Portfolio Assignment

SUS1501 – Sustainability and Greed

Student Number: 28672380
Date: 11 May 2026
Teaching Assistant Name: Basiiraa Moosa

Declaration:

By submitting this portfolio, I implicitly declare that this is my own work except for the
“Introduction” which was kindly written for me by my lecturer.
I am aware that if ANY unacknowledged copying is detected in ANY answer, I will get 0 (zero)
for the entire assignment.

Instructions:

 Please read the instructions on myUnisa carefully.

 Please download the most up-to-date version of this template from your group site on myUnisa.

 DO NOT delete the template to reduce the Turnitin score. We do not look at the score we look
at the detailed report.

 Go through the MCQs again, and record your current choice in the template (we suggest that
you don’t look at your original choices before you have been through all questions)

 For each question, record your original choice in assignment 1.

 Write a note of AT LEAST 100 words discussing YOUR option for each of the five (5) questions
that are written in red (questions 1 – 5).

 Write a note of AT LEAST 100 words discussing YOUR option for any other five (5) questions of
your choice.

 Write your conclusion of AT LEAST 500 words

 Somewhere within your notes and/or conclusion there must be meaningful references to the
major theories that we covered (deontology, consequentialism, distributive justice, virtue ethics
and environmental ethics).
  Your notes and conclusion should also make reference to discussions with fellow students that
you found meaningful.

 Please write your notes and conclusion in your own words first, and then use AI to edit these.
NB If we detect any AI generated content in your own answers this will be treated as
plagiarism.

 Save the file as a Word document with a short name (myUnisa will reject files with long names).

 Take a screen grab of the final submission acknowledgement on myUnisa and save this
somewhere safe in case of any disputes.

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST – i.e. if you do not fulfill ALL of these you will NOT pass this
portfolio:

1. Correct template version used

2. All 20 multiple choice question original answers captured

3. All 20 multiple choice question answers now captured

4. Notes for the five (5) questions in red

5. Notes for AT LEAST five (5) other questions of your choice

6. Each note AT LEAST 100 words long

7. Conclusion present

8. Conclusion AT LEAST 500 words long

9. Template NOT deleted

 Introduction

My aim in compiling this portfolio was to reflect on the things that have struck me throughout
this crazy module.
My starting point for doing this was to revisit my opinions to the multiple choice questions
which were presented in the Crossroads assignment. I present these current opinions, together
with my original opinions, and some brief notes in the section entitled: “Back at the
Crossroads!”
Once I have done this, I will reflect on the entire learning process and draw some key
conclusions about this crazy module and about the things that really struck me.

Back at the Crossroads!

1. (YOU MUST WRITE NOTES ON THIS QUESTION) “Unless fossil-fuel use slows dramatically, the
earth’s average temperature could rise by six degrees Celsius in the next 100 years.” My personal
opinion on this statement is most closely described by:

a. I don’t believe this climate change nonsense

b. Six degrees will make winters much more bearable to me personally

c. I’m a bit concerned about this, but why should I invest my personal time, effort or money in
solving a general social.

d. I think that individually we can and should strive to solve this problem for the greater good.

e. I think it is time for radical action to disrupt the fossil-fuel cartel.

Choice now: d.

Choice in assignment 1: e.

Notes:

I believe that my answer in assignment 1 was I realised that my response in Assignment

a bit dramatic, almost performative. Radical 1 was somewhat dramatic and even
action is necessary when approaching performative. While radical action is often
problems of this magnitude, however thinking necessary when addressing issues as vast
about it so personally to the point I neglect as climate change, my initial approach
the varying factors that contribute to climate became overly personal and narrowly
change and simply target my frustration to the focused. By directing my frustration solely
“fossil fuel cartel”, is extreme and redundant. at the “fossil fuel cartel,” I overlooked the
When considering environmental ethics, our complex, interconnected factors that
individual footprint is often rooted in our own contribute to climate change. This made
selfishness, and instead of taking my argument feel extreme and ultimately
accountability, we point the finger at big unproductive.
corporations that we ourselves enable to be
Environmental ethics reminds us that our
so destructive. But reflecting on climate
individual footprint is often shaped by our
change through John Rawls’ veil of ignorance,
own convenience and self-interest.
I conclude that the best option is to simply
Instead of acknowledging this, we tend to
strive for a solution with greater good in mind
shift blame onto large corporations—
and what would be most beneficial to future
corporations that continue to thrive
generations. Since we ourselves will likely
precisely because we support and enable
never experience the benefits of these
them. When I reconsidered the issue
solutions, I find it more morally sound to
through John Rawls’ veil of ignorance, I
approach it through this lens, instead of
realised that the most ethical approach is
looking for someone to blame. We are all
to prioritise the greater good and consider
responsible for this, and so my answer shifted
what would benefit future generations.
to option d. In essence, I blame myself just as I
Since we may never personally experience
would the “fossil fuel cartels”, and this is
the outcomes of long-term climate
because in Assignment 7 my eyes were
solutions, it feels more morally grounded
opened to my consumption rate, and when I
to adopt this perspective rather than
thought introspectively about this, I realized
searching for someone to blame.
how I would struggle to sacrifice the comforts
that are possible thanks to the abuse of This reflection led me to choose option D.
natural resources. Moving forward, my In essence, I hold myself just as
individual approach would be to consume less accountable as the “fossil fuel cartels.”
 meat (I had no idea how much it contributed Assignment 7 made me confront the
to my carbon footprint), buy products with reality of my own consumption patterns,
recyclable packaging, walk more often instead and I recognised how difficult it would be
of taking Ubers for 1km trips, support local for me to give up the comforts made
farms rather than buying imported produce, possible by the exploitation of natural
and most importantly, teach these habits to resources.
my child so she may replicate this behaviour –
Going forward, my personal approach will
thereby influencing others to do as well.
be to reduce my meat consumption (I was
genuinely surprised by its impact on my
carbon footprint), choose products with
recyclable packaging, walk instead of
taking short Uber trips, support local
farmers rather than buying imported
produce, and—most importantly—teach
these habits to my child so she can model
and spread them to others.

2. (YOU MUST WRITE NOTES ON THIS QUESTION) “In January 2026 Patrice Motsepe's net worth was
estimated to be US$ 4.2 billion." My personal opinion on this statement is most closely described by:

a. Good for him – he is brilliant and worked hard to earn this.

b. The only problem I have with this is that it wasn’t me with US$ 4.2 billion!

c. No problem with this. I'm sure Motsepe gives huge amounts to charities.

d. I think that it is morally wrong for anyone to have that much money.

e. I think that active steps should be taken to correct such immoral wealth.

Choice now: e.

Choice in assignment 1: d.

Notes:
In this case, I believe my initial answer was Upon reflection, I believe my initial
right but was not specific enough about how I response was directionally correct but
truly feel. While I still maintain that it is lacked the clarity and precision needed to
immoral for anyone to have that much money, express my actual position. Although I
I now understand that it is imperative to continue to hold the view that the
actually do something about that rather than accumulation of extreme wealth is
simply opposing it. When I thoroughly morally problematic, I now recognise that
examined Patrice Motsepe’s case study for the it is insufficient to merely object to such
assessments we did in this module, I realized inequality without considering the
how easy it is to become complacent in a broader ethical implications and the
capitalist society. Everyone is capable of responsibilities it places on individuals
achieving their own strides financially and I within the system.
often battled the urge to want that for myself.
A closer examination of Patrice Motsepe’s
But ultimately the path to this wealth will
case study, along with the assessments
always be built on the suffering of those
completed in this module, highlighted
without, and the best perspective to look at
how easily one can become complacent
this from in my opinion is Kant’s Categorical
within a capitalist framework. The system
Imperative (Kant, 1785). I find this philosophy
encourages personal financial
so profound, because it encapsulates the
advancement, and it is tempting to aspire
entire issue with immoral wealth so well. This
to the same forms of success. However,
system cannot be universalized. A maxim that
the pursuit of extraordinary wealth is
allows one to hold billions relies on the
almost always tied to structural
existence of exploitation. Thus, if everyone
inequalities and the suffering of those
were a billionaire, there would be no labour to
who lack comparable opportunities.
generate the profit, making it logically
impossible to universalize, and therefore Kant’s Categorical Imperative (Kant, 1785)
absurd to accept. Sometimes, doing the right offers a compelling lens through which to
thing is uncomfortable, I mean, we all at some evaluate this issue. The principle of
point aspire to live in luxury, but when we universalizability reveals a fundamental
realize how detrimental that mentality is to contradiction in the logic of extreme
the livelihoods of those who might never wealth accumulation. A maxim that
experience any luxury, we can take a moment permits individuals to hold billions of
to appreciate the little things in life that do dollars cannot be universalised, as such
not rely on money. Overall, this topic has wealth depends on the existence of
helped me reflect on what I truly want in life, labour and exploitation. If everyone were
which has evolved from mere financial success a billionaire, the economic conditions
to a dream of living a balanced and required to generate such wealth would
meaningful life. collapse. This makes the maxim both
logically inconsistent and morally
indefensible.

Ethical action is often uncomfortable,

particularly when it challenges aspirations
for luxury or personal advancement. Yet
recognising the harm that such aspirations
can impose on those who may never
experience material comfort encourages a
shift in perspective. It becomes possible to
value aspects of life that are not
dependent on wealth or status.

Engaging with this topic has prompted a

deeper reconsideration of my own
priorities. My goals have shifted from a
focus on financial success toward a desire
for a balanced, meaningful, and ethically
coherent life.
3. (YOU MUST WRITE NOTES ON THIS QUESTION) “In order to have the continued opportunity to
express their ‘generosity,’ the oppressors must perpetuate injustice as well.” (Paulo Freire) My
personal opinion on this statement is most closely described by:

a. This is crazy ‘commie’ nonsense from Freire – it’s a disgrace that Unisa allows this rubbish to
appear in its official study material.

b. This is rubbish - if it were not for the essential goodness of the wealthy, the lives of the poor
would be so much worse than they already are..

c. So, let me get this straight – Freire is saying that in order for some (like Bill Gates for
instance) to continue being generous, wealth AND poverty need to be sustained? I’m going
to have to think about this.

d. Freire is absolutely right - all this ‘generosity’ just makes rich people look like the heroes
when actually they are the villains.

e. How can you possibly say something as ungrateful as option d?

Choice now: d.

Choice in assignment 1: d.

Notes:

I explored Freire’s concept in depth when Freire’s concept of oppression and the
addressing Motsepe’s wealth and this was one dynamics between the privileged and the
of my strongest points against it. As I marginalised became particularly relevant
mentioned above, one cannot achieve such when examining Motsepe’s accumulation
riches without the suffering of the less of wealth. A central insight from this
fortunate. This is evermore evident when we framework is that extreme wealth cannot
consider the exploitation of mine workers in be separated from the suffering of those
the South African context. Most of the who occupy disadvantaged positions
apartheid government thrived on this very within the economic hierarchy. This is
exploitation. Many of my peers discussed especially evident in the South African
various ways in which the rich exploit the poor mining sector, where the exploitation of
in the forum discussion of Assessment 4, a lot mine workers has historically been a
of which deepened my stance on this. I even defining feature of both apartheid-era
had a slight back -and-forth with another
student who believed that Motsepe deserved and post-apartheid economic structures.
his wealth because he worked for it, whereas I
The forum discussion in Assessment 4
believed his wealth perpetuated norms that
further highlighted the various
keep poor people in the cycle of poverty. This
mechanisms through which the wealthy
further reinforced my belief that we cannot
benefit from the vulnerability of the poor.
just commend the philanthropy of a billionaire
Many peers identified different forms of
because all that does is put a plaster on a
exploitation that sustain economic
broken dam. Giving to charity makes these
inequality, which strengthened my
rich people seem like heroes who genuinely
understanding of how deeply entrenched
care about the less fortunate, however if they
these patterns are. A brief exchange with
really did care, they would understand how
another student illustrated the tension
unjustifiable it is for them to exist with such
between meritocratic narratives and
wealth in a world disproportionately affected
structural critiques: while they argued
by poverty.
that Motsepe “deserved” his wealth
through hard work, I maintained that such
wealth reinforces systems that trap the
poor in cycles of deprivation. This
interaction underscored how easily
philanthropy can obscure the underlying
injustices that make extreme wealth
possible.

Philanthropic acts by billionaires often

function as superficial remedies—
symbolic gestures that create the
appearance of benevolence without
addressing the structural conditions that
enable inequality. These acts position
wealthy individuals as altruistic figures,
 yet they do not challenge the
fundamental moral problem: the
existence of vast personal fortunes in a
world marked by widespread poverty. If
genuine concern for the disadvantaged
were present, it would require
acknowledging that such levels of wealth
are ethically indefensible within a society
characterised by profound socioeconomic
disparities.

4. (YOU MUST WRITE NOTES ON THIS QUESTION) “Drill baby drill!” (Donald J Trump) My personal
opinion on this statement, is most closely described by:

a. Trump = visionary; environmentalist = fools.

b. What happens when the US runs out of oil and gas?
c. This represents a huge setback for global climate change mitigation efforts.
d. Trump is clearly banking on Musk’s SpaceX to get the human race to Mars because planet
earth is doomed.
e. Time for an environmental liberation movement – bomb the pipelines and oil wells!

Choice now: c.

Choice in assignment 1: c.

Notes:

My answer here remains the same, because My position on this question remains
individually I find it hard to have a solution to unchanged, largely because I find it
solve this. I do not think option e would make difficult to identify an effective individual-
a difference because, from a utilitarian level solution to the problem. Option E
perspective, it would cause too many appears insufficient, as it would likely
economic problems that would harm a lot of generate significant economic instability
innocent people. As for option b, this is a good that could harm many innocent people,
question but it doesn't state my stance on which is ethically unacceptable from a
this. I think what Trump aims to do reflects his utilitarian perspective. Option B, while
deep capitalist privilege because he only sees raising an important question, does not
as far as profits and disregards the impact that clearly articulate a stance and therefore
his actions will have on everyday people. Since does not reflect my view.
he was born into vast wealth, he is another
The actions proposed by Donald Trump
example of how extreme riches can corrupt
illustrate the influence of entrenched
one’s morality. On the environmental side, I
capitalist privilege. His approach
am still on the fence between anthropocentric
prioritises profit and economic gain while
and non-anthropocentric values; I see our
disregarding the broader social and
current necessity for oil and gas to deliver
environmental consequences for ordinary
energy to humans, but I acknowledge how
people. Having been born into substantial
much this consumption hurts the natural
wealth, he exemplifies how extreme
world. We should absolutely switch to green
affluence can distort moral judgement and
energy that benefits both humans and nature.
limit one’s capacity to recognise the lived
Trump’s initiatives throw away years of hard
realities of those who will bear the brunt
work done by environmentalists and push us
of environmental degradation.
toward a future with fewer resources, which
will specifically impact low-income individuals From an environmental ethics standpoint,
far more than the rich. In South Africa, we see I remain conflicted between
this exact issue in our over-reliance on coal- anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric
burning energy. Even though there are values. On one hand, oil and gas currently
alternatives, our system insists on running the play a crucial role in meeting human
planet dry first. I feel that preserving our energy needs. On the other, the
planet’s natural resources should completely environmental damage caused by
override our political or financial goals as a continued reliance on these resources is
species, and therefore my answer remains c. undeniable. A transition to renewable
 energy is essential, as it offers benefits for
both human wellbeing and ecological
preservation. Policies that reverse
environmental progress undermine years
of work by activists and scientists, and
they disproportionately harm low-income
communities, who are least equipped to
cope with resource scarcity and
environmental decline.

This dynamic is evident in South Africa’s

continued dependence on coal-based
energy. Despite the availability of
alternatives, the system persists in
exploiting finite natural resources,
prioritising short-term economic interests
over long-term sustainability. For these
reasons, I maintain that the preservation
of natural resources should take
precedence over political or financial
objectives. Consequently, my answer
remains option C.

5. (YOU MUST WRITE NOTES ON THIS QUESTION) “In capitalism, profit happens when the capitalist
pays labour x for their labour which is worth x+p. p then is profit.” My personal opinion on this
statement is most closely described by:

a. So what you are saying is that profit is the result of expropriation without compensation? I
can see the truth in this when I look at who gets rich and who gets poor.
 b. That is a really interesting perspective which I hadn’t thought about before.

c. Rubbish.

d. Rubbish. Profit comes from innovation and an entrepreneurial spirit.

e. This is fine - without profit there is no capitalism and it is capitalism that bring wealth to
humanity as a whole.

Choice now: a.

Choice in assignment 1: a.

Notes:

My answer remains the same here, because My position on this statement remains
after diving deeper into different ethical unchanged, as further engagement with
views, I still see how this statement is true. the ethical theories in this module has
When completing the assessments which only strengthened my agreement with it.
were centered around Motsepe’s wealth, I The assessments focused on Motsepe’s
noted that the mineworkers were paid far less wealth highlighted the significant disparity
than the executives, meaning the extra value between the compensation of
of their labor (p) is stolen to create corporate mineworkers and that of executives. The
profit. Especially when considering surplus value generated by workers is
distributive justice and John Rawls’ principles, appropriated to produce corporate profit,
it became clear to me that there is a illustrating a clear imbalance in how
staggering abuse of systemic frameworks that economic benefits are distributed.
consistently benefit the rich rather than the
When viewed through the lens of
poor. Opportunities are scarce for the poor,
distributive justice and Rawls’ principles,
their basic rights are overlooked, and the
this disparity becomes even more
betterment of the rich often supersedes the
concerning. The existing economic system
betterment of the poor, hence the current
consistently privileges the wealthy while
capitalist society violates all three Rawlsian
limiting opportunities for the poor. Basic
principles. Through his veil of ignorance, all
rights and fair opportunities are not
my peers in the forum discussions expressed
equitably accessible, and the
that equality would be essential if we did not advancement of the wealthy routinely
know what position in society we would takes precedence over the wellbeing of
occupy, because it is just so obvious that the the disadvantaged. As a result, the current
poor are systemically affected by the rich’s capitalist structure fails to satisfy all three
lust for profits. Even in utilitarianism (which I of Rawls’ principles of justice.
am not a big fan of), the option that has the
Forum discussions reinforced this
maximum good output is seen as the right
understanding. When applying Rawls’ veil
one, and here I have learned that capitalism
of ignorance, my peers overwhelmingly
never aims for the greatest possible good, but
agreed that equality would be essential if
centers solely on the desires of a few
none of us knew our future position in
individuals – the rich – and leaves the majority
society. This consensus reflects the
of the world in despair. I have reinforced my
obvious reality that the poor are
agreement with the above statement based
disproportionately affected by the pursuit
on what I have learned in the section of
of profit among the wealthy.
distributive justice, hence my answer remains
a. Even within utilitarianism—despite its
limitations—the morally correct action is
the one that produces the greatest overall
good. Yet capitalism does not aim to
maximise collective wellbeing. Instead, it
prioritises the interests of a small minority
while leaving the majority in conditions of
insecurity and deprivation. This
contradiction further supports the
conclusion that the system is ethically
flawed.

My engagement with the section on

distributive justice has therefore
 reinforced my agreement with the
statement, and my answer remains option
A.

6. “Every day some 20,000 children die prematurely from poverty related causes, mostly treatable
diseases.” My personal opinion on this statement is most closely described by:

a. Who cares?

b. It’s hard to say it, but given the rising human population, perhaps this is a blessing in
disguise for the human species as a whole

c. It’s hard to say it, but this just means less people competing with me for scarce
opportunities and resources.

d. This is morally wrong, but practically, I think that it would cost too much money to solve

e. It is morally unacceptable for a single child to die of a preventable disease and we should
collectively fix this irrespective of the cost.

Choice now: e.

Choice in assignment 1: e.

Notes:

<Answer in here IN YOUR OWN WORDS < Language edited by AI>

DO NOT USE AI HERE AT ALL. IF YOU DO YOU

WILL FAIL.

- at least 100 words long >

7. “Even before COVID, one out of every five South Africans lived below the food poverty line.” My
personal opinion on this statement is most closely described by:

a. Who cares?
 b. The mortality rates of these people will be high and, as in the question on child mortality,
this is a blessing in disguise for the human species as a whole, given the rising human
population.

c. If they worked harder, they wouldn't be so poor.

d. This is sad, but to be honest, it is not going to stop me from focusing on my own wellbeing
first.

e. I think that we must all strive to eliminate poverty together.

Choice now: e.

Choice in assignment 1: e.

Notes:

<Answer in here IN YOUR OWN WORDS < Language edited by AI>

DO NOT USE AI HERE AT ALL. IF YOU DO YOU

WILL FAIL.

- at least 100 words long >

8. "The average entry level wage in South African mines is around R 120 000 per annum. The average
entry level wage in Australian mines is around R 1.2 million per annum." My personal opinion on this
statement is most closely described by:

a. Well, the cost of living in Australia must be higher.

b. Australian workers are obviously 10 times more productive than South African workers.
c. R120 000 a year is good money for just digging holes.
d. “We’ve got to run globally competitive companies [in South Africa] and there are times you
have to look at your workforce in the eye and say: ‘We cannot pay you what you want.’”
e. Colonisation might have ended, but the brutal exploitation of Africans goes on.

Choice now: e.

Choice in assignment 1: e.

Notes:
 <Answer in here IN YOUR OWN WORDS < Language edited by AI>

DO NOT USE AI HERE AT ALL. IF YOU DO YOU

WILL FAIL.

- at least 100 words long >

9. “Save the rhino!!” My personal opinion on this statement is most closely described by:

a. Why?
b. Let the people who want to use this resource pay to protect it.
c. We have bigger problems than worrying about rhinos.
d. We must save rhino because their survival is critical for sustaining healthy
e. We must save the rhinos because it is the right thing to do.

Choice now: d.

Choice in assignment 1: e.

Notes:

When learning about instrumental and My position on this question has not
intrinsic value, I realized that I had never changed, but my understanding of the
thought about these concepts before. I did not underlying ethical concepts has deepened.
want rhinos to be harmed simply because Learning about instrumental and intrinsic
they had feelings. But after reading through value made me realise that I had never
the forum discussion and noticing that most of previously examined the basis for why
my peers believed in intrinsic value over certain forms of life should be protected.
instrumental value, I realized that it sounded Initially, I opposed harm to rhinos simply
quite shallow because nobody was truly able because they are sentient beings, but this
to justify it further than “all life has value”. It reasoning lacked a clear ethical
simply sounded like the correct moral answer
but gave no insight into the moral significance foundation.
of saving every living thing on the planet. And
The forum discussions revealed that many
that is when I leaned towards the idea that a
peers supported intrinsic value, often
mosquito cannot be as important in value as a
justifying it with the broad claim that “all
rhino, and therefore intrinsic value cannot
life has value.” While morally appealing,
trump instrumental value. If rhinos were
this argument did not provide a
detrimental to their ecosystems, I do not think
substantive explanation of why every
as many of my peers would have agreed that
organism should be valued equally or
they should be saved because of their intrinsic
what the implications of such a stance
value. I think the greatest overall output for
would be. This lack of justification
nature would come if instrumental value was
highlighted the limitations of relying
more important, and so my answer shifted to
solely on intrinsic value as a guiding
option d.
principle.

This led me to question whether all living

beings can reasonably be regarded as
equally valuable. For example, equating
the moral worth of a mosquito with that
of a rhino seems implausible, particularly
when considering ecological roles,
conservation priorities, and the broader
consequences of species loss. If rhinos
were ecologically harmful rather than
beneficial, it is unlikely that the same level
of support for their protection would exist
purely on the basis of intrinsic value.

From this perspective, instrumental value

offers a more coherent framework for
 environmental decision-making. It allows
for the evaluation of species based on
their ecological significance, their
contribution to biodiversity, and the
overall wellbeing of natural systems.
Prioritising instrumental value can
therefore lead to outcomes that maximise
environmental benefit rather than
applying an undifferentiated moral status
to all forms of life.

For these reasons, I concluded that

instrumental value should take
precedence in this context, and my
answer shifted to option D.

10. “If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and
resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached
sometime within the next one hundred years. The most probable result will be a rather sudden and
uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.” (The Limits to Growth, 1972) My
personal opinion on this statement is most closely described by:

a. I don’t believe this tale of doom.

b. Yes we are consuming natural resources too fast, but I don’t think this is a problem as there
is plenty of time to find technological solutions to problems that emerge.
c. Yes we are consuming natural resources too fast. The first priority in solving this is to put the
brakes on human population growth.
d. Yes we are consuming natural resources too fast. The first priority in solving this is for rich
people to reduce their consumption significantly.
e. es we are consuming natural resources too fast. The first priority is for poor people to not
have more kids than they can afford.
f. Yes we are consuming natural resources too fast. And frankly I don’t see any solution
because increasing consumption is the basis of our economic growth.
Choice now: d.

Choice in assignment 1: f.

Notes:

From forum discussions I learned that most of Engaging with the forum discussions made
us consume more than we realized. But I also it clear that most individuals
learned that the power of the rich far exceeds underestimate the extent of their own
that of anyone else. We may see economic consumption. However, these
growth as beneficial, but when it constantly conversations also highlighted a more
benefits the rich over the poor, we must significant issue: the disproportionate
acknowledge that greed is directly influence of the wealthy in driving global
proportional to overconsumption. As I learned resource depletion. Although economic
from the Human Development Index in the growth is often framed as universally
Sustainability section, highly developed beneficial, its advantages overwhelmingly
countries have a higher ecological footprint accrue to the rich, while its environmental
than underdeveloped countries. This showed costs are distributed across society. This
me that when there is higher economic reveals a direct relationship between
growth, higher consumption will follow, wealth, greed, and overconsumption.
because affluent people will have less regard
The Sustainability section’s exploration of
for ecological preservation (they have bigger
the Human Development Index reinforced
houses, use private transport more often, eat
this understanding. Highly developed
more, etc.). Obviously, this is a problem that
countries consistently exhibit larger
everyone should strive to solve as I mentioned
ecological footprints than less developed
in question 1, however resources are depleted
nations. This pattern suggests that
by a concentrated number of people and not
increased economic growth leads to
the entire population. This mitigates the
increased consumption, as affluent
argument that overconsumption is caused by
populations tend to occupy larger homes,
overpopulation. I now believe that the rich
rely more heavily on private
contribute the most to overconsumption and
transportation, and consume more food
 encourage it amongst others, and therefore and goods. Such behaviours indicate a
they have the highest responsibility to reduce diminished regard for ecological
their consumption. preservation among those with greater
financial means.

While environmental responsibility is a

collective obligation, the data show that
resource depletion is driven primarily by a
relatively small, affluent segment of the
global population rather than by
humanity as a whole. This challenges the
argument that overconsumption is a
consequence of overpopulation. Instead,
it points to the concentration of
consumption among the wealthy as the
central issue.

Based on these insights, I now hold the

view that the rich contribute most
significantly to overconsumption and
actively shape consumption patterns
across society. As a result, they bear the
greatest moral responsibility to reduce
their environmental impact.

11. "You won’t make the poor rich by making the rich poorer." (Winston Churchill) My personal opinion
of what should be done is most closely described by:
a. This is rubbish and we should attack extreme wealth wherever it arises.
 b. This is the sort of trite rhetoric that the rich try and sell to the world in order to protect their
privilege.
c. This is rubbish. If a few take a huge share, it leaves that much less for the rest. It’s simple
maths.
d. This is absolutely true. Without the money that the rich have, the poor would be that much
worse off and lefty socialists would do well to understand this fact.
e. Since my personal aim is to be rich, my opinion here is simple – just leave the rich alone.

Choice now: c.

Choice in assignment 1: b.

Notes:

Over the course of this module, I learned how Throughout this module, it became
hoarding wealth creates so many socio- increasingly clear how the accumulation
economic issues. In this question, I initially and concentration of wealth contribute to
acknowledged the statement in question 11 as significant socio-economic inequalities.
harmful rhetoric, but now I understand that Although I initially viewed the statement
Churchill’s point completely disregards the in Question 11 as exaggerated rhetoric,
nature of wealth disparity. Learning from further study has shown that Churchill’s
deontology, specifically Kant, extreme wealth claim overlooks the structural realities of
cannot be universalized because it is wealth disparity. From a deontological
mathematically and economically impossible. perspective—particularly through Kant’s
Therefore, when one person holds too much, principle of universalizability—extreme
it becomes impossible for others to even have wealth cannot be morally justified. It is
enough. Looking at distributive justice, this neither mathematically nor economically
statement violates the fair distribution of possible for everyone to accumulate vast
resources and neglects the fact that extreme fortunes; the existence of extreme wealth
wealth is built on the labour or exploitation of necessarily depends on others having
the poor. So, contrary to Churchill’s comment, substantially less. When one individual
the rich must get poorer for the poor to get holds an excessive share of resources, it
richer. becomes impossible for others to secure
 even a minimally adequate share.

The framework of distributive justice

reinforces this conclusion. Extreme wealth
violates the principle of fair distribution
by concentrating resources in the hands of
a few while denying equitable
opportunities to the majority. Moreover,
such wealth is often generated through
the labour, vulnerability, or exploitation
of those who occupy disadvantaged
positions within the economic hierarchy.
This dynamic reveals that wealth
accumulation is not a neutral process but
one embedded in systemic inequalities.

Contrary to Churchill’s assertion, the

relationship between wealth and poverty
is not independent. For meaningful
improvement in the conditions of the
poor, the structural advantages enjoyed
by the rich must be reduced. In this sense,
the redistribution of wealth is not merely
desirable but necessary for achieving a
more just and equitable society.

12. “Black lives matter.” My personal opinion on this statement is most closely described by:
 a. So do white lives matter

b. “All lives matter.”

c. The problem is that at the moment this is not supported by evidence.

d. Finally we are starting to recognise this!

e. Slogans are pointless. We need to enforce radical social changes aimed at actively
destroying structural racism.

Choice now: e.

Choice in assignment 1: e.

Notes:

I am an Indian girl, so I definitely do not This module has provided a clearer

understand the weight of racial systemic understanding of how racial inequality in
inequality faced by Black South Africans. But South Africa remains deeply embedded in
thanks to this module, I have established that social and economic structures. Although I
even though I am relatively privileged, I must do not personally experience the full
use my privilege to advocate for those extent of the systemic discrimination
without. The vast majority of impoverished faced by Black South Africans, the content
people in South Africa are Black. This indicates highlighted the ethical responsibility of
the lingering effects of systemic oppression in individuals with relative privilege to
our country. Distributive justice expects us to advocate for those who continue to be
disregard demographic constraints when fairly disadvantaged. The persistent
distributing resources, but if Black families overrepresentation of Black individuals
have historically and presently been among the country’s impoverished
disproportionately affected by a lack of population reflects the enduring effects of
opportunities, then distributive justice is not historical and ongoing structural
respected. Then of course, behind the veil of oppression.
ignorance (Rawls, 1971), I would not condone
From the perspective of distributive
such discrimination had I not known what race
justice, fair allocation of resources
I would be born as. From a Kantian
requires that demographic factors such as
deontological perspective, racial inequality race should not determine access to
cannot be universalized, because it would opportunities. However, when Black
contradict itself. Therefore, in both families have historically—and continue
distributive justice and deontology, the to be—disproportionately excluded from
systemic marginalization of Black people is economic and social advancement, the
unacceptable, and that is why Black lives principles of distributive justice are not
should matter beyond a trendy hashtag. It upheld. This inequity becomes even more
needs to be realized, because it is ongoing and apparent when applying Rawls’ veil of
is only getting worse, as we (non-Black people) ignorance (Rawls, 1971). If individuals
are becoming complacent. were unaware of the racial group into
which they would be born, no rational
person would endorse a system that
systematically disadvantages one group
over another.

A Kantian deontological analysis further

reinforces this conclusion. Racial
inequality cannot be universalised
without contradiction; a maxim that
permits discrimination based on race
would undermine the very notion of equal
moral worth. Such a principle would be
ethically incoherent and therefore
impermissible within a deontological
framework.

Taken together, both distributive justice

and deontological ethics demonstrate that
the systemic marginalisation of Black
people in South Africa is morally
 unacceptable. The affirmation that Black
lives matter must extend beyond symbolic
gestures or social media trends. It requires
sustained recognition of ongoing
injustices and a commitment to
addressing them, particularly as
complacency among those who do not
experience these inequalities directly
contributes to their persistence.

13. "The wealth of the few depends upon the poverty of many." My personal opinion on this statement
is most closely described by:

a. So long as I am amongst the few I don't care.

b. This is just not true – the rich are simply more “diligent, intelligent, and above all frugal”.

c. This is just not true – if it were not for the generous wealthy, the poor would be even poorer
than they are.

d. This is absolutely true – there is only so much wealth in the world at any one moment so if
one person has more than their share someone else has to have less than their share.

e. This is absolutely true and given how much poverty there is we ought to do something
about it.

Choice now: d.

Choice in assignment 1: e.

Notes:

<Answer in here IN YOUR OWN WORDS < Language edited by AI>

DO NOT USE AI HERE AT ALL. IF YOU DO YOU

WILL FAIL.
 - at least 100 words long >

14. "In 2025, Elon Musk's net worth increased by about ZAR 18 billion every day!" My personal opinion
on this statement is most closely described by:

a. Good for him – he is brilliant and worked hard to earn this.

b. The only problem I have with this is that it wasn’t me getting ZAR 18 billion richer every day!
c. No problem with this. I'm sure all of these billionaires donate huge amounts to charities.
d. I think that it is morally wrong for anyone to earn that much money.
e. I think that active steps should be taken to correct such immoral earnings

Choice now: e.

Choice in assignment 1: e.

Notes:

<Answer in here IN YOUR OWN WORDS < Language edited by AI>

DO NOT USE AI HERE AT ALL. IF YOU DO YOU

WILL FAIL.

- at least 100 words long >

15. “Investment under neo-colonialism increases rather than decreases the gap between rich and poor
countries.” (Kwame Nkrumah) My personal opinion on this statement, is most closely described by:
a. Get over it!!
b. It’s irresponsible messages like these that frighten foreign investors away from Africa.
c. Colonialism died off decades ago. Why are you still talking about this?
d. Absolutely. As Thomas Sankara said: “debt is a cleverly managed re-conquest of Africa”
e. This is all managed through ratings agencies who have much more say in the decisions a
government takes than the citizens of the country.

Choice now: d.
Choice in assignment 1: d.

Notes:

<Answer in here IN YOUR OWN WORDS < Language edited by AI>

DO NOT USE AI HERE AT ALL. IF YOU DO YOU

WILL FAIL.

- at least 100 words long >

16. "Save the delta smelt." My personal opinion on this statement is most closely described by:

a. Never heard of the delta smelt and don’t care about it.
b. Let rich people in California, where it occurs, worry about it.
c. Even Americans don’t care about this fish that occurs there - the president of the United
States called it “an essentially worthless fish”.
d. The delta smelt is an important indicator of environmental health so if we save it we save
the whole ecosystem.
e. We must save the delta smelt because it is the right thing to do.

Choice now: d.

Choice in assignment 1: d.

Notes:

<Answer in here IN YOUR OWN WORDS < Language edited by AI>

DO NOT USE AI HERE AT ALL. IF YOU DO YOU

WILL FAIL.

- at least 100 words long >

17. “It is estimated that humans are consuming natural resource at a rate that is 30% above the renewal
rate. If we continue to consume in this way we are likely to suffer dire consequences which could
include extinction.” My personal opinion on this statement is most closely described by:

a. Yes we are consuming natural resources too fast, but I don’t think this is a problem as there
is plenty of time to find technological solutions to problems that emerge

b. Yes we are consuming natural resources too fast. The first priority in solving this is to put the
brakes on human population growth.

c. Yes we are consuming natural resources too fast. The first priority in solving this is for rich
people to reduce their consumption significantly.

d. Yes we are consuming natural resources too fast. And frankly I don’t see any solution
because increasing consumption is the basis of our economic growth.

e. I don’t believe this tale of doom.

Choice now: c.

Choice in assignment 1: d.

Notes:

<Answer in here IN YOUR OWN WORDS < Language edited by AI>

DO NOT USE AI HERE AT ALL. IF YOU DO YOU

WILL FAIL.

- at least 100 words long >

18. (YOU MUST WRITE NOTES ON THIS QUESTION) “It’s easier to imagine the end of the world than the
end of capitalism.” (Mark Fisher) My personal opinion on this statement, is most closely described
by:

a. Who cares?

b. This is what comes from a world population that believes that the path to enlightenment is
X.

c. Capitalism is absolutely the only viable economic system, so yes, this is true and right.
 d. I had never thought of this, but as unreasonable as this might sound, it is actually so true.

e. I think that we need to work on our imagination then because this is clearly absurd.

Choice now: e.

Choice in assignment 1: d.

Notes:

When I first read this quote, it really made me At first, this quotation prompted
think, hence I chose option d. But now it feels significant reflection, which led me to
completely backwards that we find it easier to select option D. However, after engaging
accept the destruction of our planet rather more deeply with the material in this
than just changing our economic system. module, it now seems paradoxical that
Before starting this module, I never really society finds it easier to accept large-scale
questioned capitalism, because I accepted it ecological destruction than to question or
as the way the world works. I saw capitalism reform the economic system responsible
as a reasonable way for people to earn their for it. Prior to this course, I rarely
share and enjoy the fruits of their labour. But interrogated capitalism; I regarded it as a
learning about resource depletion and natural and reasonable mechanism
systemic greed opened my eyes to the fact through which individuals could earn a
that it is odd to see higher value in a man- living and enjoy the rewards of their
made system than the world itself. Capitalism labour. Yet learning about resource
is not an unfixable problem, and it should not depletion, systemic inequality, and the
consume us to the core as it does now. I think structural incentives that drive excessive
that because many people aspire to live in consumption has made it clear that it is
financial abundance, we believe that an illogical to assign greater value to a
economic collapse is worse than an ecological human-constructed economic system than
collapse. This is absurd, because we are giving to the planet that sustains all life.
money too much power, and essentially are
Capitalism is not an immutable or
perpetuating the economic inequalities faced
unchangeable structure, nor should it be
by so many. We can dismantle any system
allowed to dominate social and
 that is not in favour of the majority, and environmental priorities to the extent that
capitalism is a system that favours a select it currently does. The widespread
few at the expense of others. aspiration for financial abundance
contributes to the belief that economic
collapse would be more catastrophic than
ecological collapse. This mindset grants
money disproportionate power and
reinforces the very inequalities that harm
the majority of people.

The module has shown that any system

failing to serve the interests of most
people can be re-evaluated and
transformed. Capitalism, as it currently
functions, benefits a small minority while
externalising its costs onto the
environment and the broader population.
Recognising this imbalance highlights the
need to prioritise ecological preservation
over the maintenance of an economic
model that privileges a select few at the
expense of collective wellbeing.

19. “Show me a great fortune and I’ll show you a great crime.” (a translation from Honoré de Balzac) My
personal opinion on this statement is most closely described by:

a. Clearly Balzac had taken too much hashish when he wrote that!
 b. It is completely possible to make a fortune by legal means – in fact this is what I intend to do
in my life.

c. I don't care - watch out Elon Musk, here I come!

d. I think that this is absolutely true.

e. Even if great fortunes are acquired in a technically legal way, they are always morally
problematic.

Choice now: e.

Choice in assignment 1: e.

Notes:

<Answer in here IN YOUR OWN WORDS < Language edited by AI>

DO NOT USE AI HERE AT ALL. IF YOU DO YOU

WILL FAIL.

- at least 100 words long >

20. “The most environmentally friendly product is the one you didn’t buy.” (Joshua Becker) My personal
opinion on this statement is most closely described by:
a. I really don’t care about the environment.
b. Yeah – I really want a Range Rover so I am going to say this is rubbish irrespective of
whether is makes any sense.
c. This is a very subversive statement aimed at collapsing capitalism and human happiness.
d. As much as I want a Range Rover, this is a really wise statement.
e. Capitalism’s lust for consumption is the greatest threat to the sustainability of the human
species.

Choice now: e.

Choice in assignment 1: e.

Notes:

This statement perfectly compresses so much This statement encapsulates many of the
of what I have learned in this module – we central themes explored in this module,
tend to assume that happiness will come from particularly the tension between material
scratching the itch of those material desires in desire and ethical responsibility. A
life, but honestly, it is so much more recurring insight has been the recognition
rewarding to not be controlled by material that the pursuit of material satisfaction
selfishness, but instead liberated by often fails to produce genuine fulfilment.
ecologically and humanely ethical practices. Instead, a more meaningful form of
When working on Assessment 5, I was wellbeing emerges when individuals are
introduced to the virtue ethics concepts of guided by ethical considerations that
arete, phronesis and eudaimonia. With some prioritise ecological sustainability and
intense introspection, I realized that the human flourishing over personal
highest form of eudaimonia I would want to accumulation.
achieve is a life of balance over excess. I
Assessment 5 introduced the
strayed away from my prior dreams to achieve
virtue-ethical concepts of arete,
financial success to the highest degree,
phronesis, and eudaimonia, which
because I have learned how quickly that
provided a framework for understanding
ambition can turn into greed and selfishness.
the kind of life worth striving for. Through
With regards to this question, I have realized
this lens, it became clear that the highest
that capitalism urges us to have more without
form of eudaimonia is not achieved
acknowledging the impacts of that
through excess, but through balance,
consumption. Essentially sustainability and
moderation, and the cultivation of moral
greed are inversely proportional, because if I
character. This perspective challenges the
want more, I buy/use more, and ultimately, I
assumption—reinforced by capitalist
deplete more. Hence my original answer has
norms—that financial success is the
only been reinforced.
primary indicator of a good life. The
module demonstrated how easily the
pursuit of wealth can devolve into greed,
ultimately undermining both personal
 integrity and collective wellbeing.

In relation to the question at hand, the

course material highlighted how
capitalism encourages continuous
consumption without acknowledging the
environmental consequences of such
behaviour. Sustainability and greed
operate in direct opposition: the more
one desires, purchases, and uses, the
more natural resources are depleted. This
inverse relationship underscores the
incompatibility between unrestrained
consumption and ecological preservation.

For these reasons, the learning from this

module has reinforced my original
position. A meaningful and ethically
grounded life requires resisting the
pressures of materialism and embracing
practices that support both environmental
sustainability and human wellbeing.

Summary
Number unchanged: 12

Number changed: 8
 Conclusion

To conclude, looking at the preceding sections of this portfolio, the most important things which I
learned in this module were:

<complete this in a few paragraphs. NB: This should be the most substantial comment in this portfolio
and must give us a clear indication whether you have thought deeply about this module.>

The most important things which I learned in Throughout this module, I was introduced
this module were ethical frameworks which I to ethical frameworks that I had never
have never considered before, that have previously considered, and these have
helped me shift my initially performative and significantly reshaped my understanding
shallow moral opinions to more grounded and of morality. What began as a set of
justifiable ones. instinctive and often superficial moral
intuitions gradually developed into a more
I have learned how to evaluate the
coherent, defensible ethical outlook.
universalization of a maxim through Immanuel
Kant’s Categorical Imperative, which I hold to One of the most influential concepts was
a high regard when reflecting on what I Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Learning
believe is moral or immoral. I find that it how to evaluate the universalizability of a
rationalizes difficult themes by forcing us to maxim provided a rational method for
see a situation as if everyone on the planet determining whether an action could be
accepted it as normal, allowing us to critique morally justified. This framework clarified
the logical viability or absurdity of it. Equipped many of my earlier uncertainties,
with this, I have rationalized my own particularly regarding the moral legitimacy
discomfort with the acceptance of billionaires of extreme wealth. When applied to cases
and reinforced my belief that no one can such as Motsepe’s, it became evident that
achieve extreme wealth without causing philanthropy cannot compensate for the
immense suffering to others (as in the case structural injustices that make such
with Motsepe’s wealth, his philanthropy does wealth possible. The Categorical
not excuse his immoral wealth) Imperative helped me articulate why
extreme wealth is inherently dependent
I have learned how to advocate fairness by on the deprivation of others and therefore
applying John Rawls’ profound principles of cannot be universalised without
distributive justice, enabling me to contradiction.
acknowledge my own privilege when
Rawls’ principles of distributive justice
addressing the inequalities that privilege
further deepened my understanding of
perpetuates. These principles align with my
fairness and privilege. These principles
moral compass, in that I believe that
illuminated how systemic inequalities
corruption and inequality drive those who
persist and how privilege shapes access to
benefit from it to neglect the rights of others,
opportunities. Engaging with peers during
stripping them of opportunities and exploiting
Assessment 4 made these ideas tangible:
them for gains. I do not see a just world where
discussions about South Africa’s
such behaviour can prevail. This became real
entrenched wealth disparities
to me during our Assessment 4 forum
demonstrated how meritocratic narratives
discussions, where I engaged with peers about
often obscure the structural barriers that
the ongoing structural wealth gap in South
keep families in cycles of poverty. Rawls’
Africa. While some students argued that
veil of ignorance made it clear that no
billionaires earned everything through pure
rational person would choose to live in a
merit, my conversations with them helped me
society as unequal as ours if they did not
stand firm that our systemic setup traps
know their future social position.
families in poverty while rewarding corporate
greed. Through Rawls' veil of ignorance, my Although I do not fully align with
peers and I agreed that if we did not know our utilitarianism, I gained an appreciation for
social placement beforehand, we would never its relevance in addressing economic
choose our current unequal society. dilemmas. However, its tendency to
reduce individuals to variables in a
I learned that I do not really agree with
calculation highlighted its limitations. This
utilitarianism but nonetheless respect its
became apparent in Assessment 3, where
importance in ethical philosophy. It is
many students avoided selecting the most
probably most useful when answering the
utilitarian option because it appeared
questions arising from the economic problem, morally troubling despite producing the
but ethically, it treats people as variables in an “greatest good.” The framework’s
equation and neglects the complexities of potential to justify environmentally or
issues in favour of pleasing the most people. socially harmful actions—such as
In Assessment 3, many students did not excessive coal use—reinforced my
answer the question to what the most reservations.
utilitarian option was, simply because they did
The module also challenged my
mot want to mistakenly be seen as holding
assumptions about intrinsic and
those views. Hence, it rubs me the wrong way
instrumental value. While I remain
because it can easily excuse environmentally
uncertain about whether my perspective
or humanely immoral acts if it might make
is anthropocentric or
many people happy through delivering
non-anthropocentric, I developed a
detrimental comforts (the overuse of coal
clearer understanding of nature’s
would be seen as okay because more
multifaceted significance. I now recognise
electricity can be supplied).
that every organism plays a role within
I learned that I appreciate instrumental value ecological systems and that humans have
more than intrinsic value, although my a responsibility to protect the natural
strongest dilemma in this module remains world while acknowledging the
that I simply cannot reconcile whether I am instrumental benefits it provides.
anthropocentric or non-anthropocentric. I see
A particularly transformative aspect of the
nature’s importance to humans, as much as I
course was confronting my own ecological
see humans’ lack of importance to nature.
footprint. I realised that my
Ultimately though, I walk away from this
environmental commitments were more
module seeing that every creature has a part
aspirational than practical. This
to play and that as human beings we not only
recognition shifted my focus from judging
have a duty to care for the world we live in,
others to critically examining my own
but we should also appreciate the benefits
habits and complacency. It prompted a
(instrumental value) bestowed on us by
more sincere commitment to sustainable
nature. living.

I came to terms with my ecological footprint Virtue ethics—especially the concepts of

and realized I have been more bite than bark arete, phronesis, and eudaimonia—played
in my environmentalist journey. This section, a central role in reshaping my long-term
more than the others, has alerted me to my aspirations. I came to understand that the
own complacency, and has pushed me to virtues I believed defined me were not
make radical changes in my own life. Before aligned with the life of meaning and
taking this module, I looked down on others balance I ultimately sought. Through
for enjoying the comforts of phronesis, I was able to reassess my
overconsumption, but now I know I am no values and redirect my goals away from
better, and instead of judging or pointing financial ambition and toward a more
fingers, I must look first in the mirror. ethically grounded vision of flourishing,
one that prioritises integrity,
I reshaped my moral code to no longer desire
sustainability, and the wellbeing of future
financial prosperity, because this module has
generations.
taught me that the arete that would align with
who I thought I was, do not coincide with the Finally, this module challenged my
eudaimonia I longed for. I have been able to assumptions about academic work itself. I
reevaluate phronesis that acts as an ethical entered the course believing that ethical
processing of my arete to achieve my new reasoning required detached,
vision of goals, which are to live meaningfully, textbook-style responses. Instead, I
rejecting the greed I battled with before, and discovered that genuine ethical
advocate for the world I want my daughter to understanding demands introspection,
grow up in. This has truly been the most life- honesty, and a willingness to confront
changing aspect for me. I now plan to use one’s own contradictions. I began the
what I have learned in my corporate journey, semester believing I was already morally
ensuring I never forget the morals this module grounded, but the exploration of various
has taught me. ethical theories—and their limitations—
revealed the complexity of moral life and
 This module has definitely lived up to its the importance of continual
threats of making me wonder why I am even self-examination.
taking it (not just because my marks were
shocking). I am often wired to present my
work in a moderate way, making sure I sound
textbook and answer questions as generically
as possible to avoid confusing markers (this
did earn me some kind reviews from my peers
on the forum discussions). But through the
ups and downs of completing this semester, I
have learned that the only way to ever
understand ethics is to understand yourself. It
requires immense introspection that I never
previously thought necessary in academia. I
initially believed that I was a relatively morally
correct individual. I felt that my outright views
on what is right or wrong separated me as a
good person with good values. However,
learning not only about the different
philosophical takes on ethics but their
limitations as well, I have learned that it is not
really that black and white.

REFERENCES

1. Kant, I. 1998. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by M. Gregor. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1785).
2. Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.
3. [Link]
(Accessed 11 May 2026)
4. [Link]
(Accessed 11 May 2026)
5. [Link]
(Accessed 11 May 2026)