1. Do the ends justify the means (ends ethics vs. means ethics)?
   – Justifying the importance of ‘process’ and ‘consequence’ is rather a fairly complex question. As the class text poses, ‘is it fundamentally wrong to ever perform the action of chopping down a tree, or is it acceptable to chop down trees when the consequences of chopping the tree down are good enough?’¹ There is an interconnected relationship going on here. Sometimes the process itself functions as the consequence of another process. For example, the process of cutting down a tree is the consequence of a work plan and workers’ effort. While cutting down a tree is in a process of managing forest. Managing a forest is also the consequence of the goal of helping the environment. Shifting to cleaner fuel is also the process of achieving cleaner air. However, we can also achieve this by innovating more efficient engines. Consequence is definitely crucial, as well as the process. Many people believe that ’means’ justify ‘ends’ with the example of mountain climbing. The view along the way is more important than getting to the mountain summit. Without the process, there is no way to have a consequence, whether it’s good or not. In order to achieve living sustainably, we need to pay close attention to what steps and actions we take.Reference: Text, Basic Ethics Concepts, Module 3
2. Is it more important to be a good person or to perform good acts (virtue ethics vs. action ethics)?Performing good acts doesn’t necessary suggest that one is a good person, while a good person would perform good acts. A civil official works hard to pass legislations that benefit people and regularly visit and help those in need. But on the other hand this officer also receive the bribery and being corrupted. So being a good person and performing good acts are two different sides. It is very vague to categorize a person to be a good person, as he/she may be good in certain characteristics or aspects. In order to become a good person, performing good acts is certain. In China, many people eat dog meat while there is also a large number of groups of those who advocate and take actions to protect dogs. They are good people when they are protecting the animals. However, they also take some violent actions to protect dogs from being slaughtered. There are always conflicts and clash between dog protectors and dog meat merchandise. Performing good acts indeed have a good intention and beneficial consequences. However, the process of performing such good acts may have negative effects. It is very one-sided when we simply judging by whether a person is good or bad or performing an act. However, we could come up with the decision if we could value these by comparing the benefits and costs like we do in economics.
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)?
   – Even though ecosystems matter for their own sake, they are more beneficial when they help human. Through education and daily life we develop a sense of civic, which we are kind to the environment. We are taught to protect environment. We are taught not to litter. We are taught to not abuse animals. However, these are very pale arguments when we are considering questions like to live a better life or not. Indeed, ecosystem very important and they exist for their own sake. However, no one could deny that one function of the ecosystem is to provide people with sufficient resources, food, and nutrition. We need meat to gain certain vitamin and protein. We need vegetables and fruits to obtain multiple vitamins and stay healthy. Without utilizing the nature, human would not evolve to the condition nowadays. Civicly speaking, ecosystems enjoy the same rights as we do. Economically speaking, human’s supply and demand base on the ecosystem.

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

Personally, I struggled with this question at first, only because with my personal experience, I see these two go hand in hand. I truly believe in order to for you to be considered a good person, you have to possess a level of selflessness by performing good acts. I see the good acts as validation for yourself that you are doing the “right” thing, contributing positively to the greater good, which in turn makes you a good person. Performing good acts makes you feel positively, and seeing that you are actually serving as a type of aid for a particular community shows that you are in turn, a good person. Selfless acts help you put an action to a description of characteristics which make up “good” people. In our society, I think that the general norm would be to give back when you can, as it is associated with positive moral values.

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

I believe that the pleasure and pain on non-human animals matter as much as the pleasure and pain of humans, but that does not mean that this statement holds true for society as a whole. For example, there are animal rights activists and anti-mammal hunting organizations which sole mission is to stop hunting/malpractice. Though I am not a member of organizations like P.E.T.A, I am strongly against the maltreatment and slaughter of animals and wildlife. I don’t personally own any fur jackets, but I do wear Ugg boots, which contain sheepskin. If I were to investigate organizations more, and took a closer look at labels, I’m sure I would notice that finding materials that have not been tested on or made out of some sort of animal parts would be quite difficult. I admire those who go to great lengths and become vegan, but I do not have the will power. I love bacon too much.

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

Again, this question is really hard to answer. I think that my life is just as important as anyone else’s, no more, no less. However, in a particular circumstance, I know that those feelings can change. The most obvious example for me would be my life against a family member’s. I can’t say that I would see my life as more important. In fact, I would see my life as being less important, because I would be willing to sacrifice my life for someone else’s in my family. Additionally, if my life were being threatened, I would definitely defend myself to the best of my ability. For me, it is all circumstantial. I will treat any other person with respect in general, and I see them as my equal.

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

I have always believed that it is more important to perform good acts instead of just being a good person. I have always believed in the phrase that “Actions speak louder than words”. This phrase explains that actions are the most powerful thing in the world. I think people will always say that they are a good person or that they wanted to do the right thing, but it doesn’t always happen. I think this is the reason why actions are so much more important. I also believe that a truly good person will perform good acts. This topic reminds me of a quote from one of the batman movies, “It’s not who you are underneath, but what you do that defines”. Although this quote is from a superhero movie, I think it is an excellent example on this topic. This quote shows that at the end of the day it’s the actions that we perform that define us. It is for these reasons that I think it is more important to perform good acts and I cannot think of any circumstances where this would change.

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

I believe that the ends do justify the means. The reasoning behind this decision is that most of the times the pros (the ends) and cons (the means) of a decision are weighed out before the decision is actually made. An example of this can be shown in the food industries. The ends of this industry is to supply food for thousands of different people across the world. This is obviously a very important task for human life and survival. However, the means can show plenty of ethically wrong decisions. There are videos of animal cruelty to chickens in some poultry factories. These videos are still something many people are willing to look past because the importance of putting food onto the table outweigh the cruelty in these factories. The other side of this decision is that when the ends do not justify the means the decision is usually not made. For example, population control may help the environment in areas such as overpopulation and pollution. However, there has never been a decision made to limit the population in the U.S., because it has been decided that the ends do not justify the means in this circumstance.

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

I believe that the process by which decisions are made matter more than the outcomes of these decisions. The reason that I believe procedural justice is more important is because the future is unknown. Some decisions have all of the right intentions, but it does not always go according to the plan. One example of this could be considered communism. Communism was created with the intentions of spreading the wealth of a country, so that everyone could enjoy life and live together. However, the actual outcome of this system was totally different. I am not saying that communism is the right decision, but Karl Marx, the creator communism, came up with the idea with good intentions. He wanted to help countries, but he did not account for the greed in some people. Another reason for which the process is more important than the outcomes is because humans have always learned from their mistakes. The failures like communism in Russia have allowed humans to learn from the mistake, so that we do not make the same mistake in the future. These failures allow us to learn from and change the decision making process to avoid negative outcomes in the future.

It is more important to perform good acts then it is to be a good person. I believe this because if any good act is done, then someone or something will benefit. If you are just a good person and do nothing or make no actions to show that you are a good person then no one benefits. Often times it is good people who are performing the good acts, so these two things typically go together. However, even if a “bad person” does a good deed, someone will still benefit from it. For example, say a millionaire donates money to a charity, however the only reason he does this is so boost his own reputation and he does not care about the charity at all. He should care about where his money is going and who he is helping but he doesn’t. So in this case the millionaire is not really a good person, but his good act still benefits people in need. That is why it is more important to do good acts then it is to be a good person. No one is affected by his thoughts, but they are affected by his actions.

At first I thought I believed that my life was worth the same as everyone else’s. But after thinking about it I realized that I think my life is more valuable then other people. This question was difficult because I did not think of myself as a selfish person, but then when I thought about it I realized I don’t really do a lot to help others. I’ll help my friends and family when they need me, but I rarely help strangers, and that makes me selfish. I put my own feelings and preferences above others, which means I believe my life is worth more and more important. I am aware that I have done nothing to earn or deserve this feeling of empowerment but it is just how I think. I usually make sure that I am happy or comfortable before I go and try to help other people. I think most people think in a similar way that I do, but not everyone views it as being selfish. I didn’t see it as being selfish either until really thinking about it. No one wants to call him or herself selfish, but most of us are.

I do not think the pleasure and pain of non-human animals are as important as the pleasure and pain of humans. I think this way because it goes back to the answer to the previous question that says myself, and most humans, are selfish. We value ourselves more then any of the other species that we share the Earth with. I think that humans do take advantage of the other species, more so then we need to or should, however I am still more concerned about the well being of humans then any other species. I believe that we need to protect non-human animals, but mainly so humans can survive longer because we are reliant on many of the animals that are around us. If all of the other species and non-human animals die, then we will also die. I care about non-human animals, however if I have to choose I will make sure that a human has less pain then a non-human animal.

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

As a person that frequently gets involved with discussions regarding a wide variety of topics in philosophy, this is something that I have often thought about. In my conclusions I have come to understand that the means of getting a goal ultimately determine how successful the ends are. Take for example the Soviet Union. The stalinist ideology works on the basis of the state being the most important thing in their society. When it came to scientific investigation, they often took shortcuts which caused a whole heap of troubles and deaths, but they did not matter because the state learned something. Their methodologies caused them to have a cruder space exploration mentality, it caused the Chernobyl disaster, and a lack of freedom for the individual. Though I have heard some good argumentation in favor of this sort of ideology, every time people put the ends over the means it creates unforeseen that could have been avoided by better planning.

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)?

As a technology major who cares about the environment, I often find myself stuck between the world of exploiting nature to benefit humans, but not wanting to abuse the world of its resources. It is quite the challenge to want technological progress to keep accelerating at the pace it is in without having a toll on our ecosystems. I honestly wouldn’t separate ecocentric ethics from anthropocentric ethics due to their inevitable intermingling. Excessive anthropocentricity will create a need to switch to ecocentric. In this case I would focus more on balancing these in a way we can sustain technological progress at a desirable pace, but considering the ecosystem as well. Until we can mine resources from asteroids, we are going to have to depend on the ecosystem to further human progress. Even cutting down trees in the middle of the Amazon affects humans be it in the slightest of ways, as deforestation is a contributor to the ever rising climate change, which impacts everyone worldwide.

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

I personally think we have no form of justification as to why humans should be considered superior life to any other without falling back to pro-slavery logic. But it is not as easy to dismiss such a complicated topic. Take for example what would one rather take action for, massive mistreatment of animal in slaughterhouses or have a group of people butchering other humans? I admit I would do more for humans than the animals. I eat meat, I am okay with animals being killed so I can cook up a hamburger. Should they torture those animals instead of simply killing them? No. Would knowing its been done and is happening motivate me to do anything about it? Not really. But at the same time I think of say if an advanced alien species that focused on enslaving “lower” lifeforms for their own benefit. Would these beings have the right to abuse of us simply because they are biologically “superior”? Of course not. The fact that we can make informed decisions is enough for me to decide against it. But then, what if they deem our wills not worthy? We fall into the same pattern. I say this even applies to say future autonomous androids we create. If something has the will to survive and decide its own fate, it deserves our respect no matter the origins. This is an incredibly complex philosophical question with no simple answer.

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

As a huge animal lover, this is a hard question for me to answer.  I run to the veterinarian if any of my animals do as much as cough, and yet I do not go to the doctor’s office unless a body part is in danger.  From a religious standpoint, one would say that no, non-human animals do not matter as much as humans since God made us in his image.  This thinking gives us some insight on the popular thought regarding this question – human pain and pleasure matters more than the pain and pleasure of humans.  I agree with this view but also side with Bentham’s writing, but would argue that it needs to come after human welfare.  As humanity develops, then the pain and pleasure of other species becomes more important.  I would expect the United States to have animal welfare laws, but I would not expect a nation that is unable to provide clean water to its people to require its animals to get clean water.  I cannot find any argument in which the life and well-being of a human is not important than one of an animal.

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

It is more important to perform good acts than merely being a good person.  While many actions begin because someone cares about them, it is not good enough to merely be.  If one looks at it in the reverse way, we only punish people for acting on bad thoughts, as it would be quite inhumane to punish people for merely wishing others ill will.  There is also the discussion that has to be had of nurture versus nature – people can be born not the best person and yet still commit good acts very much the same way an introvert can still go out to a social gathering.  People have more of a choice over their actions than their thoughts.  Additionally, action ethics can make a much larger difference than virtue ethics.  A person who cares about the environment yet lacks action does not do much for the topic that they are concerned with whereas one that donated money to an environmental association, despite not being very concerned about the environment, can actually make a difference.  For all of these reasons, it is much more important to perform good acts than to be a good person.

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

This is a very difficult question as one must consider the extremes – for example, should we prevent people from reproducing in order to lower population growth since the environmental benefits would be large?  Or should we go even further and kill people to fix the population problem?  Not only do these seem unthinkable but one also has to question who is making the decision that the means are correct.  After all, the Nazis believed they were improving humankind and therefore the end justified the means.  Therefore I believe that there is not an answer to this question.  In certain situations, such as chopping down a tree to save others as used in our reading, the ends do justify the means.  However, a line has to be drawn in the means that cannot be crossed.  Unfortunately that line also has to be fluid and taken into context in each situation.  Therefore, in many instances ends ethics are more important than means ethics but not in every instance.

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

Without a single doubt, I think it is more important to perform good acts rather than be a good person. Growing up with strict parents, I was raised to succeed with my own efforts. I could be an intelligent, kind girl, but how can I prove to others I was this type of person? This is why I believe in action ethics; it’s not about who you are, it’s all about what you do as an individual. In this case, what you do with your actions as an individual will show others the type of person you are, which is why I believe action ethics creates virtue ethics. For example, our current society today is highly competitive in regards to education. You need much more than a Bachelor’s degree for a job. So without a master’s degree, would you show up to a job interview and expect the interviewer to know you are an excellent worker even though you only have a Bachelor’s degree? Absolutely not, it’s all about action; striving for something not only because it’s something you want to do, but it will make you the person you want to be, the virtue. If you want to be something special in such a competitive world, you need to prove to yourself you are with much more than just assuming in your mind that you are. If you want to be the change you wish to see in the world, that takes action, and will then show you who you can be.

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

I believe that the decisions you make matter more than the outcomes of these decisions mainly because I believe in development. No one is perfect, and everyone makes bad decisions occasionally, but we can practice how we approach a situation. By practicing a positive decision-making process, we have the ability to grow and develop to brainstorm new ideas. However, I do believe the outcomes of these decisions is still important. Distributive justice gives us the ability to feel the outcome, to experience the consequence and have a sense of the pain we felt in this result. From this standpoint, we can learn how our decision-making choices brought us to this result, and what we can do to change for future decisions. Consequences are not something we want to experience, but I do believe that they are necessary to go through in life. We need to feel pain and not always have the outcome we want to have in order to learn and develop. We need to realize what decisions work, and what decisions don’t work. The ability to compare and contrast our ideas will not only lead to a positive practice of decision-making, but the ability to express our thoughts to others. We can learn from others, see benefits from the decisions they made, and even share with them our thoughts and help them improve from us. This process matters much more than the outcomes mainly because it gives us the ability to grow, develop, and learn in order to better ourselves.

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

This may come off selfish, but I do believe that my life is worth more than others, depending on what you do with it. I grew up with parents who taught me to help others, to constantly give helping hands to friends and show random acts of kindness. However, I was also taught a sense of selfishness here and there. From my standpoint, I do believe it is okay to be selfish. If we let people constantly walk all over us, how can we expect a happy life? Altruism is great in a sense of sacrificing for others, but we must remember we need to make sacrifices for ourselves. I am content with being selfish, such as not spending enough time with specific friends because I choose to go to the library and study. In the long run, I know that these choices will give me a great job, and I will be able to make a difference in the world. That’s why my life is worth more than specific others, because I strive to get a great job that will help others who chose to go out and party rather than staying in like I did and making the most of my life. Doctors have a life worth way more than a truck driver for example because the doctors chose to study for countless hours and be the caregiver for these truck drivers, for the ones who weren’t as motivated to make the most of their lives.

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

Overall ecosystems matter for their own sake, however, I think they are crucial when they start to impact humans. Basically, if the ecosystems are failing then society is also failing. I think the importance of ecosystems is underrated because a majority of humanity does not care to educate themselves about how significant it is towards their current lives and futures. However, if it is heard that lives are being affected due to poor conditions of the ecosystems, society will then start to worry. For example, global warming and pollution are all popular topics that concern society. However, I believe these specific topics are popular because they affect daily lives. For example global warming results in flooding or excessive snow which can prevent people from performing daily activities such as going to work therefore they care about the problem. Pollution is also another major topic that affects people because it puts their lives in danger by tampering the food people eat and the air people breathe. Ultimately, I personally think that ecosystems are important even when they are not affecting lives, however I believe society as a whole disagrees.

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

I am skeptical when it comes to the pain of non-human animals versus the pain of humans. I definitely think that the pain of non-human animals is important, however, I think the pain of humans is viewed as more important by society. I say this because humans can relate to humans more than humans can relate to animals. Although this is not true for all of society, I believe it is true for a majority. For example, animals are used to fulfill our daily needs such as food and clothing. We humans do not think twice when it comes to buying meat for dinner or buying a fur coat for the winter. This proves non-human animals pain is not that important to us. Another example to explain my theory is say a news broadcast shows live footage of a human being harmed, and then shows a live footage of an animal being harmed. I personally think people would be more concerned with the harmed human rather than the harmed animal because we can relate to their pain or imagine the pain they are in.

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

In my opinion whether to think my life is worth more, worth less, or worth the same amount than others’ lives depends on what kind of person I am being compared to. I do think my life is extremely important. I say this because I have family and friends who affect my life and I also affect their lives. In a case where I would think my life is worth more than another person’s life would be if this person has no morals or righteousness. For a more specific example, if this person committed crimes and is unjust, I would definitely think my life is more important because compared to this person I contribute better things to society and I am a better person in society. In a case where I think my life would be worth less than another person’s life would be if I were to be unhappy with myself and not fully enjoying my life, whereas, the other person would be completely content and satisfied with their life. Lastly, to say my life is worth the same as another person’s life would be in a circumstance where we have similar lifestyles. For example, if we both are pleased with the lives we live regarding family, friends, and living conditions, I would assume the lives we live have the same value.

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

              To me I think it’s important to have both. You can be a good person, where you don’t cause harm to other individuals in terms of physical or emotional stress. You can also be a good person by having ideas where you could benefit another person’s well-being or emotional state.  Then again you can perform good acts by taking the next step; for example taking the extra time to recycle or helping out a less fortunate individual by supplying them with food or warm clothing.  To me personally I believe it’s most important to be a good person all the while performing good acts.  It’s one thing to agree with ideas like community service and then another thing to perform community service.  To me community service is just one outlet where a good person can go to perform good acts.

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

              To be able to answer this question, I first must explain my background.  My whole developing life I have lived on a 560 acre Beef farm in Wellsboro, PA.  I’ve grown up around animals, taking care of them daily knowing they are only headed for the butcher shop.  I understand that farming is a business and we have a business like relationship with our beef cattle.  Their safety and well-being is paramount, because a farm doesn’t make it into its fourth generation without taking care of its animals.  Now there is a mentality I think old time farmers have. (This particular example is related to horses.)  If a horse breaks an ankle, or becomes lame somehow, the farmer no longer can use this animal, nor do they have the finances to have an expert fix the ankle, coupled with rehabilitation it could be months before this animal is ready to walk let alone work again.  The old way has always been tough love, meaning it’s time to find a replacement in that situation.  But now that I am older and have a young horse of my own, who I have bonded with significantly I cannot say I can do the same thing my father has done.  I understand this horses fear, and pain.  I know it has a long life ahead of it regardless if the animal was hurt or not, it deserves that much.  So I do agree with the question non-human animal’s pain and pleasure do matter as much.  But farming is a business so if these animals are putting you in a situation where you can no longer afford the cost the old way takes over. 

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

              I have thought of this question many times before this class.  I have run scenarios in my head about this question.  In certain situations my life or the lives of my loved ones for sure are more important than the lives of others.  If someone is threating the lives of my family, this strangers’ life becomes forfeit because they made the choice to attack my family.  Now it’s hard to say what I would do alone and witnessing someone else having a life threating moment.  I want to say I would do the right thing and help this person because their life is significant, but when you actually find yourself in that situation you could have a change of heart. The fight or flight response takes over from there.   Most people would say they would help the stranger if they felt their own safety would stay rather intact, basically wasn’t life threating to them.  But being able to put your own life for the life of another is extremely rare and takes a very courageous and selfless person.  I have the utmost respect for our service men and women around this globe. 

Response to Question 4:

Ecosystems matter for their own sake. I personally believe that the ecosystem and human life are equally as important. But, with saying that, I also feel that without the ecosystem helping humans survive on this earth we would be nothing without it. Which, in my opinion is the opposite of the ecosystems use is for us, it has survived without human beings before. The ecosystem has systematically worked side by side with the species and or humans that have lived on Earth. As we become more advanced and we use natural resources to our benefit we are no longer working with the ecosystem but we are working against it. Before we decide to cut down trees etc for our benefit we should stop and ask, what it will benefit us in the future if we kill off everything thriving in that forest. What will the impact on human life be, once we kill off species or organisms that have only helped us thrive on this earth?

Response to Question 6:

I do not think my own life worth is more important than others. As far as selfishness goes, I think a little selfishness in each person is ok and natural. I have my selfish moments at times and I am ok with that. One example. I make my daughter go to bed at a specific time so I can be selfish and enjoy some “me” time before I go to bed.  When someone is altruism they are thinking of others over themselves. I think that everyone should have altruism concepts in their day to day life too. We all should be a little less selfish and more giving and understanding towards others. This question of worth and if I am more worthy than another person is not the way people should think towards man-kind. It creates a dislike towards others when you think you’re better than someone else. If you’re more willing to give to others than yourself and you are doing it for the greater good I think that is wonderful. However I don’t think majority of the population could do that without be selfish. People help people to make themselves feel good, which is a bit selfish considering you are also doing it for yourself. Overall I don’t think majority of the population could carry altruism concepts to the highest degree without thinking of themselves in a way.  I try to treat everyone equally and teach my daughter the same concepts.

Response to Question 5:

The pain and pleasure of non-human animal’s matters as much as it does for humans but this statement has several ways to look at it. I believe that non-human animals should be treated with as much respect as we would treat each other. In one way or another non-human animals can feel pleasure and pain. After reading module three and understanding that one could also think that if we should treat every human and non-human equally then it wouldn’t be fair to kill and eat these non-human animals. I think that we as humans need to all understand that non-human animals can feel pain and pleasure as we do but they do not have the luxury of being able to tell us all about it. I think selfishness comes into this question too. If one would believe that non-human animal’s pain does not exist and does not need to be considered or respected then I think selfishness for mankind is being portrayed as well.

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

I think it’s more important to be a good person. I think being a good person is more important than performing good acts because anybody can perform a good act, that doesn’t always necessarily mean there’s good intentions behind that action. For example: Im not very big on politics but recently Donald Trump boycotted the Republican debate and instead held a conference where he would would speak and show recognition to veterans. There was a lot of criticism behind this because it was said Trump had made previous statements showing his lack of care or interest for Veterans. So to tie that scenario into ethics, Trump holding this conference is indeed a good act..but that doesn’t mean there’s good intentions behind that act; as it was probably strictly for publicity reasons. If you’re a good person, majority of the time your intentions are good as well.

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

Absolutely. There are many species on this planet, humans being just one of the many. So who are we, as humans, to declare superiority? I think this belief that humans are a superior species compared to non-human animals, comes from the fact that we’re so advanced in certain aspects of life. When it comes to technology, medicine and modern day life in general, theres no other species out there living like humans are. While this is true, I think humans tend to forget where we originated from; back to the cavemen era. We weren’t always this advanced in life. Just as us humans see ourselves as the important species, I’m sure there are non-human animals who think the same of their species, how would we know? The only circumstance in which my ethic outlook would change on this topic is when it comes to food. I myself am not a die hard vegetarian but I can go without meat, no problem. Although some people choose to go without ingesting any type of animal, meat is considered an important part of a humans diet. Even with that, I still think non-human animals and humans matter equally, it’s just due to the food chain, some non-humananimals are needed for our survival just like some non-human animals are needed for another non-human animals survival.

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

I believe my life is worth the same as the lives of others. I’m the type of person to always put peoples needs before mine..but to an extent. I wouldn’t put somebodies needs way above mine to the point where I’d be hurting my well-being. I believe that everyone was put on this earth to help someone or something in some way. Some people find their purpose and some people unfortunately don’t but I still believe everyones worth is equal to one another’s. I guess the word ‘worth’ could represent a number of things but when I think worth I think importance. There’s never been a time in my life where I was in a position where I’ve personally felt my worth was more than somebody else’s. I think when it comes to worth, us a humans tend to let other individuals try to determine our worth. We let other individuals make us feel less worthy or in some cases, more worthy than another individual.

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

In my opinion, I believe it is more important to be a good person rather than just someone who does good deeds. I think that the best example in today’s world is in politics. If a politician promises people everything and tells them what they want to hear, does that make them a good person or someone doing good deeds? Would you rather elect a person who does good deeds by promising you something that may not be followed through or the person who knows he can’t promise the world but is the genuinely better person? This does not mean that someone can’t be both a good person who does good deeds. The article refers to the example that most people who care about the environment are usually the ones who take action and vice versa. I believe this can also be true for the politicians as well, but when it comes to the question of which it is better to be, I would say that it is better to be a good person.

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

I would have to say that the ends do not always justify the means. The ends are how you get to the means, which is the final result. I would say that most ends do not justify the means unless there is a life or death scenario. When you are learning something new or are in school, is it the final result that matters more than the path of learning? If the ends justified the means in this situation, then it would not matter how much you learned during school, but rather whether or not you completed it. As for the trees in the forest, I would say that the ends do justify the means. If it is a life or death situation like forest fires, then the end result of saving lives would justify the cutting of trees, even if it does not seem ethical to cut down hundreds of trees.

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

The question of whether my own life is worth more than others makes you really think about your own life. In my opinion, I would have to say that my life is equal to those who choose the right path in life. What I mean about that is everyone is given the same opportunity in life when you are born. Everyone has the choice to be a good person or to be a criminal. I would compare my life to normal everyday people of society and say that our lives are equal. When it comes to people that commit crimes or are genuinely awful to other members of society, then I would say that my life is worth more than theirs. It sounds awful to say that and it is, but I feel that if you choose to throw your life away or be an awful person, then I can’t allow myself to say that our lives are equal.

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

Based on the question “Do the ends justify the means”, I would have to say that the ends do not always justify the means.  I believe that the means are more important than the ends in many cases.  I would even go as far to say that the process of reaching the end is more important than the actual goal or end itself.  For example, when one receives their college degree, it is not the actual degree that matters, but it is the journey that they took to reach that degree.  When someone cuts down a tree, there are several factors that people ignore.  Trees not only capture CO₂ from the air to make oxygen, but they provide homes for various insects and animals as well as food for organisms.  But, once you cut it down, it can only be sued as a wood or paper product once.  There are cases in which the ends are necessary, but in many situations it matters greatly on the path to that end.  In very serious cases, such as life or death, the end definitely does outweigh the means.  But, in most everyday cases, it is the path to the end that matters.  Experience, such as in a job or school, comes from the means of being in school and learning.  While the end goal is what you strive for, getting there, through the friends and knowledge you gain, is just as important.  Burning bridges just to reach your own personal goal is not benefiting yourself.

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

I believe that ecosystems matter for their own sake, and that humans should do their best to maintain those ecosystems.  This favors the ecocentric way of thinking.  For me, the idea that “Just because you can does not mean you should” stands strong with this question.  While humans possess the ability to dramatically change the ecosystems around them, as seen through places like New York City or even your local town ,that does not always mean that they should.  Many of the animals that lived in those ecosystems originally are now displaced or have died because their homes have been destroyed.  We can carve earth and water like no other force on the planet.  But, sometimes it is too much.  I understand that humans require many materials and natural resources because we as a modern society are always advancing, but this means that our inhabitance with the ecosystems around us should also.  If we as a species were to treat ecosystems as only places of resources, then we would deplete the Earth very quickly until it was irreversible.  There is a balance that must be reached with ecosystems that we as a society have deviated from in past years.  The longer we maintain ecosystems around us at peak levels, the longer we will be able to benefit from them.  Cutting down a forest all at once will make many houses indeed, but then there are no more trees,  Instead, cutting a few down at a time and then planting more will give us trees for many other houses.

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

Based off Question 6, I would say that my life is worth the same as others.  This side more with the altruism side of the question.  As members of the same species as well as a global society, it is difficult to say that anyone is worth more than anyone else.  We all have something unique in ourselves that no one else does.  Whether that be a love for mathematics or the ability to speak multiple languages, everyone is different.  I think that every individual, regardless of situation or past, has potential.  In my eyes, there is always a chance to be great, no matter where you came from or what you have done. The world is based off of small accomplishments that have made big impacts.  The next great physicist or artist can come from anywhere.  It might be me, you, or the person next-door to you.  As a result, I find it impossible to say that I am worth more than someone else, and vice versa.  I would have to say though with the topic of potential, that in most cases, I would prioritize the young over the old or myself.  I feel that the young, not to say that the older do not, have a higher potential than those who have already existed.  When people say that the young is the future, I agree, because the next person to chance the world will most likely be one of the children.

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

This has always been a question I have wondered about. I would say that it is more important to be a good person than to perform good acts. Let’s say a politician donated ten thousand dollars to a charity, but only to get more people to vote for them, would that make them a good person? They performed a good act, however, what matters the most are the intentions or reasons behind the act. I think it is more important to be a good person because virtue ethics is what ultimately decides how you act. If you are a good person, you will most likely want to help others and therefore be motivated to donate money or be passionate about what interests you. Although performing good acts is taking initiative to get the task done, it is simply going through the action and that doesn’t necessarily mean there is any passion involved. Module #3 talks about how these 2 types of ethics are usually intertwined together and I believe this is the most constructive way to take action.

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

Although some people argue that humans feel emotions and have better reasoning and judgment, scientists have discovered that most non-human animals have these same abilities. I believe that both non-human animals and human’s pleasure and pain should matter the same amount. The reason for this is that, if other non-human animals have the ability to feel emotion, reproduce and have reasoning, then what makes us more important? This concept made me think about Robin Williams and the gorilla Koko, who he would work with weekly. Koko, not only learned how to communicate in sign language, but also had the emotional capacity to become depressed when hearing about Robin William’s death. Having this knowledge that non-human animals also go through these painful emotions, how can we put ourselves before them? I realize that in present day society it is almost impossible to convince everyone speciesism is a concept to protest, however, I still think it is important to remember the emotional capacity that non-human animals have. Maybe this could help eliminate excess animal cruelty such as hunting animals for fun or abusing animals.

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

I strongly believe that all lives have the same value. My reasoning for this may come off as a bit morbid, but I think about life worth through people who suffer from depression. You can never tell who is hurting inside. Whether it is a hometown friend, family member, celebrity, political or even yourself, we all go through the same emotional rollercoaster and therefore all of our lives are worth the same. Celebrities who have money, fame, a great education, suffer from depression just like an average man who lives a typical, humble life. The idea that anyone has the ability to feel certain emotions is what confirms that our lives are all worth the same. Although this is my belief, I understand that not everybody feels the same way. Instead of becoming completely absorbed in selfishness or altruism, we need to find that happy medium where we all are content with ourselves and understand the value of every single persons life.

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

I think it is more important to perform good acts (virtue ethics) than to be a good person. Those who perform good acts generally do so because they want to make a difference. For example, an onlooker might observe a man holding open a door for an elderly woman as she walks through. The onlooker may come to a conclusion the man is nice because he performed a good act. Good acts give people the power to make a difference in the community and environment. By performing good acts, a sense of positivity is shared by everyone involved. The person committing the act feels good about themselves, and the receiver of the action may feel thankful. In some cases, a good person can perform a bad act. Let’s say a good person is late for work and they get into an accident. Instead of stopping, they drive off feeling overwhelmed. The person may be good, but their actions do not reflect it. Many people claim actions speak louder than words. Performing good acts show the goodness of someone. Claiming to be a good person without showing it is difficult to believe. As a result, good acts both help society and the person performing them.

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

I believe the decision-making process matters more than the outcome (procedural justice). The process is vital in creating a sense of unity among a group of people. Giving people the chance to express their opinions can make them feel as if they made a contribution to the process (democracy). Those who take part in the process might be open to listening to the opinions of others as well. Contrasting opinions can help people to see the benefit of another solution or how they can improve their own idea. Additionally, the decision-making process can be used to brainstorm new ideas. People can bounce ideas off of one another or try to figure out a new way to solve the problem. In some cases, the outcome is more important than the process. If the decision is bad or does not reflect the group’s opinion, then the process does not matter. Somewhere along the line, the process got messed up. Overall, the decision-making process matters more because it allows for brainstorming, debating, and a sense of unity.

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

I believe my life is worth the same as the lives of others. Every human being on the planet is unique in what they bring to our world. My ideas, lifestyle choices and traits are specific to my life. They are not better than the traits and lifestyles choices of another person. What I do with my life is just as important as what my neighbor does with his own. In some situations, my life might be more important than the lives of others (selfishness). My life would hold more importance in comparison to the life of a terrorist or criminal. They have lived their lives in a negative way which has hurt others. They have ruined their chance at making a difference in the world while I still have the freedom to do so. On the other hand, my life is less important than the life of a small child or baby (altruism). When it comes down to it, babies are the only way we can carry on our genes. They need to stay alive long enough to reproduce, and to have a chance at creating a life for themselves. Despite these specific cases, I believe my life is worth the same as others. All humans are equal, so there is no reason why my life is not equal to the life of another person.

4) I have very anthropocentric views, so I do believe that ecosystems are important in the ways they impact humans. Although I wish I could see natural ecosystems as important stand-alone entities, whenever I think about them I just see them as pools of resources that humans can benefit from. I do not believe we should decimate every ecosystem for its resources. I consider humans taking resources from ecosystems as the circle of life. We take trees so we can build shelter and survive, and we hunt animals so we can nourish ourselves. The organisms in these ecosystems do the same thing just on a lower peg in the food chain. Without taking resources for ourselves we wouldn’t exist. When we study natural ecosystems, all we are really doing is seeing how all the organisms present, perform different functions that make this planet livable for us. For example, we studied plants and found they produce the oxygen we need to breathe and carry out basic bodily functions. I am sorry if some nature enthusiasts disagree with my options, but in my mind the primal reason why keep natural ecosystems intact is because they can provide us with priceless resources.

5) I believe the pain and pleasure of non-human animals do matter. So in most scenarios animal and human rights should be equal. At the same time I do support killing these animals so I can survive. I will never support the inhumane mutilation of animals for fun (i.e. dog fighting). When taking an animals life I feel humans should take the quickest and hopefully least painful method, so aiming for the head and not the leg so the animal can die in agony. This again goes back to the circle of life, I kill an animal to survive, and that animal killed something else to survive and so on. The only way for life to exist and flourish is to take other lives. This may seem like a circular belief, but it makes sense. I believe when an animal is taken out of its natural habit and domesticated, it deserves to be treated fairly. The domestication of an animal puts the well-being of that animal in the hands of the humans.

6) Of all six questions I feel most passionate about this one. Every person’s life is worth the same, in my eyes the answer is so clear cut it shouldn’t be a big ethical question. Classifying the worth of somebody’s life by the color of their skins, what god they believe in, how they are sexually orientated, and so on is just outrageous to me. How can one person feel that they are so much better than someone else that they get to choose who is better. If anyone does feel different, I ask you this: What about yourself makes you superior to everyone else? I am a very altruistic person, I feel you should try just as hard to help someone else as you try to help yourself, because when you are in need of someone you are going to wish they feel the same way. We all want to be happy and successful why can’t we work together to make it happen?

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

It is definitely more important to perform good acts than to be a good person for many reasons. If a person is someone who is seen as good, they normally have good thoughts. Their opinions are seen as good in the eyes of those in their society or culture. While having good opinions and views contribute to being a good person, it does not make a person better than one who performs good acts. If someone performs good acts it usually means that also have good view points that go along with the actions. These type of people walk the walk instead of just talking the talk. They are out changing the world instead of just sitting around thinking about how they could change the world. Some people might say that if someone that performs only one good act that it does not automatically makes them a good person. That may be true. The said person could be absolutely awful in all aspects of their life in terms of actions and opinions. Yet, in my eyes, they are still better than the “good person” who sits around and thinks about doing good deeds rather than taking action.

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

While I love animals, I do not think that their pain or pleasure matters as much as a human’s matters. Animals are so much more to this world than something to look at. They provide balance in the world. They provide companionship to people as pets. While I do not condone animal abuse or purposefully hunting majestic animals for a sport, I do not think that their pleasure or pain matters as much as humans. Humans have a whole different world than animals, obviously. Humans contribute to society in many different ways, where as animals do not. Humans do many different things that support other human and animal life. While animals do support human life, through consumption and using them for companionship, traveling, farming, and many more uses, they have to be killed or put to work in order to do these things. The uses we need animals for is illegal to do to humans in any way shape or form.

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

I do believe that my life is worth more or the same as others. In terms of how my life means more than some others, I’m comparing my life to the life of those in prison for committing terrible crimes. I do believe that if someone murders, rapes or abuses another human being or animal, that their life is worth less than my own. Their contribution to society is horrible and it should not even be counted as a contribution. It does not matter what this person did in their life up until the point of the crime, I stand by my beliefs. When I compare myself to other people, I see my life as containing the same worth as theirs. I believe that my life is not worth more nor less than anyone else in society. While some people are influential on a greater scale than me, they do not deserve life anymore than the next person. We all deserve life equally. Even if I do not have a great impact on the entire world, I still can have an impact in my community in the profession I wish to go into.

For this week’s blog entry I have decided to focus on questions one, five, and six of the ethics questions.

1.) Is it more important to be a good person or to perform good acts (virtue ethics vs. action ethics)? I feel that it is more important to be a good person rather than simply just performing good acts. If there is no personal drive behind doing a good deed, then it is like any ordinary action. To be a good person at heart and have a desire and passion for doing good brings more to society than one or many different good acts. In today’s society many people may do many good acts, such as donating to a charity, but does it mean as much if they were not truly a good person. For example, they could turn around and lie to a friend that same day. I don’t think my answer would change for this answer in different circumstances, for a person’s overall aura is more dominant than a few actions. However, it is important that good acts are still performed regardless of the personal motives of an individual.

5.) Do the pleasure and pain of non-human animals matter as much as the pleasure and pain of humans (speciesism)?  Speciesism is a concept that grabs my attention and is not something we often think about. Although humans may be the dominant species on Earth, the others all matter the same. We coexist with one another and it is not fair to exclude any one species (non-human animals). At first thought I do feel that the pleasure and pain of non-human animals matter as much as the pleasure and pains of humans. They have brains like us and numerous studies have proven that they are fully capable of suffering, although it may not be in the same way as us. Regardless, they are creatures on this Earth and deserve more respect than often given. On other note, it is important to take this into consideration when you think about our food supply. We use some of these non-human animals as food sources and if we failed to do so overpopulation would likely occur, leading to a series of downward events. As a society we should obtain our meat sources by better means, especially that of major meat companies. Treating these animals as humanely as possible is not a hard task to do and they should not be suffering at all throughout their lives, even if they are being raised as only a meat source.

6.) Is my own life worth more than the lives of others, the same, or less (selfishness vs. altruism)? This question is somewhat difficult to answer, but after some thought I believe that my own life is worth the same as others in most cases. Personally, I feel that we were all created equal – it is what we make of our lives that sets us apart. However, I can certainly see other sides of this question. For example, the president may consider his life worth more than others because of his role and responsibilities. In a situation involving our loved ones, many of us may feel that our lives were worth less. If I ever had to protect my family, I would put my life on the line to protect their lives. However, even though I feel that we were created equal, the concept of altruism still plays a vital role. We should still help others in need and that sometimes involves putting one’s own needs aside.