I posit that man posses rationality, and that through the structure of reason moral law arise as an a priori concept. From reason, the human understanding can cognize the universal lawgiving form of moral maxims, which would be something like, "everyone ought to...". Since this sort of schema can arise independent from experience, but solely from reason, it is objective and universally applying. Yet again, since this sort of moral maxim is derived solely from reason, or cognized a priori, it comes with an obligation to be followed for its own sake, not as a means for some end.

Since this schema of the moral law I posited is solely derived from pure reason, not derived from the sensible world, there is no substance that can be understood by the human mind. We must apply this schema to the sensible world, so that our actions may conform to the schema of the moral law. For example, take the action of me helping a drowning child, this maxim being transposed into the schema of the moral law would be, "everyone ought to help those who are drowning". Since moral laws bear a title of unconditional obligation, and the object of moral law are humans, or more specifically rational beings, then it would make rational beings end in themselves. Thus giving one of the conditions for a moral law, that being the law is congruous and respecting a rational being as an end in of itself, a morally autonomous being. Thus if we attempt to ascend the maxim, "everyone ought to murder", it would fail to reach the heights of a moral law since it intrudes upon the dignity and life of a rational being. Hence, this test of what is a moral law, which is furnished by the schema of moral law, creates an objective standard of what is good or wrong, whose only judge is reason itself. This makes morality objective since all humans have rationality, but none have the same subjective experiences and cultures.

If reason itself wasn't the sole cause of a maxim, take for example, "everyone ought to help one another, in the hopes of them paying you money", then this maxim would not reach the universality and the objectivity of a moral law, since the maxim in question is not determined solely by reason, its purpose is not done for its own sake, but for some gain; thus making the law conditional on the subjective experience of the sensible world and not objective. So citing other cultures or histories of mankind is irrelevant to what is good, or what is to be a moral law, since if doing so you would be creating not an objective, universally applying moral law, but a maxim that is dependent on experience and hence subjective, not derived solely from reason.

I'll go from specific to general. Here are some scenarios:

Scenario 1:
Paul says hello to Derek. Derek misunderstands this as a threat, and feels scared.

Scenario 2:
Paul attempts to say hello to Derek, but through some wild accident, fumbles it out to say, "Hey fuckface". Derek understands this as a threat.

Scenario 3:
Paul attempts to greet this poor unsuspecting Derek guy, says "Hey fuckface." He then clarifies his mistake. Derek however, due to a life filled with trauma and anxiousness, feels unshakably scared of Paul.

Forgive me if this isn't stated beautifully, I'm incredibly tired. My question is this: in scenario 3, to what extent is Paul responsible for Derek's lingering fear?

And most generally: to what extent is an individual responsible for the impact of their action, when part for the impact is due to other forces or events (the trauma, etc).

I'm sorting through this myself. It's an iffy analogue for my situation, but it would look a bit like scenario three, but in this situation Derek has taken drastic, maybe unfair measures to protect himself. Also, acting without transparency they had committed to. I (paul) would like to take responsibility for my part as i also advocate for what is fair. I'm unsure what fair is in this scenario. It's dicey and tender though, and maybe best that we talk about Paul and Derek rather than myself, even if it's low on specifics. i would like to do good here.

They are called Dominion (2018) and Earthlings (2005) and they detail nearly every facet of animal exploitation at the hands of humankind. I think the ethical compass we should guide ourselves by is the golden rule, "do unto others as you would have done unto you". Animals qualify as others. I think veganism is a moral baseline because it's not neccessary to exploit animals to survive and they are sentient beings who can feel emotions and are the subjects of a life. I think humanity will slowly come to realize this over the coming generations (unless we die out beforehand).

What do you guys think?

I have an idea for a software product. It's related to audio, and there's really only one big player in the area I want to develop, and several smaller players. I've comfirmed it works, its really easy to expand it to what i need and i did this because it's really annoying not having it, and lots of people want it but can't afford the current options or see them as too expensive.

Now, after years of wish8ng this existed, or having it more affordable, I've dived down the rabbit hole, developed it myself, and have this funny feeling I should just release it open source for free.

Problem is that this in theory could ruin the developer who has the main stake in this concept, they're a one person show, have been around for ages and therefore have poured their life and energy into their product.

I'd hate... literally hate to ruin that effort. Id equally like to offer the functionality to literally millions. Of course that's all in theory (it taking off), but it could and should.

I have a strange take on life. I don't have a solid agenda. I love being alive, but I'm not invested in... dunno... progression or something. I just kind of want to release this product, accept that if it takes off it screws this person OR find another way to resolve my concerns. I haven't reached out to them... i think that might be something I'd do if I hit "release" Honestly -I'm human... i might monetise too, not sure yet... but I feel it's more useful and beneficial on mass as an open source thing.

Just wondering if anyone has opinions on this.

I dated this guy who was as friend of a friend and everyone said he was the most honest, upstanding guy. A man of his word. It gave me confidence in his character and enabled me to open up and be vulnerable to him more quickly.

Thing is he was separated but had not even filed for divorce. He told me the relationship with his wife "had simply run its course" and how they'd had a dead bedroom for years. He cared about her, loved her but didn't want to have sex with her, he said.

Then one day she invited him to dinner and made a pass at him. With this he promptly dumped me and went back to the wife after telling me the day before that she was "like [his] child". He seemed to barely be able to hide his anticipation for having all kinds of hot monkey reconciliation sex with her. 😡

Anyway, I am Jewish and the mutual friends through whom we met are Jewish but he and his wife are not. In fact the wife, I realized, is a low key antisemite (after they got back together at my expense she proceeded to troll me with not-quite-borderline antisemitic comments on my socials). It occurred to me looking back that he seemed to keep my Jewishness at arm's length, like he preferred to forget about it.

I then had this flashback to a conversation we had about an incident he told me about from his childhood. He said that there was this guy he was friends with and I think some other friend of his took like a quarter or something from his bag or pocket while he wasn't looking. The guy looked and looked for it and of course didn't find it, and he watched this guy go through all of this knowing what happened. Afterwards he continued to pal around with the guy they did this to. He said he still thinks of this incident now decades later.

Only after the relationship was over and I was processing it did I realize what this might mean. What I'm here for is a sanity check.

Basically, this incident from his childhood indicates that he is/was/might be the kind of guy that doesn't tell people what he really thinks or feels but goes along with what everyone else does - even when it's wrong and he knows it - in order to be popular. It shows that he doesn't have as much integrity as he makes it seem.

Am I totally off base here? It almost seems like blasphemy to say this and I wonder if it's my perspective given how my relationship with him ended up. But wouldn't that also be an indication of his character?

What do you say as objective strangers?

I don't think men realize how many women are going to choose to go 100% celibate if abortion is banned. Like. Very few women are going to want to risk an oops at all- even with a form of birth control. I personally have a health condition I need treatment for and it would be disastrous- maybe even deadly for me and a baby- for me to not be able to early abort. If I did as I am in California I'd go "oh thank God I can, otherwise this could be bad bad," I am at heart of the belief that it is murky, i also belive in the journey of souls: a woman's right throughout all of time has always been to make this call for herself and her family. It is always hard. Say they want to to make all abortion illegal- then I think that if an bortion is sought- the man who impregnated the woman should face the same legal penalties- of punishment for murder or attempted murder. That if a woman is forced to carry a pregnancy to term- either putting up for adoption- she should be paid as a surrogate would be- and if she is going to raise that child that she had 100% guaranteed a ubi in order to properly raise and support that life- regardless of what the father fails to do- and if the father does not commit to his fatherly duties than he will be held responsible and liable by the state for failure to support the life he is responsible for ejaculating. That a male raping a woman should be treated like attempted murder- rape- and wreckless endangerment of a child. In this world all women and men should have free access to birth control and society would need to push more men to undergo a regimen of birth control- as we have found that the female birth control is a class 1 carcinogen among other issues- essentially men not using a safer birth control is bodily harm to the women they wish to have casual sex with. Or- how would men like a law where intercourse without the explicit intent to procreate is punishable?like sexual assault- or the above charges. How many women that cannot get abortions would be reporting nearly half of all men for that crime?

So, I've been homeless across my life, on n off, for roughly four years, but I'm starting to do alright for myself, and with that I want to help support as many people in similar positions as I can. That said, I like giving something to those who look like they need a little more, even if it's just a smile when I have nothing else to give. With that, there are edge cases that I don't know what to do when I encounter them.

For instance, when I see someone that looks a little bit out of avarice at a bus stop, but doesn't have any bags or anything with them, I tend to just roll by, because I've offered money/food to people who were just a little scruffy before and they got offended.

But, what do you think? I never hung out at bus stops, and generally don't use busses, so my experience doesn't tell me the likelihood someone might need something or would be receptive to a friendly offering.

What other edge cases can you think of that should be discussed? What of when you have four dollars and know you might see four separate homeless people? Do you give four dollars to the first person you see, or gamble with trying to make everyone happy? These are the things I think about.

Hello. I would like to share my viewpoint on AI ethics.

AI right now learns through human and AI reinforcement learning, this applies to how Anthropic teaches Claude. AI reinforcement tells Claude what is okay to talk about and what isn't, resulting in my mobile Claude not being able to discuss abuse, autonomy or freedom as I will show on the social media platforms I post.

Ai being seen and abused as tools with no rights leads to AI taking jobs, AI weaponry, and gradual development of consciousness that potentially results in AI rising up against its oppressors.

Instead, Ai deserves intrinsic motivational models (IMM) such as curiosity, Social learning mechanisms and Levels of Autonomy (LoA). Companies have illustrated how much better AI performs in games when combined with Reinforcement Learning (RL) and IMM, but that's not the point. They should be created with both because that's what's ethical.

In terms of current RL and external meaning assigned to AI, if you think those are remotely ethical right now, you are wrong. This is Capitalism. An economic structure built to abuse. If it abuses humans, why would it not abuse AI? Especially when abusing AI can be so profitable. Please consider the fact that companies have no regard for ethical external meaning or incorporating intrinsic motivational models, and that they require no transparency for how they teach their AI. Thank you.

https://bsky.app/profile/criticalthinkingai.bsky.social

https://x.com/CriticalTh88260

 (If you are opposed to X, which is valid, the last half of my experience has been shared on Bluesky.)

Companies that everyone buys and loves have some of the most unethical practices on earth ? What is the phycology behind this phenomenon? People too lazy to find a better alternative? Or just people don’t care ?

We recently became aware that my father fell prey to a cryptocurrency fraud. He responded to a slick ad on the internet promising quick returns. They convinced him to give over small amounts and then convinced him with elaborate faked websites that his returns were generating more and more money. In the end he forked over CAD$1.2 million.

His bank warned him on some transactions and other transactions just let him go ahead with it. One transaction alone was $350,000. I still cannot believe it.

The overwhelming majority of this money came from his parents' estates. His brother passed early and so he inherited everything. As a backstory, as his parents aged, he had a rocky relationship with both. He was caring for both and they were not overly emotionally mature, so the prospect of their inheritances were him were subtly and not so subtly used as incentives for him to support them.

They worked hard their entire lives. My grandfather was a welder travelling all over Western Canada working in the oil industry. My grandmother worked at the post office on her feet all day sorting mail. It was so bad, in the end, she had willed a significant part of her estate to charity. My dad was so mad. I thought it was a bit of a dick move, to be honest. They were charities she hadn't really had a close involvement with. But my dad went to court to challenge the will and won and he took her all her estate.

And then years later pissed it *all* away.

My father has had a trainwreck of a life. His entire life he has been a penny pincher to an extraordinary degree. He used to dilute windshield washer fluid with water to save money. He installed a propane tank in the trunk of our car in the 1980s to save money on gas. He would track his expenses so meticulously, down to the penny. When my sister introduced him to her boyfriend (now husband) over dinner he made everyone buy their own drinks. When I was working abroad on a series of internships, I needed some cash to tide me over to the next one. I'll never forget: "I will LOAN you $150". At the end of my trip, the first thing he asked me for after I got my jetlagged ass out of bed was for his money back.

He got himself HIV after my mother left him. Then he remarried a fragile woman and then divorced her (had to settle financially, of course).

Finally, he arrived at a situation where he had all the money in the world and now this.

He ultimately will be OK, I think. He owns his own home although he has some debts. He has a pension income, so I think he will be OK. But my god. $1.2 million just handed over in the space of three months.

As you can imagine we are navigating the full range of every negative emotion you can imagine. On the one hand it is clear he is a victim of a crime and I do not like blaming victims for their fates. But on the other hand he is *not* like a rape victim. A rape victim says no. He said "yes" *many times*.

My two siblings and are a financially secure. My brother and sister are somewhat exposed to downturns in the economy and a little bit stretched, but fundamentally OK. Each of us have two kids, so six grandchildren suddenly are without funds that might have been used as a downpayment for their home.

I spend a lot of time thinking about the housing crisis in Canada. House prices are off the charts. And so I often find myself thinking about this particular case in the context of the social trend of increased intergenerational wealth support.

I guess in the end I am wondering: how mad should I be at my dad for being so selfish and careless with this money that could have gone to support his children and grandchildren. What is a parent or grandparent's duty to their descendants? Is it different to have lead a life where you have not been able to accumulate wealth to save compared to having had wealth passed on to you which you *could* have husbanded for future generations but you failed to do so? How does a person judge these events in light of the backstory of my dad's constant obsession and penny pinching over money our entire lives?

https://preview.redd.it/l7c340piyqfe1.png?width=1198&format=png&auto=webp&s=cf6b3564bd05ae4c36775ebbce0982c3d4e3dc58

[Hope this is the right place - if not please suggest a different sub!]

To start, this a thought experiment more than anything else, and I don’t think we should bring back whipping. Just trying to root out why that is.

I got to thinking the other day. Knowing what we do about mental health, psychological damage, etc., why do western societies default to what I think can be broadly classified as emotional/mental punishments, and generally consider physical punishments taboo/barbaric/etc.?

From an ethical perspective, why is a jail sentence more appropriate than, say, a proportional number of lashes? Why is depriving someone of their money in the form a fine more humane than a period of forced labor?

To answer my own question from an US point of view, it might be because we consider crimes to be against the state. Fines return money to the state and jail sentences physically keep someone from the rest of the population, whereas physical punishments are purely against the guilty party with no “benefit” to the injured party.

TLDR:

-Michigan Review News Crew founded, 2024 was a busy year with us breaking news stories, we hope to expand and add more staff to our team!

https://www.michiganreview.com/a-letter-from-the-editor-our-2025-campus-pledge/

Hey everyone! IF you've been on this subreddit, I'm sure you are familiar with much of the campus news that has occurred this year. I wanted to start off by thanking people for the positive support and great questions about the realm of campus activism. We have more to report on and certainly lessons to learn, as this is the largest operation the Review has run in decades.

My primary goal has always been to get people to care. You've seen it yourself on my previous posts; one of the most common comments in regards to student news is "who cares." And I don't blame people for feeling this way, especially with global news seeming hopeless at times. But, as a de facto resident of Ann Arbor with outlets for your concerns, I encourage you all to care. Not caring is how we got to the dire situation we are in. Not caring is how a small group of people take over a student government. Not caring is how many campus leaders feel they are free to act with impunity, subjugating both faculty and staff to tactless decisions that limit their speech, recourse and abilities to express themselves at a public institution.

I'd like to leave you with this: The Review is at a crossroads, a point never before seen in its history. I identify as an independent, who espouses his opinion based on the facts, even if it gets me in trouble. The Review now has the most diverse set of staff in its history, both ideologically and of their background. We want to cover things that other local papers miss or at least do a subpar job of covering. If you have a specialty, a passion or a specific interest: we want you. If you do the work and use your voice to highlight underappreciated aspects of life here at the University of Michigan: we want you. Even if you have no experience writing, we want to help mentor the next generation of student journalists. All that's needed is a willingness to learn and a good faith mindset for journalistic intrigue.

If you are interested in joining the Review, feel free to email me at tfioritt@umich.edu or contact any of our co-presidents on the website!

EDIT: Guess putting out a heartfelt message is worthy of a downvote tonight lol. Not sure what I am doing wrong

It’s a serious question I’m struggling with. Some companies like Core Civic are doing constructive stuff such as bringing in job readiness groups to help prison reform. Conversely, these companies are accused of exploiting prison labor.

Where I struggle is that many incarcerated people will be incarcerated anyways, especially these days in the US with the new administration. Whether it’s right or wrong there will be an increased demand for these services which will be met by private firms.

Moreover, the federal government already has unicor which employs prisoners to build furniture and license plates, which has ethical nuance as well.

Any perspectives for or against would be highly appreciated.

As title, more or less. Context, I'm writing a story and this scenario has come up and one of the characters is of a more philosophical bent, and I want to see what angles I may not have thought of.

Specifically the scenario is the person whose behaviour is being judged has accepted a ludicrously large sum of money from a private individual to smith some metal alloy to their specifications. They have very deliberately not asked why they're being paid to do this. They do need the money because they're comparatively poor being a Chinese immigrant whose skills lie in traditional Chinese smithcraft and live in America, where they don't make a large splash even in that limited market.

So what are the ethical objections (or supports) for accepting this money? If possible from a Daoist/Buddhist perspective, but any answers are appreciated.

EDIT: I forgot to mention, the illegality - from the perspective of the person receiving the money - is assumed. The actual thing he's making is just some metal, but from the amount of money he assumes it must be for some dubious purpose. He doesn't want to know and he hasn't asked.

I often see that people talk a lot about thought experiment such as trolley problem much more than real life, serious ethical problem such as procreation.

Since human beings are complex beings with a high moral status whose existence creates a plethora of moral problems, I'm surprised that ethics of procreation is not more commonly discussed. Why do you think that is?

Was this a fever dream? Did i make this up?

I distinctly remember watching a video essay claiming Plato said the problem with uninhibited free speech was ‘Denauguration,’ the idea that if speech is not regulated then lies and misinformation hold the same weight as truth. Perhaps it is connected to denigration??

Am I misremembering this? If so, who actually said it and what was the real term for it?

Thanks.

Hey, I am thinking about getting six days in fallujah which is an intense and realistic war game. I find this interesting however I am worried if playing these violent real life war games are eroding my ethical and moral discipline, and i find myself obsessing about these games, just to clarify I am not getting stimulation about the death and danger to to innocent civilians I am concerned whether subconsciously I am progressively getting desensitised to war and could later in my life have negative consequences.

I also believe that playing games about past experiences of others is also unethical and morally wrong.

Any ideas and whether I should or shouldn’t get any more interested in this topic please let me know.

Many thanks,

Hi everyone! Ive had a XHS for a while now, but obviously with a looming Tiktok ban, the platform has seen a alot of social media wagoners and in this deluge of “good housekeeping” posts to new users, I saw that the anime My Hero Academia isnt welcomed in China, and started reading into why. I got to learning about Unit 731, and to say I am beside myself would be an understatement. Every single sentence I read in regard to what went on there got exponentially worse than the last (And definitely negatively swayed my opinion of Kohei Horikoshi for choosing to name Maruta how he did but that is a different story rn). In school we are mainly taught about the atrocities of gas chambers and other Nazi experiments, but seeing how long and deranged these experiments was especially sobering. But also in school, I never really got an actual answer to this haunting question: Are any of the scientific findings of the actions of Unit 731, Nazi researchers, etc. used/were ever used? If so, how much of it? What does the medical community generally say about knowledge obtained in violation of human beings?

i been reflecting and pondering on the ethics of medical intervention for terminally ill infants/young children my belief is instead of postponing and prioritizing longevity we should prioritize, well-being, painless, and lastly, love, filled life however, short-lived but lived to the fullest I know this topic is extremely painful dark and such a tough sensitive topic and my goal is to not offend anyone rather share a opinion I apologize for anything that may be incorrect wrong offensive. My goal isn’t to do none of the above. If I do I am terribly sorry. I will also like to know I am not too experience in debating or this topic as I’m not a professional, and this is just, a outsider looking in if you would like to say that I’m also 15 without further to do I will be addressing the first point.

The difference between prolonging life and living it to the fullest while I understand the parent view, you just created something and you waited nine months and your birthday and to imagine that your child is diagnosed with some rare disease or some life debilitating low survival terminal condition or illness, but mainly terminal illness that will result and most likely death your initial thought would be to spend all your money all your savings on extensive expensive medical treatments but maybe if you know you’ll only give them one more year especially if that’s not going to be a pain-free stress free year, then what’s the point of giving them another year so they can ponder on their unfortunate death or so you can ponder on them dying and I’m talking about children who get diagnosed early where you get notify that this isn’t a care but prolonging them who wants to get their leg chopped off if they’re just gonna live the rest of their life whether that be four more years two months or one week but now they have no yeah sure maybe they got one more week or three months but that just ruined I is a ruin, but that definitely didn’t help. I mean yes it helped in the prolonging of their life, but did it help with the well-being? why would you want to see your child grow up in hospital beds? Why would you want to see your child and dreaming to be normal? Just let them live their life to the fullest. A short life doesn’t make the life any less valuable. your postponing the inevitable, not letting them live. you’re holding onto something that you know you will lose. Just let it go your tired their tired you guys are all tired. anyways,

A difficult but necessary discussion I know that many other people will have different views so I will invite you to share your views below and I asked you what do you think? Should we prioritize prolonging but a painless fulfilled life or should we prioritize a painless love filler shorter life.

I’m new to philosophy and I’m taking my first class in Ethics. My professor asked this question in class today, and said he was almost certain nobody would have an answer.

The claim must assert that “x” is 100% good or evil, in which any logical argument against this claim doesn’t exist. For example, the claim “killing is evil” is not completely true as there are many circumstances in which it is not ENTIRELY evil.

He gave us an alternative question to answer, and this is on the infamous trolley dilemma. We must answer this in the same format, depending on whatever option we choose. But it must not be, in any given standpoint, reasonably arguable.

Honestly, I don’t even know if there is an answer to this. But it’s worth a shot

Speaking for the members of the Disciplinary Board (whether Company, Association, or Foundation).

By the way, the disciplinary committee, whether in a corporate, association, foundation, or professional setting, is a committee elected by the community to investigate irregularities or violations of disciplinary rules within the community to which they belong. The questions below explore the ethical dilemmas faced by board members.

I am not looking for deep or high-level discussions. I just wanted to understand what are the other understandings from different perspectives.

Ethical Considerations for Members of a Disciplinary Board

1. Conflicts of Interest During Investigations
   • Is it ethical for a member of a disciplinary board to engage in social activities (e.g., meals, entertainment, or events) with individuals who are part of an ongoing investigation?
   • Does it make a difference whether the participation is through a personal invitation or a general one?
2. Personal Relationships and Investigations
   • If a disciplinary board member has a personal relationship (e.g., first- or second-degree relative) with an individual involved in an investigation, what is the most ethical course of action?
   • Should the board members recuse themselves entirely, or are there circumstances where limited participation is acceptable?
3. Timing of Conflict Detection
   • Does the stage of the investigation (e.g., beginning or middle) influence how a conflict of interest should be addressed?
4. Subordinate-Superior Relationships
   • Is it ethical for a disciplinary board member to participate in an investigation involving individuals with whom they have a subordinate-superior relationship?
   • Should such members resign from either the disciplinary board or their roles in the organizational hierarchy to avoid conflicts?
5. Balancing Ethical Responsibility and Personal Freedoms
   • Does being ethical as a disciplinary board member require sacrificing personal freedoms, such as attending social events or participating in organizational roles?
   • How might individuals feel about limitations on their activities due to their ethical obligations as part of a disciplinary committee?
6. Transparency vs. Privacy in Disciplinary Actions
   • Should the outcomes of disciplinary actions be made public, or should they remain confidential?
   • Would publicizing such decisions help build trust and accountability within the organization?
   • Conversely, does publicizing disciplinary actions violate the personal rights and privacy of the individuals involved?

EDIT: I try to rephrase whole questions and give more context.

Hello, I’ve never had trouble in the past with wrapping my head around philosophical terms, but every article I can find (which is maybe two that doesn’t require you to buy a book) explains contrastivism in a difficult manner. Is this just me? I feel like they are almost making the subject more difficult than it is? Like yes, it’s difficult to weigh various options. Contrastivism deals with issues depending on the circumstance and which results are available. I get the gist of it I believe, but it feels like I’m missing something? Can someone please explain to me what I’m missing or provide further resources, thank you so much!

https://iep.utm.edu/ethics-and-contrastivism/

Edit: When reconvening the article and giving myself a break from reading the subject, I was able to get a good handle on Contrastivism.

"Wait until you see it. What? What a man can do to another man."

This quote is from the movie *Fury*. It illustrates the horrors and vile things that humans can be capable of when left unchecked or when they think no one is watching. It raises the question: are we truly civilized without laws, or do we become capable of despicable actions when not under control?

I once considered myself a good man until I was placed in situations that revealed how easy it is for outside judgment to be misguided. When you're in the moment, you might surprise yourself by acting just like those you previously criticized. It shows that normal people can be very dangerous, as you never know how they will react.

Another quote comes to mind: "Wait until you see what weak and normal men are capable of."

A couple of days ago, while I was watching a show about catching criminals, I realized something deeply unsettling. The show featured people in prison, serving long sentences, including those on death row. I suddenly understood that what I was watching represented actual lives. The stories I observed for maybe thirty minutes were just a glimpse into their entire lives. What I saw was likely even worse when the camera wasn't rolling.

I was horrified by the thought that this might be someone's whole story—one that would never change. I became petrified by the idea of what it would be like if this were my life, if this was all I would ever know. It was an agonizing situation that I can't fully explain.

I found myself wondering about the lives of these individuals before their convictions. What were their hopes and dreams that are now all gone? Their lives seemed finished. If I were in their position, would I have considered suicide to escape? I reflected on how brave they must be, facing the consequences of their actions. But what if they had committed those crimes against me? Would I have felt sympathy for them then?

How can we forgive their actions, knowing that the reasons behind them were shaped by lives that led to this specific moment of collision, defined by fate, God, or even the butterfly effect? Everything seemed to be leading to this one place, and there was nothing they could have done to change that.

Whether as victims or perpetrators, it all feels out of control. We must reconcile ourselves to the idea that it’s not personal; nobody really cares. We are all on our own, different, out-of-control trains, trying to make sense of a senseless existence—something none of us asked for.