to be made here is that our own self preservation, or in fact every creatures self preservation, is a selfish instinct, but for the very sake of self preservation there is no goal other than a continued existence. When you look at a singular existence and you take away any sort of self appointed level of importance, and once everything becomes just a matter of absolutes, does a thing exist or not, if we matter, then so does everything else. They are complementary, and at times mutually dependent.

Question 1: I picked this question because I believe the answer lies in both of the choices, yet can be covered in one. I believe that it is important to both be a good person and to perform good acts, but if I had to pick one, I would choose that it is more important to be a good person, therefore choosing virtue ethics over action ethics. This I believe because if someone is a good, kind-hearted person, then they will by default perform good acts out of the good of their heart. On the other hand, a person who just performs good acts may be doing this for selfish reasons other than to benefit whomever the good act is for. For example, someone may choose to do a good act such as helping an elderly neighbor only to uphold their own reputation or maybe because someone told them to. However, a truly good person would go help that neighbor because it would benefit the neighbor first and foremost.

Question 2: No, the ends do not always justify the means. For example, a person may be attempting to do a very kind deed for another person, but if they go about it in an unethical way, then the deed is not justified because the means to achieve that deed were not virtuous. This answer relates back to my answer about being a good person as opposed to only performing good acts. It is like if a person did a very good deed for the community, such as donating to the poor or organizing an event, but only did it to either boost their own reputation for something such as a campaign or maybe for some sort of reward from an outside party. In this case, the end is a moral, ethical cause, but the means to achieve them were not backed up with a good reason that was in the best intent of the subject of their good deed.

Question 6: The topic of a life’s worth is one that is sacred and important and therefore cannot be taken lightly. I believe that my own life worth is the same as the lives of every other person, regardless of their own ethics and moral decisions. Each person was created equally on this Earth, and therefore each person’s life is of utmost importance, and must be taken with the same sincerity. However, what makes this a complicated question is that humans by nature are selfish even though we do not mean to be. It is in our initial instinct to look out for the best interest of both ourselves and those that we love, which we translate into valuing their lives more than others.  So, all in all, our lives are all worth the same, but because of human nature and our ability to grow closer to other people and their ideals, we value some lives over others’.

Question 1.

I believe that it is more important to do good acts rather than be a good person. Without good acts, then there is no progress being made in the world for the better. There are ‘good’ people out in the world, but would rather remain silent rather than acting. I think that we all like to consider ourselves a good person. But who has felt like a good person as many of us, myself included, have walked passed homeless on the street without donating any money? I know that I have never liked a good person after these encounters in life. But whenever I am able to take the time out of my day, or money from my pocket in this case, I always feel better about myself knowing that I was able to help make a difference in the world no matter how small. This is why action ethics is more important than virtue ethics. By being a good person does not always make a difference in the world, but doing good acts will always make a difference.

Question 4

I believe that ecosystems matter for their own sake and not that they only matter for the sake of humans. I believe that they matter for their own for the fact that they are complex systems that have hierarchies of life within themselves. They do not just support one species of animals, but millions upon millions of different species. Every life matters in an ecosystem. When a plant or animal dies, it is because it is serving a purpose for predators to eat, or for bacteria and other microorganisms. If it was not for these, human life would not be possible at all. I believe that humans always take the anthropocentric view when it comes to this matter. Most mainstream media do not concern themselves with the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, or overfishing only unless it affects the human race, whether it be global warming, food shortages, or droughts. This is why I believe that ecosystems matter for their own sake because they are able to support all types of life that do not include humans.

Question 5

Does the pleasure and pain of non-human animals matter as much as the pleasure and pain as humans? For me, the obvious answer is yes. As much as I would like this to be true across the globe for everyone, this certainly is not the case. There are cases each year where animals in organizations such as circuses and SeaWorld that violate the animal welfare act. The animals in these establishments are often beaten, starved, and confined in small cages so that they may perform their acts on a day to day basis. By seeing pictures of the environment these animals are in, you can not even imagine what kind of life that would be. However, a lot of these practices get swept under the rug across the world for the simple fact that they are “animals” and not humans. I have always been a firm believer in equal treatment of animals. Us humans, given our superior intellect, have a responsibility to help protect all living creatures, whether human or non-human.

1. It is more important to perform good acts than being a good person. Deep down most people know what is right and what is wrong; showing that they know the difference is what counts. Take someone who never takes action in doing the right thing. They constantly talk about what the best thing to do is and demonstrate that they have good thoughts, but how much of a difference is that person going to make in a situation where action is needed. In some situations, someone who talks about doing good is important; if they inspire others to do good then that is very powerful. I think actions heavily outweigh words though so when it comes down to it, the person that takes action in doing something to benefit others is going to be seen as the “good” person. This doesn’t necessarily say that the person who doesn’t take action is seen as a bad person, but it takes a certain kind of person to stand out from a crowd.
2. Deciding if the ends justify the means is extremely situational. The only person that can answer this kind of question is someone who is extremely versed on both sides of the situation. I think if someone knows a lot about a certain side, it can be extremely easy to defend the ends, but it wouldn’t be much of a conflict if there weren’t valid points on both sides. This kind of situation comes up a lot these days in terms of how we treat our ecosystem (ecosystem being anything from local to global). Deciding whether to install wind turbines, dams, nuclear power plants all have their obvious end goals, but it takes a lot of engineers, scientists, architects, and politics to come to a decision. There are a lot of people that strongly oppose the means and there are a lot of people that think they are justified. This conflict is something that must weigh the ecosystem and see if it can handle the means to arrive to the end goal.
3. I think that the process by which decision are made matter more than the outcomes of the decisions themselves. This question I definitely had to think about, and I could swing to either side in certain situations, but I think its more important to find the the right process than it is to reach a decision. I stand behind this because I think of the situation in which a decision is reached through a corrupt process. Yes, a decision was reached and that could be important, but at what cost? Were innocent people affected by this? Was the betterment of a population or ecosystem sacrificed for the profit of a small group? I think there have definitely been times in history were the “right” decision is reached through a broken process, but I would rather know that the decisions that impact me and my environment are reached through a proper process even if I do not tend to agree with the outcome.

1. Is it more important to be a good person or to perform good acts (virtue ethics vs. action ethics)?
   1. I believe that what you do will define you as an individual, so performing good acts make you a good person in my mind. Whatever you believe in you will both consciously and unconsciously do, making your actions the true ultimatum in defining if you’re good or bad. The line isn’t as clear as good or bad but you get the gist. You can believe you are a good person and talk about being a good person but not following through with what you are saying disproves it all. You can talk all you want and think you are being a good person, but as mentioned with ethics it’s all about what you should do, not about what you should say. One good act speaks over 1,000 good thoughts. Overall the good acts are received more widely and therefore action ethics go farther to prove what kind of person you are.
2. Does the process by which decisions are made matter more than the outcomes of these decisions (procedural justice vs. distributive justice)?
   1. The process is one of the most fundamental things in making decisions, and determines the decision made. In certain situations you can argue for either way, but overall I lean more towards the process as being more important. The ethics in the process will go a long way in determining the final outcome, which makes it of higher importance. You often hear of people meaning well, but the end product is not what lived up to expectations, and in my mind I would focus on more on what they tried to do in the process rather than the outcome. This goes back to the question before of being a good person. Their actions were intended in good heart, and therefore I believe they are person with a good heart. The actions performed in the process mean the most as they involve the true intentions of the person, even if the end result is not what was ethically okay.
3. Do the pleasure and pain of non-human animals matter as much as the pleasure and pain of humans (speciesism)?
   1. Other species of animals are a large presence in this world, but do not compare to the dominance of humans. Animals struggle daily because of humans, but humans struggle because of humans just as much. I believe that as a species there is a lot we can improve upon and we should focus on that before we focus on animals. I would rather pay to end hunger in the world that to save another animals life. I’m not saying that I don’t care for animals, I do, it’s just that I do put humans before animals. Most of this is that I can sympathize with humans more than I can with any animal. Animals are a prominent part in my world, but saving humans is more important to me as we are a more dominant species in the world as we all know and as history has shown for centuries.

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

Although both of these are subjective, whether or not the act is good for everyone or just a certain group of people or just the one person. But…to each his own.
While being a good person and doing good things are both important, I think being a good person is better. I’d like to assume that by being a good person means you perform small acts of kindness all the time subconsciously. Varying from saying thank you to holding the door to giving money to the homeless to tutoring someone for free. These are small acts of kindness that make differences in peoples lives. If you’re genuinely a good person, you don’t even think about these small acts, they are just part of who you are. When someone doesn’t hold a door for me I say to myself, “Well that was rude.” then move on with my life. While if someone does hold the door , I say thank you with a small smile and just move on with the rest of my day. Even though I hardly even thought about the good act of the person who did subconsciously hold the door, the person who did not hold the door affected me for just those two seconds. Those are 2 whole seconds of your day thinking about something negative when a good act could make you think something positive and therefore do something positive subconsciously for someone else. These subconscious acts turn into deliberate acts of kindness as well.

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

Personally, I’ve always been a little hypocritical about this subject. I’ve always treated dogs better than I treat humans but I’m never afraid to kill a bug. I think I’ve always treated things that are nice to me or don’t terrify me well. But I don’t treat them the same as adult humans (I say adult because I talk to dogs like they are excitable toddlers.) However, speciesism is something that, I don’t think, has crossed many peoples’ minds. Why are humans so much better than other animals just because we have one extraordinary organ in our skulls? Humans think we are better because we are smarter than these other animals in different ways. Humans are mean to animals who try to kill but we are the ones invading their territory usually. I think we should treat animals nicely just because they do not have the same brain power to think logically like we do and therefore do not know any better unless they are domesticated.

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

I think the decision matters more than the process of the decision for life situations as long as it’s the right decision for the situation. The process is important but if it’s too long or too short and the same decision is made either way it doesn’t matter because in the end…the decision was made. In my major however, process does matter. In graphic design we have to make roughly 100 sketches until we find the idea want to go with, from there we are constantly refining our idea work weeks by our selves and with feedback from others until we have a finished product. In this instance, process is just as, if not more important than the decision/final product. But for life decisions like picking a husband or a court trial, the process is important but in the end the decision of picking the ‘right guy’ or finding a person guilty or not is the important part of the process.

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

My opinion is that it is more important to perform good acts then to be a good person, this however points towards the assumption that good people don’t perform good acts. So for me it is important to separate these things conceptually with being a good person on an emotional level and performing good acts being of a physical state. In which case performing good acts is more important because I believe in making a difference. While it could be argued that being a good person emotionally can make a difference is a persons life who is having a bad day or needs support, performing good acts lends to not only making a difference on a larger scale but also making a difference of larger impact. Is it better to say good day with a smile to a homeless person on the street, or give him a few bucks for food or whatever he may need? Even though their is no real answer to this I feel that the world we live in today calls for more “doing” or more acts of substance.

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

The process is definitely more important then the outcome because although getting to a final decision or idea can be significant, the journey of getting to it is where you broaden your knowledge not only of what your subject is but about yourself and what it means to you. Everyone likes focus on the outcome because they don’t want to look past whats on the service, but being part of the process you don’t just see the tip of the iceberg you see the giant substructure of what it took to get to that tip. In addition theirs the idea that its not about how many times you fall, its how many times you get back up, which truly speaks to what process is and how you can learn through your own successes and failures. In fact it even comes down to the idea of what came first the chicken or the egg, if their wasn’t any processes would their be any outcomes?

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

This question is a tough one as in on one hand I feel no attachment to life such that I would feel mine is more than another yet I firmly believe in idea of making the most of the life you live and enjoying it as much as possible. So my answer is no my life is not worth more than others but there is still a presence of selfishness in how I go about living it. This means that if my personal enjoyment came at the cost of another persons life that I would most likely look the other way. However it would be hypocritical to say that this means I feel more important than others in that everyday people use things that effects others lives negatively even if they don’t mean too. For example, people text and  drive which leads to many deaths and injuries, but millions ignore this for their own personal satisfaction.

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

I think that it’s more important to be a good person rather than performing good acts. Being a good person is having the ability to let everyone be who they are without judgement. A good person gives themselves even when there is nothing left to give, but someone needs them. However, people may argue that being a good person comes with performing good acts. Being a good person isn’t necessarily about setting time aside to do good deeds. It’s about making decisions where no one is harmed by your actions or choices. A good person understands that we’re all connected and that our choices have impacts on others. Unlike performing good deeds it doesn’t take extra time and energy to be a good person, it takes the right attitude and approach to life. Being a good person means you’re doing things and living your life to make a change, even if that change is minuscule. You could have a horrible attitude and do good things in spite of what you are deep down. Doing a good deed doesn’t necessarily mean you’re a good person because it’s for a finite amount of time. A good act is just a simple activity like donating to the Salvation Army while walking into Walmart or shoveling your neighbor’s driveway after you’ve done your own. On the other hand, being a good person is something that’s infinite. It’s a lifestyle that includes countless good deeds that you don’t keep a tally on. A good person naturally does good acts without even noticing.

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

The question “Do the ends justify the means?” is a question that needs to be answered based on the situation. The question depends on what the end goals are and what means are being used to achieve them.  It’s important to use context and weigh judgments and keeping the big picture in mind. If the end results are noble and the means we use to reach them are good, the ends do justify the means. However, some take this expression as it doesn’t matter how you get what you want as long as you get it. It becomes an excuse to achieve goals through any means necessarily even if it’s illegal or immoral. Although, this expression can involve doing something wrong to achieve a positive ending. An example is lying on a resume. You may get a good job, but this doesn’t justify you lying.  It’s hard to draw a line on this expression because it can be interpreted in many ways. For example, if you could kill someone to save your family would you do it? Do these ends justify the means? Does your family’s life justify taking the life of another? Honestly, in a way it’s based on morality. In this situation killing someone is immoral, but saving the family is good and a moral outcome. With that being said, this question can’t apply on everything unless the mindset is right. Although, I also believe that the ends never justify the means and this is just an excuse for people to get what they want.

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

I do not believe that my own life is worth more than others. I believe that all lives are equally important. We are all born equal, we have the same emotions, and feel the same pain. So, why would one life be more important than another?  We all have the same needs and wants. There’s nothing that makes one person more important than another. My life is just as important as a 100 year old woman, or the president. However, I do believe we subconsciously value the lives of some more than others. For example, we tend to value the lives of family and friends over the lives of others. If given the chance to save a life of a family member or a stranger, I’m sure almost all of us would save our family member. Although, this doesn’t mean that their life was more important than the strangers. It’s merely a selfish thing because we love them and their death will affect us. It doesn’t in any way mean that the stranger’s life wasn’t important.  Also, we do value some lives of some strangers more than others, such as the president. If the president dies we’re all affected by it, but this doesn’t mean his life was more important. All people have the same rights and responsibilities as one another. Every human life has value. In a moral sense no one can be superior or worth more.

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 then to be a good person.  Yes, being a good person is a great quality but just having this quality isn’t enough if you don’t put it to good use.  The world is full of hate and discrimination.  I feel that if more people performed good acts these would decrease.  The world needs people to go outside of their comfort zones and do more good acts.  We need more people to take actions as doing good acts can be viewed as a domino effect.  Once someone sees another person taking action it tends to bring more people to do the same.  Whether it is helping them out or simply making them want to perform a good act towards someone else or even better themselves.  Doing good acts will have so many positive effects that it will definitely change this world and the people in it for the better.

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

I feel that the process by which decisions are made matter more than the outcomes of these decisions.  Thinking of all the possible options before making a decision will lead a person to choose the correct one.  Everyone knows that all decisions have consequences whether they are good or bad.  By using a good decision making process and thinking things through, you can actually have the outcomes be positive ones.  A person can even alter the results of a decision by considering the other alternatives and choosing one that will be more of a benefit.  This will in turn have a different influence on others as well.  If a person realizes how important the decision making process is, they will learn how to think things through and look toward how the consequences of their decisions will effect not only themselves but others as well.  This will enable them to make the proper choices for all.

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

I am a person who put others before myself; therefore, I must say I feel that others’ lives are worth more than my own.  I always put other peoples’ needs before my own.  I have always found myself caring for and going out of my way to help others even though it meant I sacrificed things I needed.  I have already bought others something that I would have liked but found I wouldn’t spend the money on myself and preferred spending it on someone else.  In high school I had my baseball bag stolen with items in it which included not only by baseball things but my wallet and sneakers as well.  I ended up not being worried about what I lost but found that I was worried that the kid who took them did so as he was in need.  I even felt guilty in the fact that I had these “extras” when he didn’t even have the “basics”.

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

I was first introduced to the concept of speciesism in my last environmental science class here at Penn State. Before learning this idea, I had seen animals as inferior to human beings on an intellectual and physical level. That class taught me that we are all living beings serving purposes on this planet. I have friends back home who are choosing to go vegan for the sake of other living beings. While this is a sacrifice that I am not strong enough to commit to, they shared with me an insight towards sympathy for other animals. I remember watching a video on slaughter houses in that environmental science class. That video was a wake up call on the evident speciesism in our culture. Some chickens were kicked, even thrown at the wall before being packed into tight cages. For chickens to perish for human food is one thing, but torturing the animals before death is a direct result of thinking humans are superior to all other living beings. After watching these videos, I’ve tried to cut meat out of my diet. There are days where I cave, which is why I don’t label myself as a vegetarian, but I am definitely more mindful of my eating habits. These reasons are why I believe the pleasure and pain of non-human animals are just as important as the pleasure and pain of human beings.

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

I believe that my life matters the same as the lives of others. There are days when I pass strangers on the street and realize that they’re not just a random face, they’re people with childhood memories and families and experiences just like my own. It is easy to get sucked into my own narcissistic bubble since my life is the only life I will ever live, but that does not mean I am superior to any other life. As someone who works with children, I can see firsthand that selfishness is inherent in humans at an early age. Children are programmed to believe that their lives are the most important. Whether someone grows out of that mindset is a matter of choice, and many people remain narcissistic. I like to think of myself as an altruistic person. I see the wellbeing of my friends and family just as important as the well being of myself. When needed, I will sacrifice in order to help a loved one in need. Although it is not always agreed, I do believe that all people were created equal, and that my life matters just as much as the lives of others.

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

This question was harder for me to grapple, but I think it is more important to be a good person. Being a good person is a personality trait that is inherent in your mindsets and actions. Performing good acts is redeeming, but it is not a designated trait. Someone, in theory, could perform good acts while being an awful person, or perform good acts as a means to boost credibility or a reputation. Performing good acts can have ulterior motives, but simply being a good person will get you far in life. I believe that if you are a good person, then good acts will follow. A good person also tends to have a good belief system, which can easily spread to other people. To me, a good person is someone who is respectful to others, open-minded, caring, and hard-working. A good person can still accomplish great things based on their virtues. This question was more difficult because both options are beneficial. Performing good acts is a good thing, however, I believe being inherently good is even better.

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

I have always lived by the adage, speak softly, but carry a big stick. This was a term often repeated in my home growing up. We were encouraged to always “Walk the walk” and to never “Talk the talk”. That being said, I believe that performing good acts will always be more important than just being a good person. You can be a good person by all traditional sense and meaning, and still leave no indelible impression on those around you or the place you live (perhaps other than being remembered as a nice guy). Talking and wishing for good acts may sound pleasing, but no good will truly be made tangible from hollow words and thin air,  Performing good acts, on the other hand, is a strong outward expressed manifestation of who you are. By all traditional sense, an evil man will not perform good acts, so it is no large stretch of the imagination to say that those who perform good acts, are good people. Good acts make an indelible impression on where you live, who you are and how you are seen. This is why I believe so strongly that performing good acts will always be more important than just being a good person.

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

My answer to this question is, yes. They matter for both sakes. I truly do not believe that you can ascertain their importance by examining only one focus of ethics. Ecosystems and humanity are both so intricately intertwined and symbiotic that you can not affect one without invariably effecting the other. Ecosystems matter for their own sake because we depend so heavily upon them. For their resources, protection and global benefit. Every part of any ecosystem has a significant role that can affect all other parts, as humans, we are part of that system and need to realize the potential effects of manipulating the system. It is also true that as a species, Humans have the ability to manipulate resources and ecosystems in a way that further benefits our species. We often manipulate and destroy ecosystems in the pursuit for resources. We need the resources they offer, but we need to be aware of our place within the system and work within the abilities and tolerances of any given system, minimizing any impact we may make.

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

This question has caused me so much grief and self doubt. Initially I believed my own life held the same amount of worth as anyone else. Biologically, this made sense to me. In the scope of that type of thinking, everything seemed relatively black and white. But, the more I thought about the true worth of my life and those lives that depend on me or are emotionally attached to me, or the places I work to improve, or the people I teach my values to, my value seemed to increase exponentially. This led me on a path to evaluate the worth of others. Does the homeless drug addict have the same worth? Does the death row inmate have the same worth? What impressions or positive benefits could their lives possibly have? In that light, I am know beginning to value my life as having more worth than some. I do god acts, and therefore am a good person. I am important to many people and causes. It makes me ashamed to write that. Although my feelings sway in that direction, I am still reminded of a quote from C.S. Lewis, reminding me that we can not truly judge the value of any individual at any given moment but rather only reflect at the end of their time.

“It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which,if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship…”

Ben

1. Is it more important to be a good person or to perform good acts (virtue ethics vs. action ethics)?
In a commercial I hear every once in a while when I’m listening to Pandora, the narrator states “Thinking is only as important as action it inspires.” You can be a good person and say that homelessness is a problem but what are you going to do to prevent homeless people from living in boxes under a bridge? My personal approach is to perform good acts that I care about. Dogs or cats need rescued from a shelter? Adopt a dog and a cat. Kids with pediatric cancer? Donate what I can to THON. The idea of virtue vs action is something that gets annoying honestly. Especially in presidential campaign season when candidates get preachy about problems but do not specify how to fix them. Because you don’t perform good acts does not make you a bad person, but problems aren’t solved by just pointing them out. Actions speak louder than words.
2. Does the process by which decisions are made matter more than the outcomes of these decisions (procedural justice vs. distributive justice)?
The outcomes of decisions (let’s just say positive outcomes) are always important. However, the internal procedures that deliver those outcomes need to be handled properly, so the procedural justice is more important. In the sports world, Barry Bonds hit 756 homeruns. It is a great feat if he did it naturally but he didn’t. Baseball fans despise him because the process by which he broke the record was not ethical. Ethics are important obviously and a flawed process or procedure can make bad precedents that end up causing negative outcomes. It’s cool to have a great outcome, say you can make $100 thousand, that’s all well and good, but its different earning that money illegally cooking meth or dealing drugs rather than doing something legal. It’s the basis for all of business, they want to make money and have their name in lights, but for all of the right reasons and while treating everyone fairly.
3. 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 own opinion, ecosystems do matter on their own because they contain their own life, however it often seems that the media cares only about the human impact, but that’s no fault of theirs, they are serving us. When it comes to melting ice caps, the main focus is on the rising sea levels that will slowly take land away and affect coastal towns and cities, but you rarely hear about (at least in my experience) hear about how affects other species. Polar Bears are the only other animal you hear about. Being the creatures we are, everyone wants to know how actions and events affect themselves. It is human nature. So I do believe that the studying of ecosystems is a bit anthropocentric. At the same time it is speciesism. However speciesism is not always a bad thing, humans are smarter and stronger than other species. It goes both ways.

Question 1:

I think it depends on the perspective. If the question is on a population-level basis, performing good acts is more important. If the question is on an individual-level basis, being a good person is more important. In general, I think being a good person and performing good acts are two integrated concepts. In other words, I think most of the time it would be difficult to prefer one over the other. This is because being a good person is beneficial the most to the self and performing good acts is beneficial the most to the surroundings of the self (society, environment, etc). For example, being a good person helps the person be more pure and calm such he/she can withstand the hardships of life in a better way. Moreover, performing good acts will help society live in more tranquility, for example there will be no robberies. Imagine a situation where a person is motivated to perform a good act not because of the intrinsic property that this act is good but to impress another person or a whole group of people. In this case, even though the outcome of this situation is positive on the surroundings that were affected by this good act, I think the person’s self didn’t benefit from this good act because the interior motive wasn’t pure. I think in a way this is like hypocrisy, where a person does something good caring only about what others think of him/her. My point is, it is not enough to perform good acts, our intentions need to be pure. At the same time, a good person that doesn’t perform good acts is not reaping the full rewards and not benefiting his/her surroundings.

Question 2:

In my opinion, the ends don’t justify the means. At least, not always. Imagine a situation where a person would like to donate money to charity but the person doesn’t own any money. As a result, the person steals money or starts gaining money in some illegal way like selling drugs. Then, the person donates the illegally gained money to charity. In this case, even though the person had good intentions of helping needy people, the actions caused harm to another group of people, those who were rubbed or sold drugs. That’s why I think the ends don’t justify the means. However, the example provided in the module about cutting down trees to enable the growth of more trees, makes me think twice. In such a circumstance, I think the ends do justify the means. In a sense, it seems to me like a sacrifice for the greater good. In my opinion, whenever we are faced with an ends ethics vs. means ethics dilemma, it would be good to ask: Is there a better mean to reach the same end? If the answer is yes, then we can choose the better mean. Otherwise, we could try and quantify the benefits of reaching such an end versus the cost that we need to pay, i.e. the cons of the mean.

Question 6:

I would say my life is worth the same as the lives of others. Part of the reason why I think so is that it seems intractable to quantify how much is a life worth. Is it based on what we could contribute to this world? but how can we determine a person’s potential? Furthermore, If we could reform the question to: Do you deserve to live more than others? My answer would still be the same, but this reveals more about the question. For example, consider a life and death situation where two people are endangered and only one of them can live, assume that they are of the same age group so that age isn’t a factor in determining who deserves to live. In such a situation, I think both people deserve to live equally, because even if one of them is a bad person and the other is a good person, they both should get the same opportunity to redeem themselves.

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 much more important to perform good acts than to be a good person.  Everyone has their own limits and abilities however our job is to try and perform good acts within our capabilities.  For example, if you know that there are people in your city going hungry you can support there being a soup kitchen nearby for the people to go to, which is an example of being a good person since you want those people to have help.  Turning it into a good act would be volunteering at the soup kitchen, so that you are being a part of the action of giving food to those in need of it.  If, for example, you were under critical care and were not able to walk, then perhaps your ability to help the soup kitchen falls under the umbrella of perhaps donating money instead of physically helping out.  It all falls under what your capability is.

2.  Do the ends justify the means? (if a goal is morally important enough any method of achieving it is acceptable)

As talked about in the beginning of this module we all have intuition, which leads and helps us to decide what is ethically wrong or right, good or bad.  If we always believe that a specific goal is important enough that any achievement of it is acceptable then we put blinding parts of our intuition at risk.  A lot of the times it only takes one person to convince countless amounts of people to believe something is so morally right that any method of reaching the goal is acceptable. One of the biggest examples in history of the ends not justifying the means is World War 2.  One man came into power and convinced people that humans that were not of the aryan race were not meant to be alive and were known as vermin.  Just because these people thought that only people of the aryan race should be alive does not mean that killing the people that weren’t of that race was justified.  Just because something happens to be a shared moral does not give cause to stop at nothing to pursue that moral in the case of World War 2.

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

Although I would like to say that the pleasure and pain of non-human animals matter as much as the pleasure and pain of humans, it is simply not true in the present day.  I realize that some people believe that becoming a vegetarian is working towards the equality between humans and non humans but it has barely even made a dent.  Anthropocentrism radiates through our every day life at such a high intensity.  We have non human animals as pets and locked up in zoos and many even still tested on.  We live in an extreme anthropocentric environment.  If you were to turn on the television and watch the news or even log onto a news website, the content is constantly about the effect everything, including the ecosystem has on people.  In a different time period, perhaps the prehistoric era it was much easier to have a very non speciesism view on environmental ethics however a lot of progress in human evolution has occurred.  We became discriminatory towards other species the more we developed as a species which caused us to be a speciesism based society.

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

To me action ethics build off of virtue ethics. In order to perform good acts you must ultimately already be a good person. The example in the reading about someone who cares about the environment or someone who takes action to help the environment is a good example of how you must have virtue before action. Somebody who does not care about the environment more than likely is not going to take any necessary actions in order to help preserve the environment. However, if you believe the environment is worth saving and you care about it you will decide to start taking the beginning steps to help preserve the environment, whether it be small steps like just recycling, or larger steps like spending a day or two collecting waste in a local park. If I had to choose one as more important over the other, I would have to say that it is more important to be a good person.

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

Yes, non-human animals pain and pleasure are just as important. At some point or another most people have owned a cat, dog, or some kind of compassionate pet. Those that have not, may have had the opportunity to play or grow close to one of their friends. Where I’m going with this is these household pets grow and adapt, they show emotion, and many develop the ability to read your body language to comfort you when you’re in need of comforting. Now, I realize there are more than simply house pets. Testing commercial products on animals is also a quite controversial topic. It is to my knowledge that there have been developmental technologies that allow us to test products on man made devices that have sensors that relate the pain tolerance as well as potential for adverse reactions to the human skin. As humans being at the top of the food chain should only mean what it says, top of the food chain.

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

As much as I would like to say the same or less I would have to say my life is worth more. I have never been faced with a life or death situation nor have I ever been faced with a situation where not only my life but the lives of others were at stake. In my head I imagine in the latter scenario that I would risk my life to save that of others. But also in my head I imagine doing whatever it takes to save myself. There are a handful of people that I would put in front of myself as more important; my immediate family, close friends that I know would risk their lives for me, and lastly children. Children are more important than me because they still see the world in all of its glory. They tend to look past all of the bad there is and look for the good in everyone and everything. They are our hope for the future and still have so much to see, do, achieve, and learn.

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

Humans are included in their ecosystems! I hold this view because I always consider myself one with the ecosystem, rather than acknowledge the human social system as separate. If I think deeper about this, maybe they are separate. The human social system is anthropocentrism. If we lived with our ecosystem, we would live synchronously, not exploit landscapes and living and nonliving resources, therefore, we would adopt an ecocentric ethic. Honestly after seeing the “pristine” ecosystem of the Amazon Rainforest my views on how humans interact with the environment have changed. While living in that region, I considered every aspect of my wastes impact. Ecosystems do matter for their own sake. That region creates an ecosystem driven by natural atmospheric processes that would exist if humans did not live there, but my impact can alter that system. It is fascinating that humans have the technology and cultural patterns to live around the Earth in places where non-human animals and plants have naturally evolved to live. Our ecosystems impact us, but we have found ways to adapt. With global warming causing weather patterns to shift around Earth’s climate regions I think humans will have to focus on an ecocentrism perspective. If we focus on aiding non-human life as it aids us and preserving natural resources, we might have a better chance of adapting to the unpredictable change in the future.

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

Human and non-human animal’s welfare should be cared for equally. I believe animals have rights to be treated as we treat humans. I hold this view because evolutionarily, non-human animals experience the same pleasure and pain as humans, but we have the intellect and emotional capacity to evolve our society beyond evolution’s limits. Therefore, under speciesism, we are the more ethically important living thing to protect. Our ethical views on how we respect some animals equity and are insensitive to others are created by culture. For instance, in the U.S., we consider cats and dogs as pets and neglect other “farm animals” for our sustenance. In Peru, some households raise guinea pigs and eat them when they are large enough while in the U.S. guinea pigs are common pets. I stopped eating meat for my health and environmental reasons. Through this decision, I have come to make more ethical decisions about how animals are treated. Now, I have a hard time wrapping my head around statements from individuals who say they care for animals but support animal industries through the purchase of meat. Many of us care for extinct species and want to protect them, but do not realize our industrial driven life is aiding in the destruction of these species niches. Ecocentrism is the larger picture to bring into focus. Humans are an integral of the ecosystem with non-human animals. Non-human animals have adapted to work with their ecosystem and gain sustenance at levels that do allow landscapes to renew themselves; that is intelligence in my opinion. We thrive on the same landscapes of the non-humans. As a smarter species, we should realize the similarities between human and non-human animals and respect their well-being as we develop.

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

It is a challenging assignment to evaluate your own selfishness. I like to believe I am altruistic, but my belief has bias. When I am questioning my virtue ethics, I need to step outside of my shoes and view myself as others see me. Now, when I place my viewpoint from another’s perspective, I think of my family and friends close to me who see my actions. In their view, I am altruistic. I care for and try to help them as needed. I hold myself to the standard that if I am able, I need to help those around me. My value of life is the same as anyone’s life, but I will take care of myself first. I need to be in good condition to help others. I think that it is our natural instinct to be selfish for our needs, and altruistic towards people close to us. Thought deeper analysis of my views I think true altruism happens beyond family and friends. Truely acting selfless is to aid anyone at any time, no matter how you feel or your physical condition. I can be selfish in my daily life but altruistic when the time comes. I may value my life as equal to the beings around me, but I do not extend myself beyond my personal needs as much as I would like too. I used to view volunteering as altruism until it became so popular to find on resumes as a promotion of self. Altruism is in the individuals whose actions do not benefit for themselves, but others benefit.

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

1. I personally feel that it is more important to be someone who performs good acts over being a good person. However, I do understand that more often than not, someone who is a good person is more likely to perform good acts. When thinking about this question, my first response was that being a good person is better because performing a good act without the right intentions is frowned upon. Yet, I thought about this thoroughly and decided that action ethics, or performing the good act, is more important because that is helping the person or group in need no matter the intentions. When you’re performing a good act, the outcome will always be beneficial for someone. This topic also led me to think about whether I would want to perform a good act because a good person told me to or because I saw the benefits of someone performing a good act. My answer to this question made me realize that I am going to want to idolize and look up to someone who is taking action rather than just moralizing me.

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

2. My first thought when reading this question was, “Well, what are the circumstances and what is the situation?”. After much thought about the topic, I came to the conclusion that if the ends are something that is a good thing, then obviously the means will be justified. At first, I was very conflicted with this question because I can agree with both sides. But like I stated, I believe that the answer with this question is all circumstantial. I feel that if the end is positive and more rewarding than the means, then it is justified. Without fully knowing the whole situation, I don’t think that I can take a side, but I do lean more towards the idea that the ends do justify the means. I thought a lot about the example in the text that talked about how trees were cut down to prevent forest fires. In the end, more trees would be saved by cutting down a few than losing a lot more trees in a forest fire. In this case, the ends are a good thing. This helped me come to the conclusion that the ends do justify the means, however I do see both sides of this argument clearly.

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

3. As a person who loves animals, I am going to jump to quickly agree that the pain of non-human animals matter just as much as the pleasure and pain of humans. After immediately spitting out my first thought, I realize that this may not be what I really want. I am human and I greatly enjoy eating steak, drinking milk, and eating bacon, etc. Just like all of these questions, there are strong grounds for both sides. I feel that this question involves a little more thought of what humans would want to give up and what it would cost humans to treat animals the same way. This obviously means that there would be an end to killing animals which immediately makes everyone a vegetarian. Would this decrease the nutrition level of humans? Would there be an abundant amount of animals? With consideration to this question, I want to say that there should be consideration to the pleasure and pain of non-human animals, but only to a certain point. I do not feel that humans and non-human animals should be treated the same exact way. There are differences between the two in many ways, so they should be treated as separate species.

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 I believe only matter to the extent that they impact humans. I hold this view because everything that we use and make comes from this earth. Our government runs on consumerism. Everything we use today  from food, materials, and technology all of it comes eventually from natural resources. So if your asking if my ethics on this topic are more anthropocentric your exactly right. Our government I believe is more growth and profit than being sustainable and environmentally friendly. Now some ecosystems I feel we have more ecocentric ethics about are state forests and national parks. Maybe these places are protected because of the species and quality of the land. But maybe these places are protected because eventually one day we will use them for resources anyway if we run out. But maybe its up to us or the next generation to come to have more ecocentric views on the environment and our society. I think it will be up to us to change these views on the environments and ecosystems and teach and educate people that our “green” places or environmentally safe places of the world are more important and essential to our lives more than we even realize.

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 does not matter as much as the pleasure and pain of humans. I hold this view because we eat almost every kind of animal that lives on this planet. We breed animals to make pets and we breed animals to kill and make food. We pretty much do whatever we want with animals with really no consequences. Now think if non-human animals were treated or could be governed under the same set of rules as humans. What if you would get a murder charge for killing an animal? That would never happen because we see that the human life is more important than the non-human animals life. What if non-human animals were just as smart or intelligent as us. Would they breed us, use us as pets, kill us for sport, use us as food? Sounds kind of brutal when you look at it from the other point of view. So I believe that speciesism exist and we are just the animal at the top of the food chain. So we are just looking out for ourselves. But when we don’t need to be so environmentally destructive and we know some species could be extinct forever we need to take control and be more responsible for the species we have on this earth. Cause I believe that all species play their part in our environmental society.

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

I think its important to be both equally a good person and to perform good acts. I hold this view because to even begin to perform a good act I believe you already have to have some good in you. To perform a good act I feel your mentality is already in a good place, and maybe your thinking of the future outcome hoping it will end on a positive note. I think it’s a good thing to share and spread your virtues with others. For example if you let people know how much you care for the environment maybe there virtues will change to be the same and maybe even get them to take some action. Performing good acts or taking action can also hopefully get more people to make a physical difference but also get people to change theres virtues for the better. I think virtues and actions just work side by side together. If you are a bad person you will probably perform bad actions. So virtues and actions are leading to one another. It is important to have good virtues and actions so then you can see the end result or hypothesize on it to make sure its in the best interest for everyone. So to have a positive end result we need to start first with a good positive thought or virtue we have, share it, talk about it, however we can make it become a good idea or a topic for change for the better. Then once we have that we can take action and perform what our good thoughts and virtues are into a physical sense to show and spread the virtues we believe in. This is why i think we need virtue and action ethics equally.

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. Although good acts can show the good things that people can do, being a good person means that there are (most likely) good intentions in mind behind a person’s actions and these good intentions can continually allow for good things to happen. Similarly to the example stated in the reading relating to whether it’s more important to be someone who cares about the environment or someone who takes actions helping the environment, someone who cares about the environment will often be the one who takes action. If someone is a good person, they are likely to take action towards something they feel passionate about. These people use their passions as the reasons to do good in the world and do the good actions that have positive effects on other beings on the planet. Someone can perform good acts, but this does not necessarily mean that they are a good person or that they genuinely care about the cause they are acting for.

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 matters just as much as the pleasure and pain of humans. Relating to the topic of speciesism, where there is the view that some species are more important than others, humans have taken the initiative of placing themselves in the position of being most worthy of special treatment and importance (anthropocentrism). This has placed other species in a less important position where their pleasure and pain is not viewed as significant as those of humans. It has been shown that non-human animals feel emotions just as humans do, therefore, their pleasure and pain should matter just as much as those of humans but sometimes people still disregard this. On one hand, many people view their pets as a member of the family and here it can be seen that these non-human animals’ feelings are considered in the relationship they have with the family. On the other hand, there are many cases of non-human animas being treated inhumanly, whether it’s animal abuse towards pets or animals being killed for food, and in these cases the pain and pleasure of these non-human animals is not acknowledged. Since non-human animals also have emotions, they should be respected as many as much as human feelings are concerned.

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

I think that my life is worth the same as the lives of others. Everyone and everything (including other species) are unique so it is hard to place one in a higher or lower position than others. I believe that every life is equal and there is not one life that is worth less than another life. Although being altruistic is good, since this greatly involves helping others, it can be too much to be too selfless and not take yourself into consideration. It is harmful to be too selfless, as it is harmful to be extremely selfish. Considering this, while there are people in the world who are rather altruistic, there are also many people who are quite selfish. Though I think every life is equal, it does not take into account those who commit crimes. These people who act upon their destructive thoughts should be punished as deemed appropriate for their crimes, even though I consider all lives equivalent.

Question #1.

In terms of the importance of virtue ethics as opposed to action ethics, the answer lies within the perception of what should be and what should be done. Both of these types of ethics deal with subjective views on right and wrong, good and bad, and should versus should not. Ultimately, this distinction entails the difference between simply stating one’s beliefs (virtue ethics) and taking the actions necessary to make a change for those beliefs (action ethics). As far as environmental ethics are concerned, both of these concepts can be extended to sustainability as well as human-environment interactions. In relation to environmental ethics, I believe that it is more important to perform good acts; therefore, action ethics are far more influential than virtue ethics in regards to creating a sustainable environment by way of human-environment interactions. I maintain this opinion because it takes more than just a belief of how the environment should be, but rather a unified approach to what should be done to maintain a sustainable environment. Action ethics relate both sustainability and democracy because the voice of a democracy creates a movement towards a sustainable environment for present and future generations. I believe that this distinction holds true for a vast majority of scenarios due to the fact that actions speak louder than words. This concept is important in terms of personal, professional and romantic relationships. This approach is also apparent as we begin to select possible presidential candidates and a leader must not only want change, but also take actions necessary to make that change.

Question #2.

In regards to action ethics, both the ends and the means must be considered in order to validate a particular action. Ultimately, though, one must rationalize the other. I believe that this question is very circumstantial and comes down to priorities, depending on the particular action. In terms of sustainability and human-environment interaction, sometimes-particular actions do have to be taken in order to provide food, shelter, and other basic necessities. In this case-scenario, I believe that the ends did justify the means. I also believe the ends justify the means if it involves a decision of life and death. If cutting down trees will prevent forest fires, and in turn save more lives, I would warrant that the outcome overrides the process. However, on the contrary, I do not believe that the ends justify the means when ecosystems are ruined for the purpose of building shopping malls, business complexes, restaurants, etc. This opinion is altered outside of the topic of human-environmental actions as well. For instance, the cost to attend a graduate school, such as law school, medical school, or dental school, is increasing every year and it becomes difficult to justify spending that much money. I believe that the cost of such a program can justify the means if the net financial gains after graduation surpass the debt and student loans.

Question #3.

Decision-making is particularly important when dealing with ethics as it involves both the process as well as the outcome. Both the process and the outcome relate to one’s own core values, goals, and opinions. Decisions are made when we think ethically or make observations about certain situations and compare these observations to our own ideals. The decision making process lies within our own internal intuitions which embody our personal views on right and wrong, good and bad, should and should not. I believe the process by which decisions are made matters more than the outcomes of these decisions, therefore; procedural justice takes priority over distributive justice. I believe that procedural justice is more significant as the emphasis on how decisions are made leads to an explanation for why decisions are made. Procedural justice is unique to each and every individual as it combines each of our opinions, views, and thoughts. The process behind decision-making explains the consequences, but the consequences do not always explain the process, and so that is why I believe that procedural justice matters more than distributive justice. Procedural justice includes several aspects of democracy, which is especially important when environmental change is at stake. Obviously, every individual’s plan of action cannot be considered, but within a democracy we are able to speak up with our ideas and vote on those ideas. I think that the significance of procedural justice is apparent in a wide variety of scenarios, as it is the closest way to attempt to include any number of ideas and views in implementing change.

Question four, “Do ecosystems matter for their own sake, or do they only matter to the extent that they impact humans?”

What a great question! I think that any animal (us included,) cares first about the individuals well being, second about their species well-being, and third about everything else. To truly answer this question you  would have to consider an ecosystem where there are no benefit to humans and no “cuteness factor.” I use the phrase “cuteness factor” to describe our affinity towards animals or ecosystems that we prioritize because they are nice to look at (like pandas, polar bears and coral reefs). All ecosystems are tied together, whether directly or indirectly, so it makes it pretty hard to answer this question since there are virtually no cases of ecosystems that don’t have an affect on one another on Planet Earth. For arguments sake lets consider a completely isolated ecosystem, perhaps “in a galaxy far far away,” that has no effect on humans. Would we still care about it? I would argue that the only reason we would is if it had the potential for us to live on it someday, and potentially save our species. So there you have it, the answer to one age old question with one simple Star Wars reference, and a little imagination. Anthropocentrism, the feeling that humans are what’s important, might not be the completely ethical, but it is certainly our logical way of thinking.

Question six, “Is my own life worth more than the lives of others, the same, or less?”

This question is one that I’ve considered many times before I read this module. I think that when it comes down to it, despite our very social nature, we are all born as very selfish people. My brother and I spent much of our early childhood fighting for who got to play with the best toys. It wasn’t until many years of our parents telling us to share that we finally learned that it wasn’t such a bad thing. I think that altruism, or in this case sharing, is a very learned behavior. My brother and I learned that selfish acts led to a scolding from our parents, and in an attempt to avoid reprimand, we adapted by sharing. When you look at the animal world, altruism is extremely rare, and only occurs when there is plenty of a resource to go around. With people it’s not much different. When things are going well as a society and everyone has their fare share, stealing is usually a rare thing. But in cases like natural disasters when resources become scarce, we see vast amounts of looting and stealing. We resort back to our selfish nature. I think the only reason that the initial question is even relevant is due to human’s ability to manipulate our environment to provide enough resources for everyone. When it comes down to it, we are all just focused on our own behalf and that of our family members, but if there is enough resources to go around we don’t mind sharing on occasion. I truly struggled with this question, and changed my mind several times as to which side I was on, so I look forward to reading the replies to this post because there are certainly many flaws in my argument. This is truly a great question.

Question three, “Does the process by which decisions are made matter more than the outcomes of these decisions?”

Of course the outcomes matter more than the way the decisions were made! We could have a dictator running the United States and if every decision he made had a positive outcome, I would be completely alright with that. The problem with this argument is that it is impossible for the dictator to understand what is in the best interest of the entire country’s population. So let’s say that our dictator is a caring person and wants his decisions to best reflect the people’s views. To accomplish this he sets up a board of advisers, each dedicated to a specific region. Their job is to determine what decisions are in the best interest of  their region… and what do you know it we have the makings of a democracy. As you can see, the only importance of “how decisions are made,” is whether that system is efficient at achieving the correct outcome. In other words, procedural justice is only relevant if it accomplishes distributive justice.

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

I truly believe it is more important to perform good acts rather than be a good person. Performing a good act can have a greater impact on bettering society as a whole. Everyone can practice virtue ethics and have good values and beliefs, but without taking action with them, that person is not making much of a difference. For example, a person can talk themselves up and explain how kind and respectful they are, but how are those words going to make a difference in someone else’s life? They aren’t. I also believe that performing a good act means that a person must have some good in them already and their actions can have a positive impact on others. In my perspective, seeing others do good acts motivates me to also want to do something good for society. If others feel the same way then we can build a chain of goodness, which could have an enormous impact on society. Being a good person is one thing, but actually taking action is a power leap in making our world a better place.

4) Do ecosystems matter for their own sake, or do they only matter to the extent that they impact humans?

I believe that ecosystems matter for both their own sake and the sake of humans. Humans are constantly interacting with the ecosystem and without the ecosystem we could not function. I believe that the ecosystem is more important because we need it in order to survive. It provides resources for us in order to build houses, makes clothes, and provide us with food. So yes, the ecosystem is hugely beneficial to human life. It is also important for humans to preserve and protect the ecosystem. If we don’t, human lives can be affected due to poor conditions of the ecosystems, such as global warming, pollution, or too much carbon dioxide in the air. These are very serious issues that begin to make people worry. I agree with the reading that we should manage the cutting down of trees and control the killing of animals. I understand that it is necessary to have these things, but only to a certain extent. Both ecocentric ethics and anthropocentric ethics are very important in everyday life, and they go hand in hand in order to make our world go round.

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

I believe I see myself as more of an altruistic person. My family and friends are the most important people in my life, and I would do absolutely anything for them whether it be donate an organ or bail them out of jail. I am more afraid of something happening to my family than myself. Helping others is what I’m good at and what I do in my everyday life, but I can also be selfish sometimes too. I think I’m aloud to be selfish and it’s a normal thing for people to be. I’m selfish in the way that I put my dreams and goals before others. There is a certain future I see for myself and there is no way I’m going to get there unless I am selfish and put myself before others. I want to strive to have greatness in my life and in order to do that I cannot have others holding me back. I have a pretty good balance between being an altruistic and selfish person. I would say I see my own life being worth just the same as others, and I am okay with that. As much as I want the best for me, I also want the best for others as well.

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

I think it’s more important to be a good person. In other words, we should be a good person virtually. If a person is virtually good, then it’s very hard to act badly. What I mean is virtue is somewhat connecting with action. What you think can influence what you are going to do. For example, if you think you should be helpful at first, then you will help others. It’s true that sometimes, people may be too shy or something else to help others or do what they think they should do, but that is not consistent with the virtue. Thus, they are not thinking in they should be helpful. My point here is virtue ethics can influence action. After you become a good person, your actions will be good as well. You will do good things to the society. Therefore, I think it’s more important to be a good person.

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

I think the pleasure and pain of non-human animals matter as much as the pleasure and pain of humans. All the species are equally live. We think human can control more of other species, because human are more powerful than other species, but it does not mean that human beings are more important or more noble than others. Each live is rare and invaluable. Actually, many countries have laws that protect animals right and prevent them from human-hurting. It is the law that proves non-human animals are as important as human beings. Their feelings are the same important as human’s. Life is equal. The possibility to be non-human animals and human is equal. You have pleasure and pain is not because you are human or not, just the way you are. For example, I used to have a pet dog. I was caring about his feeling. If he is hungry, I will feed him. If he is sad, I will play with him. If he is tired and sleepy, I won’t force him to play with me. The dog has feelings. Therefore, I think the pleasure and pain of non-human animals matter as much as the pleasure and pain of humans.

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

The lives of everyone are equal. I won’t initially put other’s life on risk. Similarly, I won’t let others to threaten my life. In real life, laws, religious doctrines, self-control, and etc. are all the things that can ensure equal life. However, we usually think that it’s more important to keep our lives safe instead of others’ lives when facing dangers, such as terrorist attacks, natural disasters, or other catastrophe. That’s a special case. We need first to keep ourselves safe, and then we can help other people. There is also one extreme case, parents and their children. Generally, parents can put their lives on risk in order to keep their children safe. In this condition, lives of others are worth more than our own lives. In conclusion, I think everyone’s life is equal. Only in special cases, our lives can worth more and less than others’ lives. We should respect others, and try our best to help 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 more important to be a good person rather than to perform good acts. A good person values things in their life whether it is their family, education etc. They do not hide who they are behind acts of kindness. For example, in our current society we see many athletes perform good acts such as working with charity ventures, starting programs and giving back to their communities. However, history has shown that just because they manage to perform good acts doesn’t mean they are necessarily good people. Ray Rice in particular is a good example of this. He started a charitable fund in his name but behind closed doors, he managed to knock out his girlfriend in an elevator and drag her body out of the setting. He got caught, proving that people can put on an act in public and perform good deeds to uphold their status. Based on this conclusion and the information in this module the concept of virtue ethics, I believe is more important than action ethics. We need to start with “what we should be” rather than “what we should do.”

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

I believe that both non-human animals and humans, experience just as much pleasure and pain as the other. It has been said that non-human animals don’t experience any emotion and that they don’t understand how to react in situations that are appropriate. However, I disagree with this statement. I have a dog named Bailey and though she isn’t the brightest dog out there she is still able to feel and love. My father travels a lot for work, so when he packs his suitcase she will lay by his side and follow him all over the house, knowing that he will be gone soon. When he eventually comes home and she hears that garage door open she has a routine. She will scramble to her bed, grab her bone, run to the front door while shaking her tail and whimpering with her nose placed in between the crack of the door. She may not be human but she feels pleasure and happiness just as a spouse would seeing their significant other when they come into the door.

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

In response to this question I believe that my life is equally valuable to all walks of life, except those who choose to make decisions that are morally wrong, such as criminals. According to John Locke no one is ever born evil or innately good. We are born on a clean slate. Everyone has a choice of whether they want to be a good person or not. Therefore, I would say my life is worth the same as those who make good choices and are genuinely good people. For example, I believe that If someone murders another person, that murderer doesn’t deserve to live. Their life is not as valuable as the people who are good and making something of themselves. It may sound crude but I believe that that’s the truth. In relation to the concept of Distributive Justice, these criminal’s actions lead the consequences of being placed in jail or even the death penalty. People have a choice and if their choice is to perform acts that are morally wrong then I believe in that situation my life is worth more.

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 than to perform good acts. Virtue ethics emphasizes what we should be, whereas action ethics is what we should do. Although it is very hard to define the two, I think a good person performs good acts on a daily basis. The way they carry themselves, the way they treat others, the way they impact society, etc. are all considered action ethics.. Any given day a person can do one of these good acts but that does not necessarily make them a good person. For example, someone could get away with a bank robbery and then donate some of the money that they stole to a charity. Donations money is a good act but this person is far from a good person. I believe virtue ethics is the way of displaying all of the acts a person has performed throughout the course of their life. Of course sometimes people do not always make the right decision but I think good people learn from their mistakes and show that through the actions in which they perform.

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

I believe procedural justice is more important than distributive justice. Although it is not directly related to ethics, I think it is very important to look at it from a sports perspective. I have played baseball my whole life and I look compare procedural justice to practice. I played baseball my entire life and I would spent endless hours in the batting cage trying to get better. I would have to fight through struggles, but I would always preserve through it to get better. I view distributive justice to the games itself. On any given day, a person could have a bad game, but that does not define them as a person or as a player. In a real life situation, a person must make decisions on the fly. Say a person had too much to drink and they decide to drive home. Although there is a chance the outcome is positive and make it home safely, they are not thinking about the process and all the negative possibilities there are. I believe in most circumstances the process by which someone follows will most of the time lead to the correct outcome which is why I think it is more important.

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

I personally believe that it depends on the animal. I have grown up with a dog my entire life and I feel as though she is a part of my family. If anyone were to hurt or abuse her I think they should face the same consequences as though they hurt or abused a human being. On the other hand, animals in the wild that are needed for food or are threatening to any human being do not matter as much as humans, Deer, cow, pig, etc., are all converted into meat that humans eat. This is very essential for our diet and the amount of food that we have on earth. I also believe that if a human is endangered by an animal they have the right to protect themselves against that animal. I personally have never went fishing or gone hunting in my life because I do not want to disturb these animals but overall I think it is essential to human lifestyle.

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

Action ethics are defined better as the plan to actually go out and do something, whereas virtue ethics is just saying what one believes should be done.  I think action ethics is more important than virtue ethics.  Anyone could talk about the things they want to do as a good person but never actually perform these acts.  If someone truly believes in what he or she is stating, or their virtue ethics, then he or she will actually go out and do what they say, or action ethics.  The action itself is more important because if everyone just listed what they thought was good, then nothing would actually be accomplished.  However, when someone is trying to recruit people to help for a certain cause, I think virtue ethics is more important.  This is because a person needs to fully understand what he or she is going to start promoting before they join on the team.

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 on their own and so do humans, however, they are both interact with each other every single second of the day.  Since the constant interactions are always there, ecocentric ethics and anthropocentric ethics are both important to live by.  I feel like I lean more towards the ecocentric ethics because the ecosystem was created before us and helps us survive.  If we continue cutting down trees at the rate we currently are at, there is going to be more carbon dioxide in the air than oxygen.  This would impact humans in a negative way but we keep doing it because trees give us positive things, like paper, houses, and fire.  Looking at the anthropocentric ethics side, I think our reading made a very valid point about when forest fires start people need to chop down trees to prevent more destruction.  Situations like this make anthropocentric ethics more important because not only would a forest fire kill humans, it would also destroy the whole ecosystem!

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

As stated in the reading, selfishness refers to a person who is less likely to help people and altruism describes someone who is more willing to help someone.  Personally, I believe my own life is equal to the lives of others.  Ever since I was a kid I possessed altruistic qualities because I would spend my weekends working at homeless shelters, making food for the needy, and volunteering at animal shelters.  I think that no one’s life is more important than another, including animals.  After working with multiple types of pets, one can tell that they have emotions just like humans do.  This being said, I can understand why some people are more selfish.  Sometimes people need to make decisions that put themselves before others; for example, some mothers need to decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy if there are complications.  Is a mother dying and leaving her other children without a mother worth keeping the pregnancy and her and the baby dying?  I think there are some instances where people could be more altruistic but get put in such difficult situations that the selfishness comes through.

Hello, everyone,

I found this previous section to be rather thought provoking in many ways. The questions I chose were as followed, and I will discuss all of the answers in the paragraph that subsequently follows:

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

I think it is important to be a good person, as well as performing acts of good as well.

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 do matter for their own sake. The majority of ecosystems i.e. rainforests, oceans, have been around longer than humans have been, and have spawned lifeforms that eventually evolved into humans.

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

This is a tricky question, of which my answer is the same to an extent. We are all the same, species wise that is.

I think it is very important to be a good person, but to also carry out acts of good deeds. Preaching the welfare of who you are is one thing, if you will, but helping people who are in need, whether it be on an assignment, holding the door for someone carry a bunch of books, or walking someone home at night, the actions help define who you are as a whole. Having good intentions does not always pay off in the appropriate direction, as doing what is right sometimes is not always easy. Segueing into ecosystems, I feel strongly that ecosystems matter for their own sake. Here is why. The majority of ecosystems, whether they be at a macro scale or micro scale, have helped result in a quasi-sustainable way of life for our species, and others, for tens/hundreds of thousands of years. Think about it: If we were to, say, harm a particular plant species or a water supply (Flint, Michigan, for example, is a micro scale phenomenon as it covers an entire city population), that would exponentially result in detrimental loss for humans. These days when technological advances are high, I feel sometimes the fragility of our ecosystems are undermined. Is my own life worth more than the lives of other? We are all the same. We breathe the same air, we venture and seek out the commodities of life that make living comfortable and our careers succeed. Can I help sustain other peoples lives so they can live longer? Not directly, but indirectly, I think it is possible. Studying meteorology, I have grown very fond of understanding how phenomena in the atmosphere functions. If I can understand and predict say, what causes large tornadoes to form during potent storm systems, then hopefully we can get the necessary information out for people in a large geospatial area to seek the appropriate shelter and/or plan for hazardous weather further in advance. That, in turn, can save lives in a non-direct, altruistic way. You cannot put a price on that.

Cheers, everyone,

Harrison Sincavage

Starting with question six (“Is my own life worth more than the lives of others, the same, or less?) I would have to say that my life is no better then anybody else’s. I’m honestly not sure how some people would think that their life is worth more then the person sitting net to them. I would say that my life is worth the same as everyone else’s. Yes, everybody’s experiences are different day-to-day but that doesn’t mean their life is worth more. Throughout your lifetime you will experience most, if not all in some cases, the same things as other people. They could be your neighbors or they could be somebody who lives across the world from you. I am one hundred percent taking the altruistic stance on this question. I have always been, and always will be somebody who cares more about the well being of others then making sure I am okay. Everybody has people who love them, family, friends… a support system. It might look different then my own but that doesn’t mean mine is any better then theirs and vice versa. There is also no way to actually measure how much a life is worth so people shouldn’t try to judge others based on how much more their life is worth versus someone else. I don’t think my answer would change in this situation. I could never bring myself to say that my life is better and worth more in any situation.

Going up the list to question three (“Does the process by which decisions are made matter more than the outcomes of these decisions?) it wouldn’t make sense, in my opinion, that the process of a decision would mean more then the outcome. The way I look at this, as long as you achieve the desired outcome of the situation it shouldn’t matter the steps it took you to get there. If the process takes ten steps or if it takes 2 steps, you the outcome is what you wanted or even better then you had anticipated then who cares how long it took to get there. The outcome of the decisions affects many more people then the process by which the decision was made. If the decision and the outcome of that decision doesn’t go as planned it would matter more then how you got to the unplanned decision. It would work the same way if the decision had a positive outcome. People might want to know how it happened so they could duplicate it but they would still care more about that outcome. As for this situation I think the only time my answer would change would be if the outcome of the decision was so great that we needed to know the steps it took to possibly change the world. Say there was a cure for cancer; we would need to know the steps to get there (even though the outcome would be life changing for many people) so we could continue to reproduce this cure.

For the last questions, question one (Is it more important to be a good person or to perform good acts?) I would say that it is more important to be a good person. Just because you perform good acts doesn’t mean that makes you a good person. You could put on a show for people you feel the need to impress but when you are around friends and family, even people you are close with, you could be a very different person. One who doesn’t care about being a good person but cares more about better their lives. Being a good person means that you not only care about the well being of yourself but you care about the well being of others. You are selfish and selfless. You care about the world around you, the community you live in and making sure you are contributing to the community in the most positive way you can. I don’t think my decision would change on this issue because just because you perform a good act doesn’t prove anything. Performing these acts could just be for your own personal gain and it could have nothing to do with ultimately being a good person.

1. On Virtue and Action:

Virtue and action are not mutually exclusive. It is the consequence of action that forms virtue, and virtue that influences action. Which of these is more important? The is a matter of perspective. For example, a politician places a high value on human survival to gain the trust and votes of the constituency, yet, when elected, authorizes toxic waste to be dumped in to the water supply of one of the constituent communities. By this example, it is easy to say that action and virtue should be a pure reflection of one another. Yet consider another similar example: a community of human beings claims to be sustainable but sacrifices wood from a forest to keep their homes warm enough to survive a harsh winter. In both of these examples, the reflection between action and virtue is blurred, yet the community of humans must burn a certain amount of a limited resource to survive. From an antrhopocentric perspective their end may ethically justify the means, even though, from an ecocentric perspective the forest will dwindle year to year until it and the non-human life it also sustains is gone. In my opinion, the line between anthropocentric and ecocentric must maintain a balance that allows the biomes of humans and non-humans to coexist.

5) On Speciesism:

Sentience, some will say, is the right by which humans may be at the top of the priority list that concerns conservation of species. We are smart creatures, but we are also selfish. To say that humans are more important than non-humans is elitist, and does not factor in the pain non-humans may be exposed to by our anthropocentric actions. However, to say that humans have a responsibility as sentient beings to avoid invasive actions on non-human life is closer to what I believe to be the truth. This responsibility should factor in to our procedural justice, and combine with our ability to foresee possible consequences for both humans and non-humans. Our sentience allows us to do this, and the exercise of generating questions about possible consequences is easier than answering those questions. For example, in the case of wood-burning to survive winter: How much wood is the ethical amount? Should the community re-plant trees elsewhere in the forest to re-balance the ecosystem? Are there any alternative methods of keeping warm that should be explored? This final question brings an interesting phrase, ‘alternative methods.’ If a method is deemed unethical, if the community democratically agrees wood-burning is a violation of its collective ecocentric system of virtues, it is the responsibility of the community to either research and implement alternative methods of surviving the cold, or adopt an anthropocentric system of virtues to survive

2&3) On Procedural Justice and Sustainable Decision Making:

Americans are democratic by nature, and democracy is a collaborative process of decision making. Yet because we are sentient, it is on our part to speak for non-sentient species as well as our future generations when deliberating amonsgt ourselves. There can be no sustainable lifestyle between humans and the environment if humans fail to account for possible impact of human action on non-human elements of Earth. If we are to be true to our American democratic nature, then humans must learn to speak for non-humans in our procedural justice process. Our virtues must weigh both anthropocentric and ecocentric viewpoints that our actions to an end will not be brought into ethical question.

1. Virtue ethics vs. action ethics doesn’t pose a serious issue in our daily lives. However, it may bring heated arguments those who believe in their respective beliefs. Lets suppose person A, CEO of company, and person B, a cashier, believes in virtue ethics and actions ethics, respectively. Recently, person A in a news interview says that we should donate to the poor. But ever since the interview, person A has never donated a single cent to charity or to the poor. In most cases, when a third person observes the actions of A, it can be concluded that person A’s words does not have genuine meaning. While person B, never has told to his friends or family that he believes people should donate to the poor has consistently donated 10% of his income to charity. In this case, although person B never tells anyone of his belief, he is directly impacting the poor while person A is not. From this scenario we can conclude that action ethic has more value than virtue ethic. I believe that it is far more valuable to directly impact someone’s life instead of just saying the words.

4. I believe that the ecosystem is here for the sake of humans. If anyone looks to                    history of any country, there aren’t any cases in which the ecosystem built itself to              its current state of the country. Any buildings, technologies, educations and                        governments were’t built from animals such as dogs, cats or cows nor trees, fungus          or plants.  Some may argue that the ecosystem is there for its own sake however,              by having an ecosystem is a great significance to the human society. The                            ecosystem is present so that humans can use the resources that the ecosystem                provides for us. The ecosystem provides humans foods, clothing and houses. It may          hurt some peoples moral beliefs that killing animals and plants so that humans can              have source of food, But if we were to believe that the ecosystem is there for its own          sake, it would be hard for humans to live as we would have to turn into cannibals. I              think that most people would believe that being a cannibal is much worse than eating          what the ecosystem provides.

6. In a moralistic point of view, my life, in fact any persons lives are the same.                          However, we can make certain circumstances in this question of is my life more                valuable than others. If we exclude any moralistic point of view in this argument,                  many can argue that some peoples lives are more important than other people. In the          instances of CEO of big companies and research professors, they contribute to the            society more than I can in the current state. What they contribute in daily lives most            likely impact someones life directly in a much greater impact than I can ever do,                  whether that is by money or education. We can use this argument for anyone. In the          instance of me, I can value my life more than others. I believe that the researches              that I am doing is impacting to the current society more than a high school student              can. I am not saying that the high school student life is invaluable but circumstances          make it that way. That high school student may or may not contribute to the society            more than I can in the future. But in its current state, I can do much more than certain          people. I think that everyone to certain extent has this belief because of wages that            people get paid with certain jobs. Everyone agrees that doctors get paid more than              cashiers. This is because we value the skills that doctors have in comparison with a          cashier.

1.) Is it more important to be a good person or to perform good acts (virtue ethics vs. action ethics)? This question made me think a lot because I personally think that in order for one to be a good person they must have role model characteristics to make them a great person. Although in my opinion, I have always believed that it is more important to be a good person, than to be someone who performs good acts. My reasoning behind my opinion is that anyone can perform a good deed, but it is hard to find a good individual. Another thing is most good people always perform acts of kindness because they mean it. I’d prefer someone who is sincere about doing something over someone who does it to do a good deed. In my personal view, I believe I am a good person because of my actions and the way I always try to reach out and do more for those that need the help. Your actions are never always seen, but first impressions are always important and if someone sees that you are a good person then it’ll take you further in life.

3.) Does the process by which decisions are made matter more than the outcomes of these decisions (procedural justice vs. distributive justice)? I felt as if this question made me think of where I would fall. I personally think that I fall in between, but tend to lean more towards decisions matter more when you think them through. The reason is that I have always been the kind to think ahead, although there have been times where I have acted without thinking. I know that even when you plan ahead sometimes the outcomes are not as you planned them out to be. I think that as much as one sits there on planning ahead rather the decisions is right or wrong, one can never really predict the outcome. I will have to say that it is better to think to thank to act without thinking because depending on whatever the case may be there could be consequences that could be prevented.

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 valuable because you only get to live once, but I think that my life is the same as others. The reason why that is is everyone decides what to do with their life, so what someone makes out of it is on them. My parents have always told me, “treat others how you would like to be treated”, which has made me think that everyone is the same just with different ways of living. No matter what anyone says every life is valuable no matter where you come from or what your past may be. I have always believed that the more you do by heart the more that you will get out of life. In which, I have to say it has got me further in life and has made me the individual I am.

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

I think that it is more important to perform good acts. Both the ability of performing good acts and being an inherently good person are connected though. However, if a decision must be made, I think it is more important act ethically. I hold this view because the question of what we should do seems to have a greater direct impact on the betterment of society as a whole. While being a good person and practicing virtue ethics will ultimately lead to the population performing a greater amount of ethical actions, if all effort is spent merely discussing what we should be, the practical applications seem to be lost initially. The example that comes to mind is a bureaucracy of some sort that is unable to preform even the simplest of actions due to time spent discussing what should be done. Due to this, I think it is better to preform ethical actions instead of discussing them.

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

I firmly believe that the process in which decisions are made outweighs the overall outcome of the decision. I think this because the procedure in which we make a decision can be repeated in order to produce the same results. Having a set of clearly outlined processes seems like it would ensure that better outcomes are more frequent. When contrasting procedural justice with distributive justice, one question above others presents itself repeatedly “If the outcome is good or bad, how did it occur?”. Obviously, if the outcome is good people will be less likely to care about how it was reached. However, when an outcome is negative we often wonder what led to it. The most prevalent example would be any type disaster, whether it is a terrorist attack or ecological disaster. The first question posed in either of those situations is most likely “How did this happed?”. Due to this, I think that understanding the process which led to an outcome matters more.

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

I think that the pleasure and pain of human is more important than animals. While I do believe that the suffering of animals matters to an extent, it does not outweigh that of humans. This was a question that presented itself earlier in my life when I asked myself if eating meat was ethical. I was concerned because I had never fully investigated the depths of this question. After watching a few debates and documentaries dedicated to exposing the cruelties that exist in our culture as they relate to animals, I was shocked to say the least. However, seeing the gruesome process of how the meat supply is met within the U.S. did little to curb my feelings on the matter. I understand that animals feel and suffer greatly but ultimately I believe they are food. Similar to how this valuation is different in other cultures, it is the same with me. It is not uncommon to serve horsemeat in certain areas while in others eating beef is looked down upon. While I have no problem eating beef, I have had pet rabbits before and would never eat one.

Question 1: I think it is more important to perform good acts than it is to be a good person. I feel this way because actions can have a significant impact on the world, whereas values and beliefs without action may not make much of a difference. For example, being a good person may mean you do not support animal testing for cosmetics and other beauty products. However, in order to create a real change in the situation, one must take action and do something, perhaps a protest or petitioning, that can lead to a positive outcome. Being a good person may make a difference in the long run, but actions stir up change quicker. Although it may be argued that people who perform good acts may not have the right intentions, their actions will most likely have a positive impact on others, indirectly making them a good person. Therefore, one who performs good acts can qualify as a good person. One who qualifies as a good person, doesn’t always perform good acts.

Question 5: I believe that the pleasure and pain of non-human animals does not matter as much as the pleasure and pain of humans. Although it pains me to take this stance as an animal lover, I see the value of human life and intelligence as more important. As I reflect on this further, I question whether I feel this way because humans directly impact me more in my day to day life and I do not always see the effects non-human animals have on my life. This may lead me to believe human life is more important. However, if I were to focus just on the pain of non-human animals, I see that as possibly just as important as the pain of a human. I feel this way because non-human animals provide us with food and clothing, without which, survival would become difficult. We need to make sure there are healthy non-human animals so that we can live a pleasurable life. This is a very difficult question to answer because in some situations, such as human survival, non-human animals pleasure and pain is just as important.

Question 6: I think my own life is worth the same as the lives of others. Each individual adds to the society in which we live and has value. However, it can be argued that some individuals do not contribute to the betterment of society (i.e. criminals) and their lives are not worth as much as those who do. While I understand this argument, I feel that who we become is a matter of choices we make along the road. One is not born a criminal with a life of lesser value, but falls into that path based on previous choices made in life. However, when looking at the big picture, I think it is very important to keep in mind that if one person is hurting others in society, something needs to be done to help that individual and prevent them from hurting more people. For example, if a man or woman murders many other men and women, there should be some kind of intervention. Again, this question is difficult to answer because I believe all lives have equal value but there are circumstances in which my beliefs alter.

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

I believe that it is better to perform good acts than to be a good person. The consideration of this question was very extensive and difficult, but it eventually came down to one factor for me. I believe that the most important aspect of these two options is the ultimate effect it has on others. By performing a good act, one is directly affecting those around him in a positive manner. Additionally, this demonstration of a good act may be enough to motivate someone else to perform a similar good act later on. While I do believe that it is good to be a good person, it is possible for a good person to live their whole life without performing good acts. It is one thing to believe in and think the right thing, but it is another thing to practice it. Thus, I believe that it is more important to consistently perform good acts than it is to be a good person. Of course, in the consideration of this question, I quickly concluded that those who perform good acts must be inherently good. However, this is certainly not the case everywhere and those who perform good acts as a means to other less virtuous ends are not ethically grounded.

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 should be of equal importance with those of humans. While we humans do have the brainpower and motivation to use other animals to our advantage, I do not think that we fully understand the effects of these actions. The easiest way for humans to understand other humans is through the articulation of emotions and physical phenomena. When a human is experiencing pleasure or pain, they can articulate that feeling with language. Non-human animals are unable to articulate their sensations, and can only do so with noises and body language. This inability to communicate, as well as the general inability to escape or fight back causes me to pity animals. Just because another organism cannot communicate on our level or think at the same capacity, does not mean that they deserve, or should be subjected to, worse treatment. Killing animals for food is a situation in which I can bypass my ethical grounds on animal treatment, but only to an extent. Ideally, I would have livestock in comfortable living quarters for the majority of their lives, until the time to harvest them comes which is when we should issues a swift and painless death.

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

My life is worth more, to me, than the lives of others. It was difficult to write that, almost as difficult as it was to come to that conclusion. Throughout my childhood, my parents and teachers constantly reiterated the importance of being a selfless, compassionate person. I have built upon these basic guidelines and have tried my best to live accordingly. However, when it comes down to decisions that are as serious as determining the worth of a life, dissonance quickly takes hold. I would love to write that other lives are more important and that I would gladly give up my own in order to save another. Yet when I truly consider it, I think of my life as being more important than those of the people around me. In the big picture, outside of my biased mind, I don’t think that my life is generally worth any more or less than anyone else. I believe that on the grand scale of things, each person contributes what they can to society and the world and that is enough.

1. Is it more important to be a good person or to perform good acts (virtue ethics vs. action ethics)?
   1. In my point of view, I think that it is more important to be a good person.  I think that in order to perform good acts, one must truly be a good person and understand the concept of virtue ethics.  Virtue ethics deals with what people should be, and action ethics deals with what should be done.  In order to make the world a better place, I believe that people should come to terms with what it means to be a good person in terms of giving back to the community, putting others before yourself, looking out for the environment, and more.  If the population of the world are able to become good people, then the world can move forward in performing good acts to create a better place.  All in all, I think that they pretty much go hand in hand but I think that in order to perform good acts one needs to truly be a good person first, so that aspect is more important.
2. 1. Does the process by which decisions are made matter more than the outcomes of these decisions (procedural justice vs. distributive justice)?
   2. I think that this is another question where one thing leads to the next, but I believe that the process by which decisions are made matter more than the outcomes.  Procedural justice deals with how the decisions are made, and distributive justice deals with the outcome.  I believe that the process of good decision making is a very important trait for our population to have, and if we were better at making decisions I think that the world would be in a better place.  Decisions are very important, and many people don’t realize the impact their decisions have.  I believe that if one takes the time to plan or think out a decision, then the right decision will be made, and inevitably have a good outcome.  For the reason that decision making comes before the outcome, I think that procedural justice is more important and should be taken more seriously.
3. 1. Is my own life worth more than the lives of others, the same, or less (selfishness vs. altruism)?
   2. This is a very difficult question to answer, because at times I think my answer could vary, but overall I believe that my life and the lives of others are worth the same.  Every person in the world, I feel for the most part has the same worth, and has the same potential in life, some people just chose to live up to the potential while others do not.  There are some times when I feel that my life is worth more, which is kind of a terrible thing to say.  I feel this way when comparing my life to someone that has executed negative actions and are in jail, or something of the sort.  There are other times, when I feel that others lives are worth more than my own.  For example, the life of an innocent child has so much living to do, versus me who is a little far along in my life and did some living.  As you can see, I kind of fight back and forth with myself on this question, but for the most part I believe that my own life is equivalent to others, and that we should all find a balance of being selfish, as well as being altruistic.

After much thought and consideration, the ecosystem is more than just how it impacts mankind, it should be protected and preserved for its sake.  The earth has been around for 4.5 billion years, while humankind has inhabited earth for only a few hundred thousand years.  This fact alone shows that the ecosystem has been around for a very long time before human beings and will be here much longer than we will be.  Therefore, we, like whom or whatever comes after us, inherited this world and it is our duty maintain it.  Additionally, we must consider all the millions of species of animals and plants that we share this ecosystem with.  Just in the last couple hundreds of years, plants and animals have suffered because of the damage we have done by polluting the earth.   Although, I’ve argued for ecocentric view, I believe that people should have an environmentally healthy combination of ecocentric and anthropocentric views.

Before reading this module, I thought that being a good person was basically synonymous with doing good acts.  Now, after reading this section and with more pondering on the subject, I believe that actually performing good acts is more important.  Whether you do good acts because you are a good and kind person or you have an ulterior motive, perhaps a selfish gain like, gaining popular public opinion, someone or something is benefiting from that good deed.  I believe that is the most important thing; as long as the act is a good one that betters the world, I am all for it.  Unfortunately, word “good” is vague and subjective enough that someone can see something to fit to their idea of good, yet be detrimental to many others.  An extreme but obvious example of this would be Adolf Hitler’s vision of a perfect race and nearly exterminating an entire ethnic group, in his mind was an act of good, yet was an act of genocide and was rightly stopped.

When it comes to life, I believe mine is worth the same as anyone else.  I feel this especially when it comes people being treated under the law.  But, I also believe in a societal view someone who is highly intelligent has the potential to solve many problems in the future for society.  Moreover, someone who excels in a certain trade or art form has more worth to people in society.  Both of these examples show how these peoples’ skills demonstrate how to society they may have a larger value, whether that be monetary or social.  I also feel that a murder, rapist, terrorist etc. are worth less as people strictly by the fact that they killed, severely harmed or traumatized other people.  The world we live in is not just black and white, there is a lot of grey area.  This question is an example of this blurry zone.

Question 1. My life is worth the same as any other person’s life. I say that to balance the scales. What decisions we make throughout our life can shift those scales in either direction. If someone were to threaten my or my family’s life they would, by action, shift the scales and put me into a situation where I had to defend myself and/or my family. In that situation my and my family’s life would be more important. In the military we swore an oath to protect America and her citizens, an oath that could cost us up to and including our own lives. We freely swore that oat and were/are willing to lay down our lives if need be. In this setting my life is worth less than others in the fact that I am willing to sacrifice it in order to save others.
Question 2. If a person is good they will inherently either perform good acts or at the very least not commit heinous acts. If a person is good and cares about the environment they will either do something with the specific intent to help make a change for the better, or at the very least NOT do something like litter because they are aware of the negative consequences.
Question 3. I believe the outcome of decision is more important than the process by which the decision is made. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor it was a terrible tragedy, but it was part of the process that lead the U.S. to going to war with them.