You know what pisses me off about this society? This blind, stupid sympathy we give to people just because they're old or dead. It’s not about who they were or what they did or didn’t do, it’s all about some unspoken rule that old age equals virtue and death erases all accountability. It’s pathetic. Let me tell you about this case that just screams everything wrong with this mindset. A 95 year old woman in a nursing home, a grown adult with a mind and choices mind you, decided to threaten staff with knives. She threw a knife at someone! She wasn’t some fragile little grandma sitting quietly in her chair. She was a legitimate threat. An officer tased her to stop her from potentially injuring or killing someone. And what happens? She dies. Because, let’s face it, her body was one stiff breeze away from shutting down anyway. But does society acknowledge that? No. The officer gets 25 bloody years in prison. Why? Because she was old. Not because of what actually happened, but because society has this nauseating habit of associating old age with innocence. If a 40 year old in perfect health had done the same thing and been tased, they wouldn’t have died, and nobody would’ve batted an eye. But because she was old, everyone gets hysterical, as if tasing her was the equivalent of pushing her off a cliff. Guess what? If you’re in cognitive decline and so physically infirm that one taser can kill you, it’s probably your time to go. That’s not brutality, that’s biology. But no, society had to turn this into some grand tragedy, as if this woman’s death was the crime of the century, and now the officer’s life is ruined. All because of misplaced sympathy. No one would’ve cared if she’d quietly “karked it” from natural causes six months later. But because her death was caused by a taser—a necessary action to protect others—everyone’s moral compass suddenly goes haywire. I am so sick of this fake, shallow compassion. Justice should not be about how old someone is or how close they were to death. It should be about the facts: she was a threat, the officer acted to protect people, and her death was an unfortunate but inevitable outcome. Instead, we punish the person who did their job and ignore the fact that, sometimes, people’s time just runs out. Society needs to get over its obsession with coddling people just because they’re old or dead.

What is the reason for fighting evil or figthing for a "noble cause" or even just being a "good person" when it doesnt come naturally anymore? When you have faced so much hate and lost so much hope in today's world that you mostly just feel angry and bitter. When you don't care about being a good person anymore, and being evil towards other people doesn't bring you any guilt at all. Sometimes you even enjoy it.

It's probably uncomfortable in the long run, but saving yourself from wasting away is not enough of a motivation anymore, what then?

Im not sure whether i believe that there are good and evil forces, or it is just another construct of society.

I believe that the reason most people chose to be good people is because it either comes naturally or they feel better that way. I also think that chosing evil is the easier path, and chosing good is the harder one, the one you have to fight for. Until now that was enough of a motivation, but recently i asked myself: what am i fighting for exactly? And now im lost.

Hi, Reddit!

A lot has been written about friendship. But what about enmity. Cicero wrote about how to be a good friend, posing Scipio Africanus as an ideal friend. But do you know if there are books about how to be a good enemy? In your opinion, who would you label as a good enemy and why?

Assume souls exist.

Somehow a false pet is made. They have the body of a non-human animal, but are sapient like humans.

For example, by removing the DNA 🧬 of a fertilised human egg cell and adding the DNA 🧬 of a non-human animal (e.g. a goat 🐐). Then using IVF to impregnate the womb of the non-human animals they share their DNA with.

They could also have the ability to speak like a human, by genetically altering them to have either:

• human vocal chords
• parrot syrinxes

================

The issue is whether it would be ok for them to have sex with the non-human animals they share DNA with.

The situation is weird because:

• it is basically bestiality
• if it is a one night stand, the non-human animal has no way to know the false pet is not just a normal member of their species, so from their POV, they just had regular animal sex
• for a relationship, the vastly superior intellect of the false pet (basically the same as a human's) would make for a massive power dynamic, as the false pet could easily manipulate the non-human animal
• some animals could end up figuring out the false pet is a false pet, though it would be hard for a human legal system to tell when this happens, due to the non-human animals not being able to speak

Of course, this is assuming, the false pet knows they are a false pet. Otherwise they would have no way of knowing their intellect is not normal for beings with their DNA.

Regarding climate change, where every individual choice plays a role, a large portion of frequent flyers adds up to pollution. Many do this solely for the pleasure of visiting and traveling to different places. (Same for cruises ships) What are the ethical implications of such behavior?

To safeguard against people being pushed into volunteering the principle of informed consent would apply.

I am not necessarily taking about sacrifice in a religious context (although such is not excluded either).There could be a yearly festival when everyone who wants to volunteer to die is able to do so.Some volunteers may wish to be killed outright such as by being stabbed or shot in the heart or by being injected with a deadly poison.The festival could also include games in which volunteers to die are killed.Such games would end with the death of the last volunteer taking part.

People might volunteer to die for a number of reasons.For example some people may wish to choose their own time to die and just feel ready to die.Others may suffer from chronic pain or illnesses and see it as a way out and may also see it as a way of taking the burden of caring for themselves off their loved ones.Some people may see sacrificing their lives as a way of doing their part in tackling the problem of overpopulation.There would also be people who just find the idea of volunteering to die appealing who would volunteer just for the enjoyment of it.

In giving your opinion on the ethics of this issue if you would volunteer yourself say why and what ethics you would consider in making your choice.

I'm a university student in my senior year studying mechanical and aerospace engineering at a public university in the US. I was recently awarded two scholarships through the university's foundation. The scholarships total $1500 and are funded by private donors who give to the University's foundation. I looked up the scholarships and found that eligibility for the scholarship includes both merit and need based components. In reaction to being awarded the scholarship, the university decreased my federal grant eligibility by $1500. At the time, I owed $0, having my expenses previously covered by government grants and loans. Essentially, the university took away $1500 worth of aid and expects me to make it up through the scholarships they just gave me. In essence, I might as well not have gotten any scholarships.

The University explained that due to federal law, I cannot receive more money than what the system determines my school costs. If I get a private scholarship such that the total help I get exceeds the school costs, the award is capped and funds are redistributed to help other students (who might not be engineering students and might not meet the GPA requirements the donors set out). I.e. the grant money I would otherwise have gotten gets shuffled around to other students who need it.

The University says that this is all in accordance with federal law and I believe that. I'm not pissed about not getting a check for $1500 because you can't really expect pennies from heaven (even if I do believe I deserve merit scholarships). The problem is that I highly suspect that the private donors who give this money are not aware of how the system works. In my case, if I didn't get private scholarships, the government would be obliged to cover my costs with grants. The scholarships make no difference in my life.

I suspect that if the private donor was aware that the money they gave to the foundation made no difference in the life of any particular student, they wouldn't bother donating. The scholarship money serves to incentivize students to perform well academically. The donor specified that the money should go to an engineering student with a certain GPA or higher. In the grand scheme of things, the money only serves to offset the department of educations burden to cover students with grants. If I weren't receiving grants, the scholarship would serve to reduce my loans. However, a $1500 the loan burden for a student with $30K in fed loans who hasn't even graduated yet might not be what the donor had in mind. In any case, I do get grant money so that's what gets reduced first.

To receive the funds, I am required to write a letter of gratitude. I informed the University of my intention to explain these circumstances to the donor in the letter. The scholarship office informed me that this would be unacceptable; the letter would be screened, flagged, and not sent to the donor.

Everything about this seems unethical. The federal government benefits from a reduced grant burden, the University gets to brag about how much scholarship money there's floating around, the scholarship officers get to do a job that makes no difference in the students' lives. The only one who don't see a benefit are the students who earn these scholarships. On top of that, the fact that the letters are screened and detained seems like its done only in service of obfuscating and keeping the donors in the dark. I'm somewhat conflicted about all of this.

When we encounter a homeless person with pets, it evokes a mix of emotions—sympathy, discomfort, and a quiet inner debate about what is right. At first glance, the sight of someone sleeping rough with animals curled beside them may appear heartwarming, a testament to the enduring bond between humans and their companions. Yet beneath this romanticised image lies an ethical quandary: Can someone who struggles to meet their own basic needs truly provide for the complex requirements of responsible pet care?

The Reality of Pet Care

Owning a pet is not merely about companionship; it requires financial stability, emotional capacity, and time. Dogs, for example, thrive in environments where they can exercise, play, and socialise. They need balanced nutrition, regular veterinary care, and mental enrichment. A single dog can cost thousands of dollars annually when accounting for food, vaccinations, medical treatment, and enrichment tools such as toys and training equipment.

Now imagine a scenario where a homeless individual owns multiple dogs. Without a stable income or home, how are these dogs receiving proper exercise, healthcare, or the simple joy of running freely in a park? Practical realities like these raise serious concerns about whether their needs can truly be met.

The Ethical Dilemma

While homeless individuals may be empathetic and devoted to their animals’ emotional needs, love alone cannot replace the tangible resources required for responsible pet care. Consider the common image of dogs chained to their owner on the street. Animals need physical freedom, safety, and predictable routines. Living tethered in chaotic, unsafe environments often leads to stress, anxiety, or even aggression in animals.

Additionally, many homeless individuals lack access to resources such as veterinary care, sanitary supplies, or proper shelter for their pets. This often results in unintentional neglect—pets going without adequate medical attention, suffering malnutrition, or being exposed to harsh weather conditions and environmental dangers.

Romanticisation and Misplaced Guilt

Society often romanticises the sight of a homeless individual with pets, associating it with a certain authenticity and resilience. For some, this conjures notions of a wilderness narrative—humans and animals surviving together against the odds.

Yet, this romanticised image often comes at the expense of the animals themselves. Some individuals may unintentionally use their pets to evoke sympathy or to symbolise companionship, which obscures the deeper reality of unmet needs. Meanwhile, bystanders often hesitate to critique the situation, fearing judgment themselves.

This reluctance to engage in ethical critique stems from misplaced guilt, which can ultimately perpetuate harm. Acknowledging the issue isn’t an act of cruelty—it’s a necessary step towards protecting the animals involved.

Alternatives to Traditional Pet Ownership

While the emotional bond between homeless individuals and their pets is undeniable, alternative approaches to companionship may be more ethical and practical. For instance, smaller, less resource-intensive animals such as rats or mice offer meaningful companionship without the significant demands of a dog or cat. Rats, in particular, are intelligent, affectionate, and low-maintenance animals that can thrive in smaller, less predictable environments.

Community initiatives could also help. Programs that pair homeless individuals with volunteer roles at animal shelters or provide structured opportunities to interact with therapy animals could allow people to experience the emotional benefits of companionship without taking on the full responsibilities of ownership.

Balancing Rights with Responsibilities

A common argument is that homeless individuals have as much right to own pets as anyone else. While this is true, rights must be balanced with responsibilities. Just as society holds parents accountable for the welfare of their children, pet owners must meet their animals’ needs for safety, health, and enrichment.

Some argue that homeless individuals often prioritise their pets’ needs over their own. While this may be true in isolated cases, prioritisation cannot replace access to resources or infrastructure. Stability, proper care, and the ability to provide a fulfilling life for the animal remain essential.

Compassion Without Compromise

Compassion for both homeless individuals and animals does not have to be mutually exclusive. Supporting initiatives that provide free veterinary care and pet supplies to homeless pet owners is an important step forward. However, these programs address symptoms rather than the root issue.

The deeper solution lies in addressing homelessness itself, creating conditions where individuals have the stability and resources to care for pets ethically. Until then, advocating for responsible pet ownership—including discouraging the keeping of multiple, high-maintenance animals in unstable environments—is an act of compassion for the animals whose welfare depends entirely on their caregivers.

A Call for Responsible Care

Pets are not accessories or props; they are living beings with complex needs. Ensuring their welfare requires more than love—it demands a consistent, stable environment and access to care. By addressing these realities with empathy and practical solutions, we can create a framework where both people and animals thrive.

For readers who wish to make a difference, consider supporting organisations that provide resources to homeless individuals and their pets or volunteering with community initiatives that prioritise responsible pet care. Together, we can advocate for compassion that respects the dignity of both people and animals.

Idk if this is in the right sub but my take on animal killing is that if we could do it in a way of no pain it would be fine and making sure it couldn’t cause ripple effects to other living beings that can feel emotional pain of grief like dogs and elephants and if you say this could also desensitise killing it could be done more by organisations to ensure people won’t see killing to make it desensitised. What I’m saying is that if no pain is caused by any means it should be ok and I would like to here what you have to say and criticism, also if I should post this on a different sub tell me what one to crosspost it to.

My boyfriend and I have been dating a little under a year now and are both in our early 20s — I am still in college (and will be for another 5 years or so) and he has graduated. We both have established that we 100% do not want kids or marriage until significantly later in life (around our 30s). Notably, he is also pro-choice, and in the past, we’ve joked about how I would get an abortion if I ever got pregnant.

I have not yet taken a test, but there is a good chance that I am pregnant. If that is the case, I do plan to get an abortion, and my boyfriend would agree with that decision.

However, is it ethical to just not tell him? I know for a fact that he would agree with the decision. I have reason to believe that telling him might put a strain on his mental health and might pressure him to behave differently in our relationship. I also believe that he would tell his parents, which I am uncomfortable with.

I feel as though telling him causes more harm than good, but do I have a moral obligation to tell him? Once again, this is all very theoretical. I also would appreciate no political or religious comments; I only want a discussion of ethics.

Thank you!

———

EDIT: I am seeing a lot of comments on this post, so I thought I would give you guys a quick update.

As it turns out, I am not pregnant, so I did not have to end up having to deal with this situation. However, I would like to add further context and my own conclusions.

First off, the reason I was concerned in the first place was because he is currently dealing with some heavy trauma that I did not specify earlier. In the post, I was following the framework that talking to him at this particular moment would cause more (notably, significant) harm than good.

Secondly, while I am pro-choice, this situation has made me realize that getting an abortion would actually be incredibly traumatic for me. Part of the reason I was hesitant was because it honestly just felt heavy for me to discuss.

However, the comments on this post had some intriguing input, and here is the conclusion that I came to:

I was particularly intrigued about the discussion regarding lying by omission. I am a big fan of feminist philosophy, specifically those that focus on “particulars” (meaning that context influences what deems an action as ethical), and I believe that lying by omission is okay dependent on context.

In this circumstance, I decided that if I were pregnant, I would tell my boyfriend. While it would cause more harm than good, I came to the decision that lying by omission was morally wrong in this circumstance because I believed he would want to know regardless of the emotional turmoil it would cause him. I had also previously stated that I was concerned about his reaction, but I now believe that if he treated me differently, he would not be someone I wanted in my life anyways. I am in a region where abortion is legal, and I would be safe discussing abortion with my boyfriend. Furthermore, in the long run, I knew I would feel guilty keeping this secret from someone I care for.

That being said, I am choosing to keep this post up for people in similar situations. I also believe that people in similar situations are entitled to their own bodily autonomy and privacy. While I specifically decided that I would, if I were pregnant, tell my boyfriend, I do not think others should have to do this as well. Anyone pregnant reading this should assess their own situation and decide what the safest option is.

Anyways, that is my update, and I thank you all for the comments and the help! I also thank those of you who were kind and empathetic. This situation was incredibly scary, and I needed all the help I could get :)

Please forgive me for my possible ignorance or misuse of reason. I am a simple person attempting to test my beliefs. Give me any critiques or anything you want to comment on the argument.

I think it is well agreed upon that humans have a moral nature, thus moral laws can be placed upon us, and so can immoral actions be acted upon us. Yet the question that naturally follows, which is one of the root causes of this debate, is what differentiates human and non-human? To keep this post concise, I purport that what differentiates humans from non-humans is the faculty of reason.

The faculty of reason ascends humans to a rank above mere beasts. I purport that reason determines the grounds of our will, which is different from the will of animals. What I mean by this is that reason endows the will with freedom, which is the ability to either determine moral maxims and follow them or wholly listen to the faculties of desire.

In short, reason allows humans to determine moral laws. These moral laws are essentially the form of "ought" maxims that can be applied universally to every rational being. The form of something can only be perceived by the eye of reason, just like how the world of appearances can only be perceived by the senses. An animal may be able to sense the colors, shape, and matter of a tree, but only a child of reason can cognize the sum of all the trees he has observed and place them under one "form" of a tree. So in terms of moral laws, an example of the matter of a moral maxim may be, "I will not lie to my parents," while the form of that maxim would be, "everyone should not lie to their parents."

Since these moral laws are determined only by reason, they are legislated and applied only to creatures of reason. In other words, only beings with reason can determine or create these moral laws, so long as these laws can be universally applied and are in harmony with the fact that rational beings are ends. Citing inclination, feelings, or anything from the senses as a basis for a moral maxim would be erroneous, since moral maxims are to be held universally, and subjective moral maxims cannot be raised to the height of a universally applying maxim (due to their subjective nature).

Things with no faculty of reason are not in the domain of any moral law and thus do not have the same treatment as beings of reason. Since rational beings are ends in themselves, non-rational beings are not ends but means.

In conclusion, eating animals poses no ethical dilemmas as long as the animal you are eating is not one that possesses the faculty of reason. Although I do admit that unnecessary cruelty to animals is wrong, it is not because it directly intrudes upon a moral law but indirectly so. What I mean by this is that unnecessary cruelty could erode our moral sensibilities and harm our capacity to treat rational beings as ends.

By unnecessary harm, I mean doing harm for the sake of doing harm. So eating meat may directly or indirectly be harm, but it is not unnecessary since there is a purpose other than simply doing harm. An example of unnecessary cruelty would be torturing a dog for entertainment.

I'm a woman who teaches at a community college. Specifically, I work at a writing center, so I help students from all over the university, and I don't run specific classes or have control over anyone's grades.

One of my students is a "returning student," meaning she is almost exactly my age (40s) and during our conversations, it has become clear that our kids are also the same ages, we like the same arts and crafts hobbies, we have similar views on politics, and we both care about the world.

As woman in her 40s, I have found that making new friends is tough and rare. If I had met this person out in the world, I wouldn't have had any hesitation; I would simply have asked if she would like to get a cup of coffee so we could talk about our families and our cross-stitching projects.

However, I know that it is deeply creepy when instructors take advantage of the student-teacher power dynamic. One of my theatre professors in college ended up marrying a girl from my class, and I certainly do not want to be that kind of person. I would never never never date a student, but I am less sure if it's ok to ask one if they would like to be friends.

What are your thoughts, r/ethics? Is it ethical for a professor to ask a student if they would like to be friends? Or does that cross a boundary?

I.e. a millionaire not paying $1,000 back is far worse an act than a poor person not paying $1,000 back.

I feel like ther's too much emphasis placed on shame and guilt as means of getting folks to do the right things. Those strategies really only seem to work on people like me. That's not productive because We are, most often, not the problem. I just wrote in a post a few days ago about social services getting involved in my family situation when I was a child, after my father who caused my total blindness had punched my sister in the face. The social worker told my sis, 11 at the time, to stay on this man's Good side. He didn't have one. I've certainly dealt with a lot over the years but it doesn't help that way more people seem like my abusers than me. It's like you have to throw your conscience out the window to thrive. There's got to be a better way. I don't want to become a monster but I also don't want to Succumb more than I've had to all ready.

In this short interview, Peter Singer, a renowned philosopher and ethicist widely recognized for his thought-provoking ideas about universal ethics, discusses the value of life, moral progress, population ethics (aka population axiology), the far future, the uncertainties inherent in philosophical reasoning, moral realism (objective normative truths) and ‘alternative facts’.
https://www.scifuture.org/peter-singer-ethics-uncertainty-moral-progress/
Vid:
https://youtu.be/-NMD0g97C64?si=lpbGYWX8VUMyOfR4

I am questioning all my ethics & beleifs. Right now I am thinking alot on both clothing & food choices, but ill focus on clothing/shopping for this post.

I currently for many years have been buying 95% of my clothing from thrift stores(usually goodwill or sometimes poshmark for nicer or special items like shoes or a dress for a wedding type of situation). I have always thought this is ethical because its more sustainable & honestly I just dont have the time to research every single various clothing& home goods etc brands that I might have bought from otherwise to determine all their practices from production to materials to the employees to everything ethical that could need to be considered-- Goodwill has almost everything I could need to wear so I have almost exclusivley shopped there for over a decade because I have believed that it doesnt even matter any of that if it is second hand since its already been bought & now it is just being reused...

Im starting to question now whether this is a correct view. Is it actually ethical to wear a brand that might have terrible unethical practices as long as it is secondhand? Does wearing certain clothing brands cause a negative impact in society by almost potentially "promoting" a certain brand or style or even material etc- since most people wont know you bought them used, could it be seen as making this brand/style/material/etc & thus their practices & impact as endorsed or socially acceptable?...

Im also aware of some concerns about gentrification of thrift stores/prices being raised etc. To be honest I have maybe seen a few "fancier higher end" thrift stores in the nicer downtown shopping areas but goodwill seems reasonable/stable priced atleast in my area..there is another second-hand shop with really low prices as well, maybe it is a local area type thing?...poshmark can very depending on the seller, but poshmark seems slightly less ideal or ethical since it requires shipping & more emissions etc but still perhaps accetable levels on the whole or in comparison?) either way I still feel like this negative effect is overall less "weight" than all of the other concerns with fast fashion, sweat factories, environmental concerns, carbon dioxide emissions from shipping, materials, company practices, just every ethical concern i'm probably not even thinking of or aware of...

I am basically starting to question if buying clothes almost entirely only second-hand is actually an ethical behavior, or if there is some "more ethical" behavior in regards to clothing/home goods/etc... is it not even ethical in the first place? Or is it not the "most" ethical and there is a better option? Should I be buying secondhand but still being more concerned about the brands & materials etc? Are there ethical concerns I havent even considered about shopping & clothing choices or thrift shopping& reuse? I just feel like I dont know anything right now & am questioning everything. What do you think is the most ethical possible practices regarding clothing& home etc? We all legally have to wear clothing to participlate in society, so how and what do we decide is the least harmful or most ethical behavior for obtaining these necessary items?

My partner's father died unexpectedly. She and her brother are executors to his estate. Because her mother is living, all assests in the estate belong to her mother. Her mother is incapacitated and my partner and her brother are her powers of attorney.

Shortly before his passing, her father purchased a new truck. Her brother has a truck. She and I do not.

We are all in agreement that the truck should be sold, and the tenatative plan is to sell it in the spring after we have cleaned the house and moved everything out of/off of the property so it, too, can be sold. Again, all these proceeds go to her mother and her mother's care.

For some items in the house, both siblings agree that there is sentimental value or the usefulness suggests certain people will just receive them outright. (Think a band saw, a quilt, a riding lawnmower).

Her brother has asked my partner if she wants to have to truck--or to purchase it on very friendly terms. She refused, saying it is too expensive an item to just take, and she doesn't feel good about purchasing it for a low price. However, she and I could definitely make use of a truck for winter, as well as for moving things from our house to make room for all the small odds and ends that one inherits from the dismantling of a househild following the passing of a parent.

Is it ethical for her to keep and use the truck over the winter before it is sold in the spring? Or is it unethical because the truck belongs to her mother by default, and every trip reduces its value and adds risk that there maybe an accident or mishap that lowers the sale value if the vehicle? Is there an ethical difference between housing the truck at our place versus at her parents' place and hour away?

What is her ethical responsibility to her mother?

I should say that there are no ill feelings or unpleasantness or rivalries here. We are just uncertain about how to behave in an ethical way with regards to her mother's intetests.

Ethics and loyalty are related pragmatically in that fairness unifies a majority military with ethics, loyalty a smaller military. They are also related because the main emotional motivation for both is love.

It is of course possible to have ethics and loyalties, in a state of union or competition. It is also possible to label the ethics of fairness as generalized loyalty. With fairness, everything that can benefit from rights and consideration is a loyalty, and the largest volume of sentient peoples have selfish motivation to help the individual proportional to how fair he she or whatever is.

I calculate fairness as three negative and three positive categories, which can be made into imaginary numbers. Negative: free will inhibited = i, suffering induced = s, pleasure stolen = p. Positive: free will enabled = e, suffering absolved = a, and pleasure provided = f. The individual’s score calculates to i subtracted from e or zero, s subtracted from a or zero, p subtracted from f or zero.

Negligence calculates to only partial culpability for the outcome, so that one’s free will only contributed a % of what happened. That % is plugged into i, s, p & e, a, f.

If free will is considered nonexistent because of determinism, substitute selfish and selfless autonomy within a deterministic framework: that is, that choice exists but it is accepted that environment in interaction with emotions, instincts, and intellect makes the decision.

It is also possible to calculate loyalty culpability with imaginary numbers. The main complication I notice to doing so concerns the amount of territory you want to grant the individual tiers of the loyalty. Since this isn’t fair business per say, it isn’t necessarily possible to calculate fair percentages.

The highest ranking loyalty gets the best share, so that it is most wrong to induce suffering upon most right to provide pleasure to the top. Niche loyalty is calculated the same as fairness except that rank supersedes. Some of the rules are individualized with each niche. One example of a niche loyalty system calls it an offense only for the bottom to invade higher ranking individual(s), and provides rank according to military usefulness of the individual(s). Another system provides rank according to age, or according to the age of the position, or the age of the position’s inheritance. 

Without some attachment to fairness or morality or ethic, one’s heart is likely to pick loyalties instinctively. If invaded, generalized loyalty/fairness could “gang up” on the individual… but so too could the most well established niche loyalty, even if invaded by fairness.

“Selfish advantage is married to selfless advantage.” - writer

Selfish advantage:

Pleasure obtainable, free will obtainable, lack of harm obtainable, success probability by these three factors.

The absolute highest success probability by all three factors is determined in part by how high you can score concerning fairness (to unify all sentient life as your bodyguard - including unpredictable alien encounters occurring outside one’s sphere of inference: too disconnected and too sudden to be predictable) and loyalty to as many niches as possible,

Because that is quantifiable objective motive to provide you with all three to within the highest threshold. 

Unobjective people are less a threat than objective people.

There is also a threshold of coincidental environmental inheritance. Some are higher up on nature’s totem pole than others. But pitting one’s self, even if possible to get away with it, against other loyalties is pointless - especially if one is capable of entering nearly any target recognizance state that does not invade one’s niche. Pleasure is subjective enough to be obtainable from many sources.

In the long term, one’s success probability selfishly is as high as the combination of exactly four scores:

-loyalty culpability to one’s self

-loyalty culpability to all sentient life (motive to assist, and to avoid invading you)

-loyalty culp to competing/cooperating/unaligned or neutrally aligned niches (motive to ally with you - because your track record is that you are effective with networking, and motive to avoid invading you)

-coincidental environmental positioning. The fortunes and misfortunes of chaos, such as unobjective people.

Since nobody can predict infinity, but the most collaterals are controlled for by the highest possible overall score, it always increases the probability of safety of free will, pleasure, and lack of suffering to have as high as possible a score by all four.

The main negative loyalty culp issues I am capable of discerning concern turning on the alliance on point of the alliance, which is turning in friends for what you did too with them, and not providing an alliance with the resources it was promised, which is contract breaching. 

Turning on an alliance for other than the purpose of an alliance may be necessary because of a competing alliance, selfishly, or for the sake of fairness, but one may be careful in terms of how the alliance is worded, avoiding guaranteeing beyond the purpose of the alliance, so that situational adaptation will be available without the accumulation of loyalty betrayal.

I'm having a hard time finding local articles (or interviews) here in the Philippines about journalists or a media practitioner facing ethical decision-making in staying true to their conscience or remaining loyal to the organization that signs their paycheck e.g. their editor tasked them to write an article or say something on air that they support a certain practiced or activity, but this practiced or activity is against their values. (or like you disagreed with your boss on a fundamental issue, but you want a sort of a team player and not ruffle any feathers in the workplace)

I am hoping that you all can help me find some articles. Please let me know if I need to clarify anything. Thank you for the help!

ps. i know this is kinda confusing but my prof tasked us to find some articles that are related to our assigned topic When Ethical Compasses Collide The Case of Following One’s Conscience from the book Media Ethics at Work T-T

hey guys, have you ever heard of journalists facing ethical dilemmas when their personal values clash with their professional obligations? 'When Ethical Compasses Collide: The Case of Following One's Conscience' from Media Ethics at Work dives into this. are there any cases like this that happened in the Philippines (that went viral or smth) and any thoughts about it?

hey guys, have you ever heard of journalists facing ethical dilemmas when their personal values clash with their professional obligations? 'When Ethical Compasses Collide: The Case of Following One's Conscience' from Media Ethics at Work dives into this. are there any cases like this that happened in the Philippines (that went viral or smth) and any thoughts about it?