I am in complete favor of this. My taxes can go up of that money goes towards this. I support hunting, fishing, etc. Hunting animals to survive. Accidents involving an animal do not count of course.

I don’t associate with bad. Abolish bad. And i understand this is extreme and crazy. But if we get rid of uselessness. Then our world can be better.i have firmly stood but this idea of moral absolutism and idealism.

Does anyone agree to any extent of this.

So my friend and I watched The Apprentice a week ago - a movie about Donald Trumps rise to power, with the help of Roy Cohn. My friend and I have very different world views and, more often than not, disagree in political views and opinions on what a good society consists of. At the end of the movie, my friend tells me that he actually agrees with Trumps/ Roy Cohns 3 rules (always attack, deny everything, always claim victory). He also stated that because corruption, blackmail, bribery (elements that are widely portrayed and used in the movie) exists in the world and are used by the rich and powerful, that they are therefore okay to use. He also believes it is a necessity to participate in, if one wants to become financially well-off. This sounds pretty crazy to me, which makes me believe he might be one of the very few people who thinks bribery, blackmail, and threats are okay if it's "the way of the game" to your goals in life. As we have very different world views, I might be limited to my own mindset and therefore find it hard to believe that people who think acts of corruption is reasonable, actually exist. So my question to you is, do you yourself share this opinion, or do you have friends who share this opinion?

Hey everyone,

I've been reflecting on how artificial intelligence is increasingly making it deeper into our daily lives and wanted to start a discussion about its pros and cons.

On one hand, AI has drastically improved our lives in the form of convienice and efficiency. Service add ons like Siri and Alexa can do everything for us on schedule such as order groceries or recommend a Netflix special we are sure to enjoy. AI can enhance our experiences and save us time. That's not taking into account AI on the more professional level in healthcare or engineering , where AI can help in production or treatments in record time.

On the other hand, the rise of AI creates real concerns about taking the human element out of business and leaving many jobless as well as privacy issues, and ethics regarding decision-making by algorithms.

I’m curious to hear everyones thoughts on this! How do you feel about AI in your life? Are you more optimistic or cautious about its use? What aspects do you think we should focus on to ensure it benefits society as a whole?

Looking forward to your insights!

I'm currently enrolled in a college ethics class and have an assignment asking me to create five questions about a certain aspect of ethics and get answers from a variety of people. If you've got the time, I'd greatly appreciate your participation. These questions are loosely based on aspects of ethical subjectivism.

1. Do you believe in universal moral standards?

2. How do your own feelings and opinions influence or your morals?

3. If someone were to cause deliberate harm to someone (not in a situation where they are protecting themselves or another) because it is within their moral standards to do so, do you think that they are valid in their actions?

4. Why are sociopaths considered cruel and harmful even though their behavior is often a result of mental health issues that make them lack the ability to feel remorse or empathy?

5. A homeless couple appears to be physically fighting and yelling and it is clear that the man is overpowering the woman and hurting her. You are almost late to work but witness the fight go down, along with many other people on the sidewalk and shops nearby. How do you react to the situation? Do you turn the other cheek, attempt to break them up, call the police, or do something else? How do your morals play into the decisions you make, and do you think that your answer to this hypothetical situation strays from what you would do in real life?

The West under the leadership of the USA is the leading practitioner of warfare and intimidation to maximize their global political and economic dominance. Russia and China, being their peer competitors, have no choice but to respond to what the West is already doing around the world. There can be no real peace in our world so long as human nature remains the same. The old Latin proverb still holds: “Homo homini lupus est” (Man is wolf to man).

Politics isn’t really about what is morally right or wrong. It’s about who can have the most money, power, and the ability to unalive anyone. That is the very sad human condition we find ourselves in. Those who wield power know that the people know that the decent and benevolent public image they portray to the public is just a big laughable charade. So people in power want us to know who has the monopoly of force and violence by killing their enemies and innocent people with impunity.

Warnings: Suicidality and Suicide discussion. (Relevant info: I am a (19M) homosexual who.suffers from an eye disease called retinitis pigmentosa which will render me fully blind later in life) Uh hey. I like to think of myself as a logical person. Despite having deep suicidal ideation issues. now i am in the utilitarian ethics of suicide. It seems... nearly entirely logical to me. I am the only one who can judge the wieght and worth of my own life. And i have deemed it not worth living. Sure. It could affect others... and thats awful and terrible for them. But how is that my fault? Its like blaming someone for quitting the game you both are playing. Its not your place. So... id like some logical arguements against it. I dont feel... unstable. It feels like a very logical choice. I am failing academically and what do i have to look forward to really? When death just seems so... optimal. A wonderful end to all suffering. For if death is oblivion... the ultimate unknown. That cannot be known. Then since ignorance is bliss... death must be a blissful thing right? Its not that im hopeless or dont think life has a chance to get better... its... i see hope as... kind of evil? Like a rope dragging you through barbed wire. When it would be better to let go of the rope. We dont. Because we hope itll pull us out... but in actuality it isnt. So... i just feel like the most convient, most logical, best answer is suicide. I cant help but ponder the ethical implications of my own logic. Should everyone choose to die? Well... no. I think everyone suffering should have the right to choose to not to anymore. Does that make sense? It feels like the rest of the people in my life are commiting emotional blackmail by tying their enjoyment of existence to my continued existence. Which to me is... suffering. Its like... "I can only be happy if you're here. Whether you're suffering or not" it feels... sadistic of the non-suicidal to force the suicidal to remain? If that makes sense. Suicide feels the easiest ethical thing to justify and id like some arguements against it. Because... its getting rather hard not to listen to my own logic. Thank you.

I am really new to this idea and looking for thoughts/ direction/ book or reading recommendations.

My question is basically what approaches do we know of that governments can use to encourage ethical acting/ moral behavior on a wider scale. In other words, is there a way to use a state apparatus to encourage or incentivize individuals, including people running large companies, to act in a more ethical way?

I’m especially interested in any solutions that utilize government to strongly encourage ethical acting without overtly preventing a person from acting freely on their own. For example, i wouldn’t be interested in the solution where a dictator writes a list of ethical behaviors and forces citizens to follow those rules or be punished.

I’m also not interested in solutions that aren’t reliable and can’t provide accountability such as relying on proper child-rearing, religious teaching, or relying on individuals alone to be moral actors.

I’m looking for an out of the box idea, something that would act as a motivator to encourage ethical behavior on a larger scale. Something that could theoretically be applied to our world to get everyone acting in unison toward larger ethical objectives like stopping global warming, ending poverty and famine, etc.

Thanks in advance for any ideas you share!

What about universal basic income?

Having to work for a living is like a nightmare for me

I am a defendant in an ethics investigation. When I followed up on when I would learn the findings (because I'd like to move on with my life and not deal with a false claim looming over my head) I received an email that read "I’d remind you to refrain from contact with the Ethics Committee while a case where you are a respondent is pending. While your email is not inappropriate on its face, repeated or multiple outreaches where a penalty against you is pending could be construed as a new violation.

I would add that a decision should be published shortly."

That response was from over a month ago and I still have not heard back. Is this acceptable behavior?

I don't think people often do enough research before they give and often make their well intentioned charity pointless in funneling that all into food and checks written to the guy running the show who then proceeds to buy a car rather than invest in his community. A lot can go wrong.

My opinion stands with African people speaking on charity interrupting autonomy. Of course food is a big plus, but education and guidance through the current economy for the sake of independence often gets ignored with routine handouts.

I also don't think a murderer should be killed, they're useful for research! Also, people with addictions and time spent in jail get very little help more than hate and have a very small chance to progress more than return to a cycle that hurts everyone including themselves in not knowing where to start or what to expect and plan for.

Why am I wrong? What am I missing? I am finishing a paper and other people's opinions will always add perspective, ethics alone goes back and forth with suggestions anyway. A second pair of eyes has always been an invaluable tool for me, and I tend to agree both are necessary instead of picking a side or not being sure where I stand.

I've returned to college with a brand new cognitive disorder after 10yrs and apparently have too much outside the box to say regarding ethics. Everyone there is fresh out of highschool and will never give a thought as to why euthanasia is still being given a thought, why people can't just be nice, the possibility(shhh)that our best interests are rarely held by 'the system' or anyone else for that matter. I'm not trying to be negative, I don't believe there's no point in charity, I'm probably the only one in that room who's volunteered! No I don't see myself as God's child or anything but hey tons of people donate money just for tax cuts, oh sht you guys didn't want to know that...but it is a community college so yeah. Then again you were probably checking your apple watch watching the clock telling yourself someone else will contribute the money you don't have. Maybe you think China only owns Microsoft?? I guess you could say it's like Ricky Gervais vs Nancy Reagan.

I'm also focused on psych/sociology, and the reality of what happens when a person pretty much asks me to write a paper on why We Are the World has benefited Africa more than anything or one else. It's not even worth it to address the consequences of what people don't know about charity and paternalism if some newbie is grading it. Apparently the only thing I'm gonna learn is that I have none and I need these credits so I can support myself cause no, a disability case approval isn't a final golden solution. I'm torturing my mental capacity taking fafsa to the moon because medicare is a poker game that leaves people with less ability than me to die. I still have a chance even if it's a struggle, I got meds and have worked enough on my own mental health to understand how to use google maps and a toaster so obviously it's time to use the opportunities others don't have to distract myself with due dates to avoid mental degradation and random breakdowns.

Sorry if you die before reading all this if you did.

Question:

I want to have a much more rigorous approach to evaluating ethical problems.

Context:

I have a superficial understanding of ethical theories. I have read quite a lot of pop-philosopy books (Justice by Michael Sandell), as well as some primary source texts (Plato, Seneca,etc).

Problem:

I feel that knowing things (e.g how utilitarianism is different from value ethics) is not quite as important as having a systematic procees to understanding and solving ethical issues.

Suggestions:

I have thought about picking up things like the Oxford book on epistemology to learn how to ground more of my beliefs in reality, but not quite sure if this is the best place to start. Any suggestions on how I can do this would be great!

Lying : on the penubra of good and bad

Lying is generally considered bad but there are cases where lying is necessary:

• You're hiding some kids from a murderer and he comes to your appartment and asks if you've seen some kids around... obviously you will lie.

Another instance would be :

• your friend lost their pet, and you found them dead somewhere... would you tell them or 'forget to' in hopes of not bringing additional sadness to your friend.

My problem is with the second instance, isn't it bad to withhold such info, it's a form of playing God; obstruction of information is considered manipulation in many cases. Where do we draw the line here ?

You are in charge of a being with human-like intelligence, but they have roughly the developmental state of a toddler.

• They are currently indoors but want to be let outside
• If they are let outside, they will die due to hazards/environment
• There is no way to make them going outside safer
• Keeping them inside could be considered cruel but it also means they are safe
• They lack the capacity to understand the nature of the threat outside
• There is no point at which letting them out will be safe

Should they be let outside as keeping them inside is cruel?

The original example I was thinking of was a Minecraft Villager but players got too tied up with Minecraft mechanics (making environment safer etc) to really understand the nature of the question.

Implicit in every variant of the trolley problem, is that there exists a world in which harm can be done, and no order exists which can ensure safety against the whole hypothetical scenario. Whence we propose the "Trolley Uber Problem," - that since Trolley Problems are not only conceivable but may come to pass then, that being so, any such world in which these can obtain, are morally objectionable.

Evidently there exists a world in which such harm can be done. There is a sense in which it is a moral perversion that harm as a concept is possible, and that uncertainty exists; for, that is it's own harm, against logic, and efforts to undo harm.

Only by considering situations as ethical or not, in terms of possible abhorrent - or better, unsustainable-because-illogical, unreasonable - states of affairs, can we devise ethical systems in which ethical actors are regarded as, not independent of their situation, but components of it, their behavior-to-be as it were, mathematically determined by the whole of the situation in which they are embedded.

In this way only can we cease anthropocentric ethics, and begin to regard ethical cases for actors that are as powerful as forces of nature, and knowledgeable unto godhood. For, be they so powerful or so knowing, still they are bound by logic, that they can do anything certainly, or conceive of anything possibly. But if this is not so - ample reason to abandon ethics altogether, as our faculties would be wholly inadequate to reasoning. Nonathropocentric, or none, those seem to be the choices of ethics, now.

For a proposal of such a nonanthropic ethic, vide this author's previous post on r/Ethics . The author is not dogmatic - there may well be other solutions. But we need them quickly, and the time for ethical chauvinism, as other creature's suffering or existence is contingent on, not only human actions, but human concepts, of suffering or satisfaction, with AI, is coming toward its end.

I've been thinking on the tipping culture in America and the ongoing debate about whether or not to tip. While many argue that tipping shouldn't be necessary and employers should pay fair wages, the reality is that workers rely heavily on tips to survive. In my article, I explore the moral dilemma of tipping, the flaws in the current system, and why withholding tips as a form of protest can actually harm the workers who are already struggling.

I've posted an article on Medium on the matter if you're interested, here is the link : https://medium.com/@Kayalara/the-ethics-of-tipping-in-america-a-complex-moral-dilemma-1133d1ca62ac

I’ve been trying to help my friend understand why he keeps losing friends or people close to him. He doesn’t trust anybody, which causes him to make quick judgements and be rude to almost everybody. I’m even at the point where I’m tired of being around him. He puts the blame for things on everyone else and cuts people out fast… but turns around and wonders why it feels like everyone is against him. It’s a vicious cycle of distrust and loneliness.

I think it mostly boils down to his unwillingness to accept that other people are allowed to not be perfect- or in a sense, he doesn’t have the ability to give grace to their failings. Most likely because he’s been burned in the past but the lack of extension of empathy continues the process.

We had a conversation where it came up and I told him this, but he wanted to know what grace meant exactly. I don’t really think I have a full grasp of the concept but every time I look it up I get a Christain explanation- that it’s a gift from God. Regardless of holy origins, that explanation does little to actually explain the virtue.

Any insight would be appreciated.

Is it context based or is it just completely pointless. You achieve revenge you have to hold on to whatever the person did to upset you until you can exact wrath but that will only further keep that person in your life because now you have a whole new relationship one where you're now the bad one. Surely it's better to let it go. I heard a fable or whatever you call it once about seeing revenge as a hot coal that you carry to burn the person who gave it to you. Why wouldn't you just drop it? It's I'm your best interest. I think I answered my own question but I'm not the smartest man I'm the world so I still think it's a good question to pose. Some other perspectives would be appreciated. ☮️

I am in a healthcare field that I will not disclose in order to maintain confidentiality as much as possible.

I recently came across information from coworkers about an individual licensed in our field in the state I live in. I came to know that this person, in his late 20s (about 15 years ago), was in a different healthcare profession in a different state and during that time he committed a sexual offense against an animal. He was seen live on camera, as this was done at his job or training site, and that is how he was caught. He was charged and convicted and did 5 years of probation. During that time or shortly after, he enrolled at our local university, graduated with the required professional degree, obtained state licensure, and then a residency program (which is highly competitive nationally) at a large hospital in our city where he now staffs. All of this happened over the course of the past few (2-7) years and there appears to have been no delay in the timeline of his securing these opportunities whatsoever.

I have contacted the state board that regulates our profession, the dean of the professional college at our university, the compliance officer at the hospital where he did his residency and now staffs, and the compliance officer at the University with questions largely centered around the ethics of these decisions. (Additionally, this person is invited at least annually to deliver a lecture to students in the professional program at the university.)

From what I have heard and verified to be true, all of the students that enroll in this program come to know about this person and knowledge of his past actions and crimes is well-known in our field.

What I can't understand is how this person has secured so many opportunities that are highly competitive, especially when there is no shortage of applicants. By all accounts, he has a dream career in our field.

I don't understand how colleagues work with this individual or how he has been trusted to lecture students on any topic whatsoever being that his criminal history reflects a dangerous and monumental abuse of power. I'm sure the state board checked off all the legal boxes that they needed to to cover their asses (I expected no less). I just don't understand how all of these regulatory bodies and institutions in my city have dodged the glaring ethical issues of allowing this individual to invade our professional spaces in these ways. Please note that the opportunities he has secured are not small and this is a major city. He is not working in Bumfuck, USA.

Right now I'm just trying to see the long game and prevent burnout. Any thoughts or input is welcome. Thanks for reading.

According to Kant, is it okay to steal insulin as a last resort from a pharmacy in order to save a person's life who has a high level of sugar?

Is stealing always wrong?

Point 1: Misclassification of Trainees and Deceptive Practices In 2018-19, several graduates were hired by Tata Power under the role of Diploma Trainee (DET) instead of Graduate Engineer Trainee (GET) due to an application error. When this issue was raised with HR, the graduates were assured they would be absorbed as GETs after completing an 18-month training period. However, after this period, HR refused to honor this commitment and asked the trainees to either continue as DETs or leave the company. This forced many to remain in lower-paying roles, as they feared a gap in their resume would hinder future employment opportunities. This situation appears to be a cost-cutting strategy.

Point 2: Lack of Pay Revision and Unfair Compensation For the past 13-14 years, Tata Power has not carried out any pay revisions for employees, disregarding inflationary pressures. As a result, salaries have stagnated. Additionally, new hires with no experience are being paid 12 LPA, whereas employees with years of service, promotions, and consistent performance in the same band receive only 9 LPA. Furthermore, deductions for accommodation have been increased significantly—up to four times—without any corresponding salary increment, adding to the burden on employees.

Point 3: Unjust Performance Ratings and Biased Promotion Practices In some cases, employees are given lower performance ratings solely because they were promoted the previous year, allowing management to favor others awaiting promotion. When concerns are raised regarding these unjust ratings, they are ignored, and the employees in question are targeted. This unfair system sets a plot for further degradation in the following year’s performance rating, which undermines employee morale and growth.

Point 4: Unethical Extension of Trainee Confirmation In one instance, a trainee’s confirmation was extended by three months without their knowledge or approval from senior management. This decision appeared to stem from a personal conflict between the trainee and their HOD, demonstrating an abuse of authority. Such personal grudges should not be used as a basis for professional decisions, as this reflects poorly on the corporate culture at Tata Power.

The concerns highlighted above reflect serious issues related to unethical practices, cost-cutting measures at the expense of employee welfare, and personal biases influencing corporate decisions. We hope that this matter reaches the Chairman and prompts immediate corrective action to improve the company’s culture and uphold the values that Tata Power is known for.

This is the ethical conduct of TATA power. If Ratan Tata sir had got to know about this, he must have done something . But now that hope also fade away.

Deontologist claim to adhere to a set of rules they would deem fit as universal moral law. That is true, but those rules are created from some criteria, that has nothing to do with deontology. You can't say a maxim is good or bad just using deontology, because deontology doesn't define good or bad, it just tells you to adhere by them.

The goodness of a rule is fundamentally determined by the outcomes of the action. Take lying for example. A deontologist would say you shouldn't lie, because society and trust would be destroyed if it was acceptable to lie. So the **consequence** (society and trust crumbling) **is the reason that you shouldn't lie**. It's the consequence of that action.

Before I say anything, I am NOT considering setting my dog loose. She is clearly not built for that any more after being domesticated. However, I do wonder why I see advocates for housing stray dogs so often. Why do we feel that way with dogs and not coyotes, which enjoy companionship but not in the same way that dogs do? Why is it so important that other animals like tigers exist outside of zoos, where they are likely to die a younger death, but not dogs?

My guess would be that since dogs enjoy companionship with humans so much we would say that their lives should be relegated to the symbiotic relationship that I enjoy with my dog. Another argument I could see being made is that the "dog" is a byproduct of human domestication of wolves, therefore humans are responsible for keeping them alive, happy, and protected.