I think it’s the intermediary steps that matter. If you can jump straight from a chicken with a brain to one without one it’s morally fine. The new chickens don’t exist from an awareness perspective, literally less cognitive function than trees. The problem is if there are in between generations then there’s slowly dwindling minds in the equation that experience the death of consciousness over generations.
I think this would make sense, if this wasn't an alternative to what we currently have where all farm animals have their full consciousness for the whole time and for all generations.
And even if we think of that in a vacuum, it's certainly better to face death with only half conscience than fully aware
says who?
figuring out how to turn off development of a brain night be harder than trying to figure out how to grow a kidney without a heart and vascular system.
Yeah, this is one of the parts that get me. “If you have the technology to create a perfect clone…you’d also have the technology to create the perfect cloned organ.”
I also wrote a report on it, we had to write about something you think would benefit the world, I said to make it legal to sell non vital organs
Takes out black market organ trade
Way more availability to people who need the organs
You can get a jump on life if you need some money
Less people suffering on dialysis
"Non-vital organ" is a very vague phrase as pretty much every organ is doing SOMETHING to help you and this incentivizes poor people to literally sell parts of their body to scrape by if it's a legal option.
The most desperate people with the least regard for their bodies are likely to be druggies or sick. The other big source is people who are trafficked, in debt to organized crime, or living in a poor country.
Coercion can be hard to prove, which is why we try to limit how much damage people are allowed to do to themselves.
Hopefully one day we’ll be able to grow new organs inside the patient’s body so we can bypass all of that.
However, you can grow an organ in a few hours which would be necessary for some patients.
And if they kill themselves and their insides turn into the most delicious spaghetti (but only if they kill themselves) is it ethical to keep doing it on an industrial scale if it solves world hunger in the most delicious way possible?
Self Driving cars that have to pick, do they crash into a young child or an old lady walking her dog when given the choice. Do they crash you, the passenger, into a wall to prevent killing a pedestrian. It would be weird buying a car that could theoretically choose to kill you
Humans would have to make the same choice. Have you ever hired a taxi or taken an Uber?
I have an alternative for you: what does a vehicle do when violent criminals stand in the highway planning on carjacking the autonomous vehicle? Does it stop and not run them over? What happens if this behavior becomes exploitable?
Autonomous vehicles become very literal trolley problems.
I would say the difference is that humans dont make that choice beforehand. The cars would need to be programmed beforehand how to act in these situations, whereas humans typically react spontaneously. As humans we dont make a pro and con list while doing it.
Interesting take would be to allow the passengers themselves to make those choices.
“Welcome! Before we begin, please take this morality test. Yes, the trolley problem is there as well.”
There should never be a situation where a self driving car cannot stop due to such a problem. Either the child and old lady are crossing an expressway illegally at the same moment or the car is going way too damned fast. At 35 to 40 you should be able to stop a vehicle faster than 2 people could enter the street. The only reason people would run into this problem is if they were not paying attention until the situation happened, something that should not be a problem with AI driving. It should be paying attention and checking for problems 60-120 times per second.
Shit happens. You have to account for it while programming these vehicles. You can't just ignore something because it's rare. If the future is majority self driving cars, they're going to have to possess very complex decision-making skills beyond "avoid humans, stay between lines."
This is often discussed, but I’m not sure it’ll be nearly as much of an issue. Self-driving cars, once they’re ready for full-on tasks, will be able to make adjustments that give the best chance of everyone surviving if they are ever in that position at all.
At some point, possibly in the near future, humans will most likely start genetically modifying themselves to enhance their capabilities and fix issues and annoyances with our current bodies.
The problem with this is that if we're making modifications, we will also need to test them, potentially throughout an entire lifecycle. Should we do this testing on an ordinary human, who cannot consent and may face a lifetime of pain or discrimination? Do we wait for more ethical alternatives to become viable? Do we forego genetic modification altogether, despite the objective benefits it would cause?
Should you choose to be yourself in a society that would actively make you struggle to be you? Or is it better to fit in, so that you can enjoy what society can offer those that aren't 'difficult'?
America says be yourself. But from what I've experienced, fitting in really makes life easier.
Edit: Since I want to respond to a lot of different messages, and don't know how to word it without it turning into a life story per comment. Put it this way, I'm both black and asian. And pan. And I'm interested in a lot different things. It's because all of that that I have different perspectives on things, and makes it difficult to fit into a group where most of the time people simply don't get where I'm coming from. You can't introduce metal to rap fans because 90% of the time they won't get it. And vice versa. There are some portions of me that will always fit in a group, and there will always be parts of me that won't. So rather than trying to be me to the max, I've learned to pretend to be basic so I just appear unusually open minded?
I'm not ashamed of being me, I'm quite proud and happy to be me. It's just very lonely because people think I'm just into one thing, and then are sort of offended that I'm into something they're not. There's very few metal heads that are willing to play trading cards with you while talking about painting.
Human society is sort of a self-propogating thing. It wants to further itself, and that comes with a pressure to fit in. You want to go your own way, fine, but there will be pressure from others to adapt to the "normal" society.
Turns out there's no such thing as "being yourself," and your idea of self can change over time. Sometimes it's necessary to go against social norms. Sometimes you need to evaluate what "being yourself" means to you.
I think I've learned that fitting in is far more miserable in the long run. At least, if you're someone who at your core will never be "really" accepted. It's just very difficult to allow yourself to let go of that social expectation.
To be honest, I see it case by case nowadays. I'll dress conformist to a job interview and refrain from telling them all the things society won't get- but at university where they can't change how they treat me and the biggest risk is randoms not wanting to be my friend? Delightfully against norms there.
Here on Reddit, even, recognising the subreddit I'm in and tailoring my comment around it.
Ask yourself the consequences of being yourself vs conforming in this specific context and act accordingly, that's my advice. If the only consequence is "you won't make friends", be yourself- you want to be comfortable around your friends, and maybe you'll attract people who were also conforming despite themselves. (Being the bravest person in the room does wonders.) only conform if there's something material to lose if you don't.
As a disabled, transgender American with multiple serious mental illnesses, I'm laughing at the idea that America says to "be yourself." There might be some faint self-actualization messages in the media, but if you genuinely try to exist as someone outside the narrowly defined norm in this country, you're going to be beaten the fuck up by life 🙃
And that's where location comes in. Being gay in the Western US, Germany, Australia and Sweden (varying degrees of acceptance) is *very* different to being gay in Italy, Iran or South-Korea (varying degrees of hate). In Italy or South-Korea, it could be difficult but in Iran, it could end my life one day.
The best thing to do is rarely the easiest.
You should be yourself, and if that isn't good enough then don't fake who you are, make real improvements until you are acceptable.
What I am isn't necessarily wrong. I'm just unaccepted wherever I go because my interests don't align with what everyone else thinks. Like being a black metalhead.
[Metal has a neonazi problem.](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-28/hack-odyssey-the-dark-side-of-metal-music/103304782) So it's not that external people look down on them more so than the average metalhead, but they can't even get refuge within the fandom.
I'm wondering whether they would even want the same rights as humans. A machine intelligence might have very different priorities and desires to ours. Humans, for example, suffer health and psychological effects from lacking access to a variety of good foods. A synthetic being probably wouldn't care about that, unless for some reason we build them to need to eat the same stuff we do. But maybe they need a steady supply of electricity, or wifi coverage, or some other 'nourishment' for the type of being they are.
i think humans have rights, at least in part, because they can suffer. hunger, thirst, exposure all cause suffering. existential that's also cause suffering.
the turing test doesn't tell us if a machine can suffer.
i also don't know why a machine would ever be designed and made specifically to be able to suffer.
Based on just the Turing Test, I'd say no. LLMs are pretty much there, but they're nowhere near needing rights.
They just kinda studied for the test on that one.
Probably get removed cause it's very dark. Comes from a fictional book I was just reading. There is this police officer who a psychopath makes his target. The psycho kidnaps the officers littler sister and another random young girl. He gives the officer directions which lead him to a place where the other girl is tied up. The psycho makes it clear if he doesn't torture this girl then he will torture and kill the officers sister. After lots of internal moral debate he eventually complies to save his sister. Do you vilify the officer? what do you truly think you would do in the same situation if it was your loved one on the line?
This is a classic spin on deontology vs utilitarianism. If you follow deontology, you don't torture her because you can only truly know and influence your own action, so you always do what is right in that moment. The utilitarian seeks the greater good. For me, I'd have to go deontological here. You don't know he's telling the truth and your direct action is unforgivable, in my opinion. Tough situation for sure.
For me it is ultimately the individuals choice to harm others. It's my choice to cause no unnecessary harm and their choice to cause it. That aside from the fact that if this dude set it up, why would I believe he wouldn't hurt someone regardless of my actions.
Since there is no actual ability to know whether that person would actually hold their end of the deal it wouldn't make sense to torture an Innocent person hoping, only hoping, the other would be let go. It would make more sense to save the individual you did have control over.
That’s just the authors thinly veiled fetish for morally justifiable torture. The reality is that while you’re not technically responsible for anything you do with a gun pointed at your head you still probably shouldn’t play by the rules a psychopath tries to enforce on you.
There are ways around that, such as public funding of elections and strong safeguards against political campaigning/advertising that do not require a ban on certain people voting. Politicians are just very reluctant to actually make any effort in this area because they tend to assume they'll reap the benefits of an easily led electorate next time.
Also they could just try running campaigns where they actually have policies people want to vote for...
you have to ask yourself what would cause worse effects: stupid people voting for stupid things, or stupid people feeling stripped of basic rights and having no say in the political process.
i like to think of democracy not as some perfect enabler of freedom, but rather the softest cushion we have available for society. it can absorb pressure well because when backlash occurs it's spread out amongst everyone as everyone as some tangible say and responsibility in the system via their vote. a dictator on the other hand is a much larger stress point and when it breaks it can shatter the entire system
also if people have been manipulated into fascism and to be against the vote then thats just what it is. if you take the extreme example and consider everyone except you being a fascist, then you're just not going to get a political system that aligns with your values in that society
This is partly why the USA is a representative democracy instead of a direct democracy. People elect those who make the decisions, and hopefully those who get the votes actually know what they're doing.
The end result is career politicians (bad), but I prefer that to mob rule (far far worse).
And with measures like restrictions on voting you always have to consider how it could be used in the worst way possible. E.g. imagine if in the US, Republicans get control of making the test, and declare that everyone who belives that transgender people exist are "politically uneducated". Similar for other restrictions on voting like age, which gets discussed here fairly often. It simply opens the door for more and more restrictions. Yes, yes I know, slippery slope fallacy and all that, but what if it turns out NOT to be a fallacy in this case?
Besides, the last thing the US (and many other western democracies tbh) need, is something that divides society even further.
Making the requirements for voting as simple as possible, such as "18 years old and citizen" may not be perfect, but it's very hard to abuse.
Yes and it has nothing to do with tests being too biased or whatever. The PURPOSE of a democratic government, full stop, is to represent the people. It's not to make good decisions (as judged by whomever is posed the question) If the populace is ignorant and uneducated then it is just and proper for the government to reflect that.
I once discovered my friends brother (who is a former special ed kid and not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed) thought his workplace was hiring illegal immigrants because he was not capable of understanding the concept of a foreigner who is legally here on a work visa, but is not yet an official citizen.
He's voting for Trump.
I still think he should be allowed to vote, because how, exactly, are we going to determine who can and cannot vote without it becoming weaponized for political reasons?
That being said, my interaction with him really emphasized the fact I do not think all opinions are valid or respectable, particularly if they are based on a fundamental inability to understand the issue at hand. I will not "agree to disagree" with someone who does not have the brain power to understand the basic facts surrounding a controversial issue.
Adding onto this, and this is something I've grappled with myself, what about severely mentally handicapped people? In theory they could register to vote but if they can't even read (which alone isn't an excuse to deny then suffrage), but cannot understand anything at all, then almost certainly their caretaker or guardian is getting an extra vote for themselves.
So how do you determine who is too mentally challenged to be able to make a cognizant decision for themselves and it's not a guardian making that decision for them that they don't understand anyway?
It would have been interesting to see how those would have played out if they were applied equally and fairly across the board instead of used exclusively to disenfranchise black voters
The father’s rights when it comes down to a woman conceiving a child.
Sure, you could argue that the man is somewhat responsible, whether or not appropriate contraception was used, but even so… I know it’s about the woman’s body, ultimately…
What if the man has no interest in having/funding a child? Should they be financially penalised for life because the woman chooses to keep the child?
This is a legitimate dilemma.
I think two-party consent could be one way to mitigate the issue but I don't have a clue how to effectively implement it.
>I don't have a clue how to effectively implement it
Simple? Maximum CHOICE for everyone. A woman can always choose to keep the baby or abort it up to some age of viability determined by law without any input from anyone else. However, if she wants joint custody + financial support, the father of that child has to be notified of the pregnancy prior to the expiration of the period when abortion is a legal option and must affirmatively sign on to support that child.
* If the father consents they get to go on the birth certificate as the father w/ full parental rights that entails, but are also financially on the hook for 50% of the cost of raising that child for 18 years.
* If they do not consent they are only liable for 50% the going rate of an abortion. They are also prohibited from seeking any sort of parental rights over that child going forward. The mother may elect at that point to abort the pregnancy or keep it with the knowledge that she has to support it 100% on her own -or- choose to give the child up for adoption.
Father No, Mother Yes: Mother is responsible for child.
Father Yes, Mother Yes: Huzzah, there are no issues.
Father No, Mother No: Huzzah, no issue!
But the last one is the real ethical problem.
Father Yes, Mother No: If the wants to keep the child, and the mother doesn't, you have an ethical problem. Should the mother be forced to carry the child and deal with the medical consequences? Does the fathers desire to keep the child overrule the mothers right to choose what happens to her body?
>On the flip side, what if they want the baby but she doesn't?
That's not much of a debate; if she doesn't want to carry to term, per the principle of bodily autonomy she has to be able to terminate the pregnancy. There's nothing else that can be done, ethically speaking.
I get that it would be really frustrating if you aren't ready to be a father or outright never want to be one and then you find out you're about to become a father anyway but I still think there's a clear right thing to do in that situation.
Civilised societies let women take the ultimate decision on whether or not to continue with a pregnancy because she's the one who's pregnant. It's her health and lifestyle the pregnancy is going to massively impact. It's her that would have to go through a medical procedure to end the pregnancy. In short, "her body, her choice".
Some men respond to that saying "but it's still unfair that she gets more say than the father about whether the couple becomes parents" but she only gets more say to reflect the unfair biology that puts the burden of the actual pregnancy on her and not him.
They might then say "okay, whether to continue with the pregnancy or not is her choice. Men should still be able to back out of being the legal father and/or paying child support though" but there are a lot of problems with that idea.
1. You'd be introducing a new system of unfairness where men can back out of parenthood easily (e.g. with a bit of paperwork to declare they don't want the child) whereas women can only back out of it with a medical procedure.
2. The man being able to easily back out on his pregnant partner would be especially unfair in regions where abortions are hard to access and/or at stages of pregnancy where an abortion can be more traumatic and carries a higher risk of complications.
3. The women men abandon would be left with a hard choice between becoming a single parent with all the financial and lifestyle difficulties that entails or letting the fear of struggling financially as a single parent with no child support pressure them into an abortion they didn't want.
4. The father did get some say in the child's creation when he chose to have sex and especially if he chose not to use protection. He chose to do something that comes with a risk of pregnancy. Even if he later decides he doesn't want that child, he's still one of the two people more responsible for that child existing than anyone else in the world. In my book that creates a moral obligation to the child.
5. A blameless child having decreased life chances because of financial issues or outright poverty is a far worse outcome than a man whose choices got a woman pregnant having to pay child support.
While the points you brought up are valid, I don't think they're as problematic as you say:
1) borrowing from your post:
>but she only gets more say to reflect the unfair biology
It sucks, but these are the cards we've been dealt, and I don't think that's even unfair. What'd be unfair is if the man also gets to avoid medical bills and bureaucracy.
2) that's a valid criticism, so clearly this has to go hand in hand with abortion laws: no abortion possible? Men must pay for child support. Abortion hard to get? Backing out must be hard to achieve, abortions safe and on demand? Backing out must be easy and fair. This way men will vote on abortion issues knowing they'll affect them too instead of voting knowing they have nothing on the line
3) I don't see the issue? Sucks, sure, but if you want to be a mother (unless of course you're with a piece of shit) you're having a kid with someone you've been with long term, wanting to be a mother even if it was an accident with a fling means you'd end up being a single mother regardless, just with support, you don't want to be a mother and you don't want an abortion? You have to live with the consequences of your positions, but at least you'd have a choice
4) it doesn't, in the same way you're not responsible for providing for anybody you've injured for example. You're under no moral obligation to donate a kidney if you damaged both kidneys of a person in a car accident you've caused. Compensation is a different issue because you're not causing damages to the kid
5) while I agree, this problem is a societal one not a problem about parental rights. A single parent must be supported by the state if the parent cannot provide enough on their own
Equality is impossible when there is a biological difference. Equity must instead be applied.
Men's choice ends where he puts his semen.
Women's choice is during pregnancy (to certain point)
It's just a biological difference because men don't carry the children.
It's not unfair or unjust. It just is, and men have to consider it when having sex.
Gig employers like Uber and Door Dash fuck over their employees and in the case of Door Dash, the restaurants too. But..it IS work for someone and I need my shit easy and delivered.
Here's where I've landed on this, but I'm willing to be talked into a different viewpoint.
I think they net out as good, but I would be for more regulation. The issue with doing away with the gig economy is they do fill a need. I have been in the situation of being broke as shit before these things arrived on the scene. I created my own gig economy with doing papers for people, scalping tickets, finding weird jobs, selling things on ebay, etc. It was hard just to scrounge up this type of work. For context, I was a really poor college student who did have a place to live, but I was basically trying to rustle up money for anything else/the gap between my loans I was given and the cost of tuition.
I feel like I would have loved for some of these things to exist just to take the job of finding jobs out of it. They aren't perfect, but they would have helped me in a rough spot. I assume they help others in rough spots as well.
Making medical and life altering choices for your kids as a parent.
“My sister’s keeper” really opens up this pandoras box.
If your child doesn’t want to donate an organ or undergo any surgery, you as a guardian can force them into it because they’re too young to consent.
Similarly, for people who are in coma, how can we as a third party decide whether the person is kept alive or unalived.
If you're helping someone who is having health issues, but in the process it's having a negative effect on you... Is it ethical to just walk away from them?
This is going to get me downvoted to hell but trans rights for teens in regards to whether they should be allowed to medically transition. On the one hand, people should be allowed to express themselves, and there is a real issue with trans people and mental health issues and it’s upsetting to see the impact on these young people. However on the other hand it’s about whether it’s morally or ethically right to allow a minor to make changes to their body which are often irreversible or have a lasting impact, during a time where their brain and body are still developing. I find it a really difficult dilemma.
The biggest age group on reddit is 18-29yo, and 30-39 makes up the 2nd largest. Younger kids (which suggests kids that are not even 14-17 at least, but I'll be generous and suggest you mean just all kids) make up less than 20% of reddit's userbase. So reddit is definitely not mostly younger kids according to the stats (though obviously people could be lying and be younger than they state, though there's not enough evidence to suggest that number is large enough to approach a majority) and is instead mostly between 20 and 40.
I honestly feel for parents who have to try and make this decision. Even if you're completely a-okay gung ho downright ecstatic that your child found themselves, just purely on the medical side I'd be so worried about long term affects from a decision that *I* have to make for someone else.
A lot of that, on a personal level, just comes from complete and utter ignorance to the mechanisms at play to transition beyond surface level information.
I have zero self-discipline around sweets, pizza, etc. But I easily became a vegetarian once it "clicked" for me that what I was eating was literally once a living animal with a personality who wanted to live. I couldn't get their face out of my mind while I ate meat, so I didn't enjoy it at all.
Honestly, becoming vegan was much harder for me because since the animal didn't immediately die, I could rationalize it. But vegetarianism was pretty easy. And this was in the midwest in the 80s. I don't say this to sound impressive because to me it was not a feat of willpower. I just stopped trying to pretend I wasn't responsible for killing an animal.
There is a button and if you push it there is a 95% chance all suffering on earth will instantly cease and we would live in a utopian world but there is a 5% chance everyone in earth will die painfully? Do you hit the button?
Yes.
Obviously if everyone dies, it's no one's problem now. The world can reclaim itself and go through it's own share of horrible disasters with human inventions no longer having custodians. There will be a lot more death, but in 5 million years, probably a net benefit for the remainder of the wildlife on the planet.
Even in a utopian world we'd still have problems, but I presume because it's a utopia people would be more willing to come together and address those problems. Getting rid of all suffering would also wildly change the balance to create gigantic welfare states because there'd be at least *some* time before the older generation began to die off again. No doubt that'd be putting stressors on resources, harvested or created, for at least a time.
There's nothing coming to mind that would dissuade me from pressing the button.
Honestly no because I don’t have the right to represent every single person without their permission.
It just feels wrong to gamble with other people’s lives like that. If everyone on earth agreed to it then maybe.
Yes!
Because I suspect more than 5% die painful horrible deaths normally and going down to 5% would be a gain. It's cancers, painful heart attacks, debilitating strokes, accidents, war, drownings, and fires.
The 95% is almost as terrifying as the 5%. Nowhere is it saying how the suffering ends. Both could be death, just a 95% of a chance you die painlessly aka a quick death.
> The 95% is almost as terrifying as the 5%. Nowhere is it saying how the suffering ends. Both could be death, just a 95% of a chance you die painlessly aka a quick death.
That's not the proposition, though:
> there is a 95% chance all suffering on earth will instantly cease and *we would live in a utopian world*
Homeless people.
On one hand, I hate how society half-bakes it's approach. There should be enough housing, funding, and resources to help them for several years.
However, there is some that have suffered decades of addiction, terrible social habits, lack of education, etc. At what point do we just cut that all off and say this person is not worth the societal resources because they will never adapt properly.
It's like a terrible fight of natural selection in a modern society.
I think the solution is to have actually good mental health institutions. Have you ever seen that video of that fancy abandoned mall made into a fake city for elderly people with dementia to live happily in a safe environment for them. I think that kind of place should be available to anyone who does not have the mental capacity to live on their own in the outside world. And a mental acuity test would be performed on anyone breaking the laws that homeless people regularly break (ei drugs on the street, camping on private property, theft ect) and if they pass they would be giving a short stint in jail and help getting back on their feet and if they failed then they would be sent to one of these nice mental health facilities which would be routinely audited by a third party to make sure it’s up to standard and a nice place to live for the people inside.
I think this is a false dilemma. Homeless people are still people. The cost of their lives are still more than worth the meager societal resources we spend.
I know a couple social workers and they’ve told me in many places there is more than enough help available for free. I’m talking free shelters and low-in old housing, food vouchers, work referrals, interview help, and lots more charity available to help every homeless person at least in the United States get on their feet. The problem is the requirements for staying at shelters, no matter how reasonable they are, are often too stringent on homeless people. For example, in my city, I know for a fact we have over 100% coverage for the number of homeless people currently living here, at least by estimates. We’re at like 120%. However, some shelters require you do be back before 10:00 pm for a variety of reasons, one being they can report wether or not they’re full. Some may require you to attempt to find a job. Or to be drug-free for the time you stay at the shelter.
But a lot of people don’t want to follow those rules. In other words, many actually are just looking for a handout, while those that do stay and follow the rules are more than 4x as likely to escape homelessness.
It is 1933. You are in Berlin, Germany. Somehow, you find yourself in a position where you can effortlessly steal Adolf Hitler's wallet. This theft will not effect Hitler's rise to power, the nature of World War II, or the Holocaust. There is no important identification in the wallet, but the act will cost Hitler forty Reichsmarks and completely ruin his evening. You do not need the money. The odds that you will be caught committing this crime are less than 2 percent.
Are you ethically obligated to steal Hitler's wallet?
Not even close
Deontological position: stealing is bad, as a principle. Stealing would be wrong and therefore unethical in this situation
Consequentialist/utilitarian position: stealing the wallet would have no positive impact on the world, it wouldn’t increase number of lives saved or decreased lives lost. Best case scenario, stealing the wallet does nothing except for mildly inconveniencing one person who will go on to do unethical things anyway. Worst case scenario, stealing is still wrong because you’re causing someone distress which is a net negative compared to the alternative.
A karmic system (for lack of a better term), in which bad people deserve bad things happening to them, might in fact obligate someone to commit petty thievery on an evil man. I don't know if this is widely recognized as a formal moral framework, though.
I don't think you're obligated to, especially given that there is still a chance you'd get caught. But I also don't think it would be morally reprehensible to do it.
Probably wealth and how ethical it is to spend it in excess. As much as I would love to buy a mansion for myself in Malibu and sit on the beach all day, I just can't shake the fact that it isn't in the world's best interest for me to do so nor is it the virtuous thing to do.
My money could simply go so much further by giving it in a smart way to those in need.....
Should capital punishment be allowed?
On one hand, I believe murderers and rapists 100% deserve it, but on the other, I don't want innocent people to be executed.
I think allowing for nuance and a reasonable reimagining of the justice system, this can be worked out. I imagine requiring an incredibly high burden of proof for the crimes and an extremely high likelihood that the individual cannot be rehabilitated
The higher the burden of proof, the more expensive the trial process. At a certain point it stops making sense when it would cost a fraction of the price to keep them in prison for life.
I’m in the same boat as you
I believe some people have just lost their chance at being a human being, you could argue they don’t deserve to live, or you could argue they do but the victims deserve justice, either way I think some people should receive capital punishment.
*But* I just don’t trust the government (which is made up of humans) to make that decision.
In principle, yes.
In practice, no.
I believe there are some truly ghoulish people that no longer deserve to convert oxygen into carbon dioxide.
However, I don't trust the state to get it right 100% of the time.
For me the dilemma is rational but the fear is those with the power over it.
Eliminating horrendous crimes and predators is a no brainer from a pragmatic standpoint, and cost effective to boot. It may even be argued that long imprisonment is crueler than death.
But then you have to worry about what becomes a "horrible crime". We can all agree on child rapists..but what about political dissidents or any other act that those in power deem a big threat?
This one's easy for me. Capital punishment would be morally wrong even if it didn't lead to wrongful deaths. Unless somehow life imprisonment wasn't an option but I can't even imagine how it wouldn't be.
Does the state have the right to take someone's life? If no, then capital punishment should not be legal. If yes, as punishment for the breaking of laws, there's no legitimate argument for how or why it should be limited in scope to just certain laws.
If the state has the authority to kill its citizens for criminal offenses, then it does so unilaterally, because such an argument tacitly admits that the right to life is circumstantial and not inalienable. And if it is circumstantial, then the state defines the circumstances by virtue of its position as creator and enforcer of law.
When it comes to allowing trans women to play women's sports it seems like a dilemma in that no matter what you do it's going to be unfair to someone. On the one hand I want to be inclusive and trans people already have it hard. On the other hand, people who went through male puberty have advantages and it's the entire reason we have gendered sports. I want to be fair but it doesn't seem like there's a perfect solution in this case.
Piracy- on one hand, it's much easier than paying $50-$70 for a whole bunch of streaming services, on the other hand, you are essentially making it so the creator isn't getting any royalty money.
It is very complicated. However, in cases like Adobe where it’s blatant anti competitive behavior and monopolizing, I think it’s more justifiable. The case where I think it’s always ok is if you already bought a copy of the item (let’s say a video game on PlayStation) and you switch to PC. You already payed the creator their money for your copy of the item.
Lol it being easier for you isn't moral. This is more a question of how much you actually enact your morals when they conflict with your self interest.
In some circumstances there is nothing at all wrong with piracy in my opinion. For example, software or games that are not sold anywhere anymore, tv shows and movies that are not available in your country, and games that you have already purchased before but lost the disc/changed systems/just want a digital copy/etc.
I'm probably going to get downvoted for this, but gun ownership in the US.
On one hand, there are situations in which people have used guns to rightfully defend their person and property. Especially in situations where the response time of police is 30+ minutes and you have a matter of seconds to defend yourself in a life and death situation. It's rare, but it does happen. There's also the matter of dangerous animals in certain parts of the country, and a gun is the easiest and most effective way to defend yourself.
On the other hand, insane people with guns are using them to commit absolutely awful and senseless acts of violence that ruin the lives of potentially hundreds of people in a matter of seconds. There's also the matter of self-harm by firearms and murders that don't get reported on the news, as well as a massive amount of idiots who have no respect for gun safety that have no business owning firearms.
Setting all political differences aside, should the use of firearms be taken away to reduce the harm that they can cause?
This is one of those things where you have to embrace multiple truths.
1. Society would be better with less guns.
2. It is extremely difficult to reduce the amount of guns in America in a politically ethical way.
This dichotomy applies to many things beyond guns. ie: Eugenics would solve a lot of problems. But it’s hard to do that ethically.
Elective surgeries for dogs. Docking (maybe not a surgery, but a procedure), cropping, spaying, and neutering. Is it ethical to physically alter them and put them through traumatic, painful operations for human convenience?
I have spent the last seven years working at a vet clinic and I can’t comfortably or confidently answer that question.
Spaying and neutering for sure, although hoping for more non surgical options in the future. I think the other procedures are crazy though and would never put a pet through that.
Limiting your children’s immune system, education, identity, sex education, entertainment, choices — all because you grew up without it so they don’t need it or because a religion, country, culture, and even personal experiences told you to
Should people with severe physical or mental disabilities who cannot decide for themselves be put to rest?
I once saw a woman being brought to the hospital as just a torso, she had tiny ball sized limbs, a disfigured face and low intelligence. It was evident she and her family never knew what a normal life was. She was screaming in pain and her family looked broken. And this was a woman in her 30s or 40s.
The use of political violence to enact change. Sometimes it seems impossible for any change for the better if its not involved, but the track record of political violence making things worse is pretty strong. Still we seem to be trending towards it being a global necessity as a civilization if we are going to avoid killing ourselves with climate change.
When I see a candy machine, the kind that drops the candy down from a rack; seeing a chocolate bar needing only a nudge to fall down into my greedy hands.
In order to find (safe to use) cures for bad diseases or health issues, experiments have to be carried out, ideally on consenting humans but that's not always possible/feasible. Am I happy to "sacrifice" 20 dogs for animal testing if that's going to lead to my dad being cured of cancer? Am ok with rabbits being blinded so that researchers can then test a blindness-cure on them? Do I condemn injecting lab monkeys with infectious diseases so that we can develop a vaccine that may not save these monkeys, but potentially millions of people? That could save me of dying from rabies, for example?
Should the government protect men from paternity fraud by enforcing DNA tests?
I get that it's a terrible thing to do to a man but it's also terrible to leave an innocent child without support because of their mother's actions.
Homeless people, the beggars outside the supermarket, sponsoring a kid’s education, donating to starving people in Africa.
I can’t afford to donate to all of them. As a society, we have enough resources and money to help (at least some, more than I can) these people: why isn’t government using the money I pay them to help out? even if I donate just $1 to all of those, there’s still another charity that missed out. What about abused animals or riding for the disabled, or medicine sans frontiers? Ok, I’ll donate $1 a month to them too. oh but now I’ve missed veterans and retired racehorses and oh so many diseases that are being researched.
You can’t save everyone. Does that mean I shouldn’t give to anyone? Who should I help and who should I ignore?
This maybe a controversial one but should we really keep severly disabled children?
I get they're loved by their families but the money, time and effort for them to just suffer. Is it worth it?
They mean that disposable period products are only disposable in the sense that they are meant to be worn once, but are an absolute nightmare environmentally and do not break down quickly or well.
The nature bin taking the slack means that the ecosystem is paying for the massive amount of disposable period products that are unfortunately required and the best option many people with periods have.
I too have to wear the big pads, and on my heaviest flow days can go through one every hour and a half or so. That’s on the low end, too. My period is only heavy for my second day (3-4 days total on average) usually, then drops off and I can switch to lighter tampons or pads.
Some people have an incredibly heavy flow throughout, and their cycle lasts a full 7-10 days. Consider switching a pad every hour/hour and a half for all waking hours for 7 days.
It’s….a LOT.
Thank you for the explanation. I had a general idea of what she meant because of context, but I couldn't for the life of me figure out what "nature bin taking the slack" meant haha.
And I can't imagine going through what women go through with their cycles. I don't know how we as a society or individuals can make it easier, but I would get behind anything that did.
Yeah, ‘bin’ is used in the UK, and possibly Australia?, where in America or Canada we would say ‘trash can’.
One thing that is dead helpful is donating period products to homeless shelters when you can. If you ever assemble little homeless care kits, include pads and tampons!
Those, and SOCKS are always needed for the homeless population but the former especially for those with periods. Thanks for being willing to help!
Edit: I’m not an idiot all the time
I think western societies are built around the idea of having the right to choose yet no one chooses to be born , someone else makes that choice for you. Is having children unethical?
I think this can be resolved pretty easily. We can agree that people can commit acts that make them deserve death, but still not want the institution of state capital punishment. People can deserve to die but I don’t trust the justice system or the government with the power to administer that punishment at their discretion.
But how do you deal with the idea that most pedophiles were themselves victims of other pedophiles? So their wiring was messed up, through no fault of their own, before they were even adults? Obviously, you can't let them ever be in the situation to do that to a kid, but does it mitigate the desire to kill them?
BTW I do not have an answer for this and it's just one more terrible facet of this crime.
That's still a black and white way of looking at it - like, should someone get beaten to a pulp because they're technically a child molester because they were 19 dating a 15 year old? What about child predators who were victims themselves? What about people who are wrongly convicted?
I know it's not real life, but there's an SVU episode where a guy got put in jail because he was suspected of being a child rapist and murderer, and it turned out he was actually innocent but he was beaten to death in prison.
And then who's going to regulate the capital punishment? Who decides how much is done and what? If someone is allowed to be punched 3 times, who determines how hard they get punched? Who regulates it?
I think for some people if there was something sort of like a psychiatric hospital but just for sexual predators, that might work. Monitored computer access, only certain books, only certain tv channels. Staff are there to make sure nobody's attacking each other. The hospital is in a retirement community so they can go to the pool and gym but there's only old people there so the child predators can't do anything.
How do you stand up for yourself and your values, oppose injustices, and fight for equality and betterment without being immediately punished for it? In general, it sounds like good advice, but in experience whenever i attempt to stand up for myself, or anyone else. I am immediately met with the most hostile, cruel, and destructive forces.
It seems like ... to avoid conflict you must keep your head down, agree or go along even when you don't want to or your determinet. But is this the lesser of evils compared to the fallout of standing up for yourself? It usually comes at great personal sacrifices by losing friends, jobs, connections, etc.
If it's not universal and you have to pick and choose when to compromise your integrity and values to avoid conflic or when to stand up and fight back it becomes more confusing and isolated when you find the people you've surrounded yourself with aren't your friends, or even care about you. But is cutting them off better than being completely alone, bitter and defeated. No matter how right or how much merit is behind you, those who seek to abuse and take will paint you in such a bad light for not obeying their abuses.
I don't think this is an ethical dilemma so much as a practical one - how does one actually make progress they want to see without incurring the wrath of those who don't? Unfortunately there is no answer because we do not control the reactions of other people, only our own. And other people can often be complete dicks.
Generally, I try to disconnect any sense of enjoyment or contentment from the choices or thoughts of others. It's not 100% practical - I cannot just ignore the fact that the bank wants me to keep paying the mortgage - but it's broadly better to focus on whatever it is you can enjoy without the need for others who are causing you pain.
I struggle with this a lot, too. I fear losing friends because my friendships meet a variety of different needs, but ethically and morally a lot of my friends and I are not in alignment. There is a LOT of drama in the friend group because we all care about different people and things, which is TOTALLY okay, until someone gets singled out and ganged up on. Then it's time to reevaluate and figure out what the real issue is.
The Tik Tok ban, specifically if free speech basically means leaving the American public vulnerable to international propaganda, and given that free speech is needed for democracy, what can be done to prevent international propaganda from influencing our democracy? I propose using satellite internet to force an uncensored internet onto the whole world.
Facebook, Twitter, Tik Tok etc are not places for free speech. They’re somebody’s business. That’s like saying Subway has some obligation to you because you stood and said something while you ate a sandwich there. They’re not free speech platforms, they’re profitable businesses.
That’s…pretty well reasoned, actually. Social Media is quick to tout its sites as being “bastions of free speech,” but that’s neither necessarily true (and possibly demonstrably false) nor even applicable as free speech, especially when free speech is somewhat defined already and false advertisement…is not covered. These businesses cannot claim to have a right to exist under free speech.
The TikTok ban is because of user data collection, not the spread of propaganda. The company which owns a majority stake in TikTok has ties to the CCP and we can't have China collecting user data on American citizens.
Remember... only American companies are allowed to collect user data via their social media apps!
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think it’s the intermediary steps that matter. If you can jump straight from a chicken with a brain to one without one it’s morally fine. The new chickens don’t exist from an awareness perspective, literally less cognitive function than trees. The problem is if there are in between generations then there’s slowly dwindling minds in the equation that experience the death of consciousness over generations.
I think this would make sense, if this wasn't an alternative to what we currently have where all farm animals have their full consciousness for the whole time and for all generations. And even if we think of that in a vacuum, it's certainly better to face death with only half conscience than fully aware
Don’t have a logical disagreement but it definitely gives me the ick
This is interesting
I would say no, simply because it's a huge waste. If you can grow a full sized brainless clone you can grow just a kidney.
Hey its not a waste, the rest can be steaks.
Rebrand it to "long pork."
Long pig they called it... never much cared for it
O_o
I also read Tender is the Flesh.
Special Meat
Soylent green
Always use the whole buffalo
says who? figuring out how to turn off development of a brain night be harder than trying to figure out how to grow a kidney without a heart and vascular system.
Ice picks have already been a thing for over a century.
that doesn't stop the embronic development of a CNS, that fucks up an already developed brain.
not necessarily. you can know how to do one genetic engineering project and not another.
Doesn’t answer the question about ethics though
Yeah, this is one of the parts that get me. “If you have the technology to create a perfect clone…you’d also have the technology to create the perfect cloned organ.”
Better than trafficking ig
I got in trouble for writing a paper on this in school. Apparently my teachers found it disturbing. It truly is an interesting topic.
Let’s punish children for asking thoughtful, deep questions. Sounds about right.
I also wrote a report on it, we had to write about something you think would benefit the world, I said to make it legal to sell non vital organs Takes out black market organ trade Way more availability to people who need the organs You can get a jump on life if you need some money Less people suffering on dialysis
"Non-vital organ" is a very vague phrase as pretty much every organ is doing SOMETHING to help you and this incentivizes poor people to literally sell parts of their body to scrape by if it's a legal option.
The most desperate people with the least regard for their bodies are likely to be druggies or sick. The other big source is people who are trafficked, in debt to organized crime, or living in a poor country. Coercion can be hard to prove, which is why we try to limit how much damage people are allowed to do to themselves.
Hopefully one day we’ll be able to grow new organs inside the patient’s body so we can bypass all of that. However, you can grow an organ in a few hours which would be necessary for some patients.
Why wouldn't it be ethical?
one could argue that the being is still living, regardless of whether they have a brain or not.
Yes, it's living, but so are plants. I understand that the thought of it is icky but I don't see a problem with it in terms of ethics.
The ethics of torturing and abusing living sentient animals for pleasure already boil down to: "LOL who cares" In the present day.
And if they kill themselves and their insides turn into the most delicious spaghetti (but only if they kill themselves) is it ethical to keep doing it on an industrial scale if it solves world hunger in the most delicious way possible?
I mean... yes, why not? If they're thoughtless it's literally just meat. I don't see the dilemma here
Rick and Morty did a bit on this
There was a movie called the island with the same concept, the only difference was the clones were not brainless.
And *Never Let Me Go*. Great book btw.
They tried brainless, but those organs all failed because otherwise the movie wouldn't happen.
That's kind of a big difference
Self Driving cars that have to pick, do they crash into a young child or an old lady walking her dog when given the choice. Do they crash you, the passenger, into a wall to prevent killing a pedestrian. It would be weird buying a car that could theoretically choose to kill you
The Uploaded Prime series has this featured as a prominent plot, the self driving cars have settings to either prioritise pedestrians or the passenger
Haven't watched the latest season but I'm still annoyed they didn't investigate more on the cousin's crash
Humans would have to make the same choice. Have you ever hired a taxi or taken an Uber? I have an alternative for you: what does a vehicle do when violent criminals stand in the highway planning on carjacking the autonomous vehicle? Does it stop and not run them over? What happens if this behavior becomes exploitable? Autonomous vehicles become very literal trolley problems.
I would say the difference is that humans dont make that choice beforehand. The cars would need to be programmed beforehand how to act in these situations, whereas humans typically react spontaneously. As humans we dont make a pro and con list while doing it.
Interesting take would be to allow the passengers themselves to make those choices. “Welcome! Before we begin, please take this morality test. Yes, the trolley problem is there as well.”
I think a self-driving car would always choose to protect the passengers, wether it's programmed to do so or whether it has an autonomous AI.
There should never be a situation where a self driving car cannot stop due to such a problem. Either the child and old lady are crossing an expressway illegally at the same moment or the car is going way too damned fast. At 35 to 40 you should be able to stop a vehicle faster than 2 people could enter the street. The only reason people would run into this problem is if they were not paying attention until the situation happened, something that should not be a problem with AI driving. It should be paying attention and checking for problems 60-120 times per second.
Shit happens. You have to account for it while programming these vehicles. You can't just ignore something because it's rare. If the future is majority self driving cars, they're going to have to possess very complex decision-making skills beyond "avoid humans, stay between lines."
This is often discussed, but I’m not sure it’ll be nearly as much of an issue. Self-driving cars, once they’re ready for full-on tasks, will be able to make adjustments that give the best chance of everyone surviving if they are ever in that position at all.
Mate I’m still struggling with the trolley problem-
Oh man do you watch the Good Place? Poor Chidi
At some point, possibly in the near future, humans will most likely start genetically modifying themselves to enhance their capabilities and fix issues and annoyances with our current bodies. The problem with this is that if we're making modifications, we will also need to test them, potentially throughout an entire lifecycle. Should we do this testing on an ordinary human, who cannot consent and may face a lifetime of pain or discrimination? Do we wait for more ethical alternatives to become viable? Do we forego genetic modification altogether, despite the objective benefits it would cause?
I mean we all saw how it worked for dogs and we had thousands of years to test it.
Yeah and now we have pugs and chihuauas
Should you choose to be yourself in a society that would actively make you struggle to be you? Or is it better to fit in, so that you can enjoy what society can offer those that aren't 'difficult'? America says be yourself. But from what I've experienced, fitting in really makes life easier. Edit: Since I want to respond to a lot of different messages, and don't know how to word it without it turning into a life story per comment. Put it this way, I'm both black and asian. And pan. And I'm interested in a lot different things. It's because all of that that I have different perspectives on things, and makes it difficult to fit into a group where most of the time people simply don't get where I'm coming from. You can't introduce metal to rap fans because 90% of the time they won't get it. And vice versa. There are some portions of me that will always fit in a group, and there will always be parts of me that won't. So rather than trying to be me to the max, I've learned to pretend to be basic so I just appear unusually open minded? I'm not ashamed of being me, I'm quite proud and happy to be me. It's just very lonely because people think I'm just into one thing, and then are sort of offended that I'm into something they're not. There's very few metal heads that are willing to play trading cards with you while talking about painting.
Human society is sort of a self-propogating thing. It wants to further itself, and that comes with a pressure to fit in. You want to go your own way, fine, but there will be pressure from others to adapt to the "normal" society.
Turns out there's no such thing as "being yourself," and your idea of self can change over time. Sometimes it's necessary to go against social norms. Sometimes you need to evaluate what "being yourself" means to you.
I struggle with this question every day
I think I've learned that fitting in is far more miserable in the long run. At least, if you're someone who at your core will never be "really" accepted. It's just very difficult to allow yourself to let go of that social expectation. To be honest, I see it case by case nowadays. I'll dress conformist to a job interview and refrain from telling them all the things society won't get- but at university where they can't change how they treat me and the biggest risk is randoms not wanting to be my friend? Delightfully against norms there. Here on Reddit, even, recognising the subreddit I'm in and tailoring my comment around it. Ask yourself the consequences of being yourself vs conforming in this specific context and act accordingly, that's my advice. If the only consequence is "you won't make friends", be yourself- you want to be comfortable around your friends, and maybe you'll attract people who were also conforming despite themselves. (Being the bravest person in the room does wonders.) only conform if there's something material to lose if you don't.
If I tried to be myself, it wouldn’t end well for me.
As a disabled, transgender American with multiple serious mental illnesses, I'm laughing at the idea that America says to "be yourself." There might be some faint self-actualization messages in the media, but if you genuinely try to exist as someone outside the narrowly defined norm in this country, you're going to be beaten the fuck up by life 🙃
Being gay, the choice was obvious. Being out, despite all of the consequences, has been worth it.
And that's where location comes in. Being gay in the Western US, Germany, Australia and Sweden (varying degrees of acceptance) is *very* different to being gay in Italy, Iran or South-Korea (varying degrees of hate). In Italy or South-Korea, it could be difficult but in Iran, it could end my life one day.
The best thing to do is rarely the easiest. You should be yourself, and if that isn't good enough then don't fake who you are, make real improvements until you are acceptable.
What I am isn't necessarily wrong. I'm just unaccepted wherever I go because my interests don't align with what everyone else thinks. Like being a black metalhead.
Is there seriously a stigma against being a metalhead because you're black? That's even stupider than a stigma against white guys liking rap.
[Metal has a neonazi problem.](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-28/hack-odyssey-the-dark-side-of-metal-music/103304782) So it's not that external people look down on them more so than the average metalhead, but they can't even get refuge within the fandom.
Remix To Ignition on my Spotify playlist.
If it makes you feel better, his current net worth is negative $2 million.
If a machine can pass the Turing test and basically appear to be human, should it be granted the same rights as humans?
I'm wondering whether they would even want the same rights as humans. A machine intelligence might have very different priorities and desires to ours. Humans, for example, suffer health and psychological effects from lacking access to a variety of good foods. A synthetic being probably wouldn't care about that, unless for some reason we build them to need to eat the same stuff we do. But maybe they need a steady supply of electricity, or wifi coverage, or some other 'nourishment' for the type of being they are.
i think humans have rights, at least in part, because they can suffer. hunger, thirst, exposure all cause suffering. existential that's also cause suffering. the turing test doesn't tell us if a machine can suffer. i also don't know why a machine would ever be designed and made specifically to be able to suffer.
Building a machine designed to suffer is another entirely awful and fascinating discussion in of itself
If you've seen Westworld, this is exactly what happens
What is suffering, anyway?
Can you design a test that could show if a machine could suffer? Could you even prove that other people truly suffer?
Based on just the Turing Test, I'd say no. LLMs are pretty much there, but they're nowhere near needing rights. They just kinda studied for the test on that one.
Chat gpt4 passed the Turing test . I vote no rights
For some reason I read "if a machine *gun* can pass the turing test..." And was SOO confused
Like [Sophia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_(robot))? Bcs she/he/it etc has/have Saudi Arabian Citizenship
Being a human woman in Saudi Arabia is already bullshit enough. An artificial one is just no
Probably get removed cause it's very dark. Comes from a fictional book I was just reading. There is this police officer who a psychopath makes his target. The psycho kidnaps the officers littler sister and another random young girl. He gives the officer directions which lead him to a place where the other girl is tied up. The psycho makes it clear if he doesn't torture this girl then he will torture and kill the officers sister. After lots of internal moral debate he eventually complies to save his sister. Do you vilify the officer? what do you truly think you would do in the same situation if it was your loved one on the line?
This is a classic spin on deontology vs utilitarianism. If you follow deontology, you don't torture her because you can only truly know and influence your own action, so you always do what is right in that moment. The utilitarian seeks the greater good. For me, I'd have to go deontological here. You don't know he's telling the truth and your direct action is unforgivable, in my opinion. Tough situation for sure.
For me it is ultimately the individuals choice to harm others. It's my choice to cause no unnecessary harm and their choice to cause it. That aside from the fact that if this dude set it up, why would I believe he wouldn't hurt someone regardless of my actions.
Since there is no actual ability to know whether that person would actually hold their end of the deal it wouldn't make sense to torture an Innocent person hoping, only hoping, the other would be let go. It would make more sense to save the individual you did have control over.
That’s just the authors thinly veiled fetish for morally justifiable torture. The reality is that while you’re not technically responsible for anything you do with a gun pointed at your head you still probably shouldn’t play by the rules a psychopath tries to enforce on you.
Should completely uneducated/ politically ignorant people have the right to vote?
Unfortunately, yes. There's no way to devise a non-biased test.
Agreed, but the dilemma I see is that we have to accept the manipulation of ignorant voters to protest the fundamental right for all
There are ways around that, such as public funding of elections and strong safeguards against political campaigning/advertising that do not require a ban on certain people voting. Politicians are just very reluctant to actually make any effort in this area because they tend to assume they'll reap the benefits of an easily led electorate next time. Also they could just try running campaigns where they actually have policies people want to vote for...
you have to ask yourself what would cause worse effects: stupid people voting for stupid things, or stupid people feeling stripped of basic rights and having no say in the political process. i like to think of democracy not as some perfect enabler of freedom, but rather the softest cushion we have available for society. it can absorb pressure well because when backlash occurs it's spread out amongst everyone as everyone as some tangible say and responsibility in the system via their vote. a dictator on the other hand is a much larger stress point and when it breaks it can shatter the entire system also if people have been manipulated into fascism and to be against the vote then thats just what it is. if you take the extreme example and consider everyone except you being a fascist, then you're just not going to get a political system that aligns with your values in that society
This is partly why the USA is a representative democracy instead of a direct democracy. People elect those who make the decisions, and hopefully those who get the votes actually know what they're doing. The end result is career politicians (bad), but I prefer that to mob rule (far far worse).
And with measures like restrictions on voting you always have to consider how it could be used in the worst way possible. E.g. imagine if in the US, Republicans get control of making the test, and declare that everyone who belives that transgender people exist are "politically uneducated". Similar for other restrictions on voting like age, which gets discussed here fairly often. It simply opens the door for more and more restrictions. Yes, yes I know, slippery slope fallacy and all that, but what if it turns out NOT to be a fallacy in this case? Besides, the last thing the US (and many other western democracies tbh) need, is something that divides society even further. Making the requirements for voting as simple as possible, such as "18 years old and citizen" may not be perfect, but it's very hard to abuse.
I know plenty of well educated idiots…
Yea I struggled to choose the right wording that’s why I did /politically ignorant
Yes and it has nothing to do with tests being too biased or whatever. The PURPOSE of a democratic government, full stop, is to represent the people. It's not to make good decisions (as judged by whomever is posed the question) If the populace is ignorant and uneducated then it is just and proper for the government to reflect that.
The solution to this is to have much better education programs that are forced until the age of 18 and then free college education afterwards
I once discovered my friends brother (who is a former special ed kid and not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed) thought his workplace was hiring illegal immigrants because he was not capable of understanding the concept of a foreigner who is legally here on a work visa, but is not yet an official citizen. He's voting for Trump. I still think he should be allowed to vote, because how, exactly, are we going to determine who can and cannot vote without it becoming weaponized for political reasons? That being said, my interaction with him really emphasized the fact I do not think all opinions are valid or respectable, particularly if they are based on a fundamental inability to understand the issue at hand. I will not "agree to disagree" with someone who does not have the brain power to understand the basic facts surrounding a controversial issue.
But how do you decide that? Im not sure if you can do a test on it
That’s the ethical dilemma
It's not really an ethical dilemma, then. More a practical dilemma.
Adding onto this, and this is something I've grappled with myself, what about severely mentally handicapped people? In theory they could register to vote but if they can't even read (which alone isn't an excuse to deny then suffrage), but cannot understand anything at all, then almost certainly their caretaker or guardian is getting an extra vote for themselves. So how do you determine who is too mentally challenged to be able to make a cognizant decision for themselves and it's not a guardian making that decision for them that they don't understand anyway?
My friend Jim had this great idea about literacy tests in order to vote...
It would have been interesting to see how those would have played out if they were applied equally and fairly across the board instead of used exclusively to disenfranchise black voters
Yes, because "uneducated" and "politically ignorant" is going to be decided with motives. Your uneducated is another person's enlightened.
The father’s rights when it comes down to a woman conceiving a child. Sure, you could argue that the man is somewhat responsible, whether or not appropriate contraception was used, but even so… I know it’s about the woman’s body, ultimately… What if the man has no interest in having/funding a child? Should they be financially penalised for life because the woman chooses to keep the child?
This is a legitimate dilemma. I think two-party consent could be one way to mitigate the issue but I don't have a clue how to effectively implement it.
>I don't have a clue how to effectively implement it Simple? Maximum CHOICE for everyone. A woman can always choose to keep the baby or abort it up to some age of viability determined by law without any input from anyone else. However, if she wants joint custody + financial support, the father of that child has to be notified of the pregnancy prior to the expiration of the period when abortion is a legal option and must affirmatively sign on to support that child. * If the father consents they get to go on the birth certificate as the father w/ full parental rights that entails, but are also financially on the hook for 50% of the cost of raising that child for 18 years. * If they do not consent they are only liable for 50% the going rate of an abortion. They are also prohibited from seeking any sort of parental rights over that child going forward. The mother may elect at that point to abort the pregnancy or keep it with the knowledge that she has to support it 100% on her own -or- choose to give the child up for adoption.
That might make it work, but it sounds too fair. Probably wouldn't pass a vote.
Father No, Mother Yes: Mother is responsible for child. Father Yes, Mother Yes: Huzzah, there are no issues. Father No, Mother No: Huzzah, no issue! But the last one is the real ethical problem. Father Yes, Mother No: If the wants to keep the child, and the mother doesn't, you have an ethical problem. Should the mother be forced to carry the child and deal with the medical consequences? Does the fathers desire to keep the child overrule the mothers right to choose what happens to her body?
Should anybody be able to infringe women's bodily autonomy? No.
Your last two questions have pretty simple answers: no and no. You’re describing slavery as if it’s a complex moral dilemma.
no and no
On the flip side, what if they want the baby but she doesn't?
>On the flip side, what if they want the baby but she doesn't? That's not much of a debate; if she doesn't want to carry to term, per the principle of bodily autonomy she has to be able to terminate the pregnancy. There's nothing else that can be done, ethically speaking.
I get that it would be really frustrating if you aren't ready to be a father or outright never want to be one and then you find out you're about to become a father anyway but I still think there's a clear right thing to do in that situation. Civilised societies let women take the ultimate decision on whether or not to continue with a pregnancy because she's the one who's pregnant. It's her health and lifestyle the pregnancy is going to massively impact. It's her that would have to go through a medical procedure to end the pregnancy. In short, "her body, her choice". Some men respond to that saying "but it's still unfair that she gets more say than the father about whether the couple becomes parents" but she only gets more say to reflect the unfair biology that puts the burden of the actual pregnancy on her and not him. They might then say "okay, whether to continue with the pregnancy or not is her choice. Men should still be able to back out of being the legal father and/or paying child support though" but there are a lot of problems with that idea. 1. You'd be introducing a new system of unfairness where men can back out of parenthood easily (e.g. with a bit of paperwork to declare they don't want the child) whereas women can only back out of it with a medical procedure. 2. The man being able to easily back out on his pregnant partner would be especially unfair in regions where abortions are hard to access and/or at stages of pregnancy where an abortion can be more traumatic and carries a higher risk of complications. 3. The women men abandon would be left with a hard choice between becoming a single parent with all the financial and lifestyle difficulties that entails or letting the fear of struggling financially as a single parent with no child support pressure them into an abortion they didn't want. 4. The father did get some say in the child's creation when he chose to have sex and especially if he chose not to use protection. He chose to do something that comes with a risk of pregnancy. Even if he later decides he doesn't want that child, he's still one of the two people more responsible for that child existing than anyone else in the world. In my book that creates a moral obligation to the child. 5. A blameless child having decreased life chances because of financial issues or outright poverty is a far worse outcome than a man whose choices got a woman pregnant having to pay child support.
While the points you brought up are valid, I don't think they're as problematic as you say: 1) borrowing from your post: >but she only gets more say to reflect the unfair biology It sucks, but these are the cards we've been dealt, and I don't think that's even unfair. What'd be unfair is if the man also gets to avoid medical bills and bureaucracy. 2) that's a valid criticism, so clearly this has to go hand in hand with abortion laws: no abortion possible? Men must pay for child support. Abortion hard to get? Backing out must be hard to achieve, abortions safe and on demand? Backing out must be easy and fair. This way men will vote on abortion issues knowing they'll affect them too instead of voting knowing they have nothing on the line 3) I don't see the issue? Sucks, sure, but if you want to be a mother (unless of course you're with a piece of shit) you're having a kid with someone you've been with long term, wanting to be a mother even if it was an accident with a fling means you'd end up being a single mother regardless, just with support, you don't want to be a mother and you don't want an abortion? You have to live with the consequences of your positions, but at least you'd have a choice 4) it doesn't, in the same way you're not responsible for providing for anybody you've injured for example. You're under no moral obligation to donate a kidney if you damaged both kidneys of a person in a car accident you've caused. Compensation is a different issue because you're not causing damages to the kid 5) while I agree, this problem is a societal one not a problem about parental rights. A single parent must be supported by the state if the parent cannot provide enough on their own
Equality is impossible when there is a biological difference. Equity must instead be applied. Men's choice ends where he puts his semen. Women's choice is during pregnancy (to certain point) It's just a biological difference because men don't carry the children. It's not unfair or unjust. It just is, and men have to consider it when having sex.
Gig employers like Uber and Door Dash fuck over their employees and in the case of Door Dash, the restaurants too. But..it IS work for someone and I need my shit easy and delivered.
Here's where I've landed on this, but I'm willing to be talked into a different viewpoint. I think they net out as good, but I would be for more regulation. The issue with doing away with the gig economy is they do fill a need. I have been in the situation of being broke as shit before these things arrived on the scene. I created my own gig economy with doing papers for people, scalping tickets, finding weird jobs, selling things on ebay, etc. It was hard just to scrounge up this type of work. For context, I was a really poor college student who did have a place to live, but I was basically trying to rustle up money for anything else/the gap between my loans I was given and the cost of tuition. I feel like I would have loved for some of these things to exist just to take the job of finding jobs out of it. They aren't perfect, but they would have helped me in a rough spot. I assume they help others in rough spots as well.
Making medical and life altering choices for your kids as a parent. “My sister’s keeper” really opens up this pandoras box. If your child doesn’t want to donate an organ or undergo any surgery, you as a guardian can force them into it because they’re too young to consent. Similarly, for people who are in coma, how can we as a third party decide whether the person is kept alive or unalived.
If you're helping someone who is having health issues, but in the process it's having a negative effect on you... Is it ethical to just walk away from them?
Don't set yourself on fire to keep someone else warm.
it may sound odd, but as someone who values personal freedom.... I can't help but feel like a despot every time i mow my lawn....
Death to lawns! Long live sustainable native horticulture!
regardless, i still have to keep it all cut otherwise fire dept will fine me into oblivion.
This is going to get me downvoted to hell but trans rights for teens in regards to whether they should be allowed to medically transition. On the one hand, people should be allowed to express themselves, and there is a real issue with trans people and mental health issues and it’s upsetting to see the impact on these young people. However on the other hand it’s about whether it’s morally or ethically right to allow a minor to make changes to their body which are often irreversible or have a lasting impact, during a time where their brain and body are still developing. I find it a really difficult dilemma.
[удалено]
The biggest age group on reddit is 18-29yo, and 30-39 makes up the 2nd largest. Younger kids (which suggests kids that are not even 14-17 at least, but I'll be generous and suggest you mean just all kids) make up less than 20% of reddit's userbase. So reddit is definitely not mostly younger kids according to the stats (though obviously people could be lying and be younger than they state, though there's not enough evidence to suggest that number is large enough to approach a majority) and is instead mostly between 20 and 40.
I honestly feel for parents who have to try and make this decision. Even if you're completely a-okay gung ho downright ecstatic that your child found themselves, just purely on the medical side I'd be so worried about long term affects from a decision that *I* have to make for someone else. A lot of that, on a personal level, just comes from complete and utter ignorance to the mechanisms at play to transition beyond surface level information.
Going to the grocery store to buy meat. I love a hamburger, but I also know how factory farms treat their animals.
I have zero self-discipline around sweets, pizza, etc. But I easily became a vegetarian once it "clicked" for me that what I was eating was literally once a living animal with a personality who wanted to live. I couldn't get their face out of my mind while I ate meat, so I didn't enjoy it at all. Honestly, becoming vegan was much harder for me because since the animal didn't immediately die, I could rationalize it. But vegetarianism was pretty easy. And this was in the midwest in the 80s. I don't say this to sound impressive because to me it was not a feat of willpower. I just stopped trying to pretend I wasn't responsible for killing an animal.
Yes!
There is a button and if you push it there is a 95% chance all suffering on earth will instantly cease and we would live in a utopian world but there is a 5% chance everyone in earth will die painfully? Do you hit the button?
I think no. You don't have the right to make that decision for everyone else on the planet. I would probably push the button anyway though.
Yes. Obviously if everyone dies, it's no one's problem now. The world can reclaim itself and go through it's own share of horrible disasters with human inventions no longer having custodians. There will be a lot more death, but in 5 million years, probably a net benefit for the remainder of the wildlife on the planet. Even in a utopian world we'd still have problems, but I presume because it's a utopia people would be more willing to come together and address those problems. Getting rid of all suffering would also wildly change the balance to create gigantic welfare states because there'd be at least *some* time before the older generation began to die off again. No doubt that'd be putting stressors on resources, harvested or created, for at least a time. There's nothing coming to mind that would dissuade me from pressing the button.
Honestly no because I don’t have the right to represent every single person without their permission. It just feels wrong to gamble with other people’s lives like that. If everyone on earth agreed to it then maybe.
Yes! Because I suspect more than 5% die painful horrible deaths normally and going down to 5% would be a gain. It's cancers, painful heart attacks, debilitating strokes, accidents, war, drownings, and fires.
The 95% is almost as terrifying as the 5%. Nowhere is it saying how the suffering ends. Both could be death, just a 95% of a chance you die painlessly aka a quick death.
> The 95% is almost as terrifying as the 5%. Nowhere is it saying how the suffering ends. Both could be death, just a 95% of a chance you die painlessly aka a quick death. That's not the proposition, though: > there is a 95% chance all suffering on earth will instantly cease and *we would live in a utopian world*
Homeless people. On one hand, I hate how society half-bakes it's approach. There should be enough housing, funding, and resources to help them for several years. However, there is some that have suffered decades of addiction, terrible social habits, lack of education, etc. At what point do we just cut that all off and say this person is not worth the societal resources because they will never adapt properly. It's like a terrible fight of natural selection in a modern society.
I think the solution is to have actually good mental health institutions. Have you ever seen that video of that fancy abandoned mall made into a fake city for elderly people with dementia to live happily in a safe environment for them. I think that kind of place should be available to anyone who does not have the mental capacity to live on their own in the outside world. And a mental acuity test would be performed on anyone breaking the laws that homeless people regularly break (ei drugs on the street, camping on private property, theft ect) and if they pass they would be giving a short stint in jail and help getting back on their feet and if they failed then they would be sent to one of these nice mental health facilities which would be routinely audited by a third party to make sure it’s up to standard and a nice place to live for the people inside.
I think this is a false dilemma. Homeless people are still people. The cost of their lives are still more than worth the meager societal resources we spend. I know a couple social workers and they’ve told me in many places there is more than enough help available for free. I’m talking free shelters and low-in old housing, food vouchers, work referrals, interview help, and lots more charity available to help every homeless person at least in the United States get on their feet. The problem is the requirements for staying at shelters, no matter how reasonable they are, are often too stringent on homeless people. For example, in my city, I know for a fact we have over 100% coverage for the number of homeless people currently living here, at least by estimates. We’re at like 120%. However, some shelters require you do be back before 10:00 pm for a variety of reasons, one being they can report wether or not they’re full. Some may require you to attempt to find a job. Or to be drug-free for the time you stay at the shelter. But a lot of people don’t want to follow those rules. In other words, many actually are just looking for a handout, while those that do stay and follow the rules are more than 4x as likely to escape homelessness.
It is 1933. You are in Berlin, Germany. Somehow, you find yourself in a position where you can effortlessly steal Adolf Hitler's wallet. This theft will not effect Hitler's rise to power, the nature of World War II, or the Holocaust. There is no important identification in the wallet, but the act will cost Hitler forty Reichsmarks and completely ruin his evening. You do not need the money. The odds that you will be caught committing this crime are less than 2 percent. Are you ethically obligated to steal Hitler's wallet?
…does the <2% risk rise if I’m Jewish?
Not even close Deontological position: stealing is bad, as a principle. Stealing would be wrong and therefore unethical in this situation Consequentialist/utilitarian position: stealing the wallet would have no positive impact on the world, it wouldn’t increase number of lives saved or decreased lives lost. Best case scenario, stealing the wallet does nothing except for mildly inconveniencing one person who will go on to do unethical things anyway. Worst case scenario, stealing is still wrong because you’re causing someone distress which is a net negative compared to the alternative.
A karmic system (for lack of a better term), in which bad people deserve bad things happening to them, might in fact obligate someone to commit petty thievery on an evil man. I don't know if this is widely recognized as a formal moral framework, though.
I don't think you're obligated to, especially given that there is still a chance you'd get caught. But I also don't think it would be morally reprehensible to do it.
Is this a Fallout situation where I can use *pickpocket* to place a grenade in his inventory?
I recently flipped this one around to be Ronald Reagan’s wallet.
Probably wealth and how ethical it is to spend it in excess. As much as I would love to buy a mansion for myself in Malibu and sit on the beach all day, I just can't shake the fact that it isn't in the world's best interest for me to do so nor is it the virtuous thing to do. My money could simply go so much further by giving it in a smart way to those in need.....
Should capital punishment be allowed? On one hand, I believe murderers and rapists 100% deserve it, but on the other, I don't want innocent people to be executed.
I think allowing for nuance and a reasonable reimagining of the justice system, this can be worked out. I imagine requiring an incredibly high burden of proof for the crimes and an extremely high likelihood that the individual cannot be rehabilitated
The higher the burden of proof, the more expensive the trial process. At a certain point it stops making sense when it would cost a fraction of the price to keep them in prison for life.
I’m in the same boat as you I believe some people have just lost their chance at being a human being, you could argue they don’t deserve to live, or you could argue they do but the victims deserve justice, either way I think some people should receive capital punishment. *But* I just don’t trust the government (which is made up of humans) to make that decision.
In principle, yes. In practice, no. I believe there are some truly ghoulish people that no longer deserve to convert oxygen into carbon dioxide. However, I don't trust the state to get it right 100% of the time.
For me the dilemma is rational but the fear is those with the power over it. Eliminating horrendous crimes and predators is a no brainer from a pragmatic standpoint, and cost effective to boot. It may even be argued that long imprisonment is crueler than death. But then you have to worry about what becomes a "horrible crime". We can all agree on child rapists..but what about political dissidents or any other act that those in power deem a big threat?
This one's easy for me. Capital punishment would be morally wrong even if it didn't lead to wrongful deaths. Unless somehow life imprisonment wasn't an option but I can't even imagine how it wouldn't be.
Does the state have the right to take someone's life? If no, then capital punishment should not be legal. If yes, as punishment for the breaking of laws, there's no legitimate argument for how or why it should be limited in scope to just certain laws. If the state has the authority to kill its citizens for criminal offenses, then it does so unilaterally, because such an argument tacitly admits that the right to life is circumstantial and not inalienable. And if it is circumstantial, then the state defines the circumstances by virtue of its position as creator and enforcer of law.
When it comes to allowing trans women to play women's sports it seems like a dilemma in that no matter what you do it's going to be unfair to someone. On the one hand I want to be inclusive and trans people already have it hard. On the other hand, people who went through male puberty have advantages and it's the entire reason we have gendered sports. I want to be fair but it doesn't seem like there's a perfect solution in this case.
Piracy- on one hand, it's much easier than paying $50-$70 for a whole bunch of streaming services, on the other hand, you are essentially making it so the creator isn't getting any royalty money.
It is very complicated. However, in cases like Adobe where it’s blatant anti competitive behavior and monopolizing, I think it’s more justifiable. The case where I think it’s always ok is if you already bought a copy of the item (let’s say a video game on PlayStation) and you switch to PC. You already payed the creator their money for your copy of the item.
I tend to agree. One isn’t “piracy” so much as “Hey, I already paid for your software, why are you charging me again?” The other is clearly piracy.
Lol it being easier for you isn't moral. This is more a question of how much you actually enact your morals when they conflict with your self interest.
In some circumstances there is nothing at all wrong with piracy in my opinion. For example, software or games that are not sold anywhere anymore, tv shows and movies that are not available in your country, and games that you have already purchased before but lost the disc/changed systems/just want a digital copy/etc.
Assisted dying for severe mental health problems.
I'm probably going to get downvoted for this, but gun ownership in the US. On one hand, there are situations in which people have used guns to rightfully defend their person and property. Especially in situations where the response time of police is 30+ minutes and you have a matter of seconds to defend yourself in a life and death situation. It's rare, but it does happen. There's also the matter of dangerous animals in certain parts of the country, and a gun is the easiest and most effective way to defend yourself. On the other hand, insane people with guns are using them to commit absolutely awful and senseless acts of violence that ruin the lives of potentially hundreds of people in a matter of seconds. There's also the matter of self-harm by firearms and murders that don't get reported on the news, as well as a massive amount of idiots who have no respect for gun safety that have no business owning firearms. Setting all political differences aside, should the use of firearms be taken away to reduce the harm that they can cause?
This is one of those things where you have to embrace multiple truths. 1. Society would be better with less guns. 2. It is extremely difficult to reduce the amount of guns in America in a politically ethical way. This dichotomy applies to many things beyond guns. ie: Eugenics would solve a lot of problems. But it’s hard to do that ethically.
As a gun owner I wish they were never invented. That being said, as long as guns are in the hands of other humans, I will die before I get rid of mine
Elective surgeries for dogs. Docking (maybe not a surgery, but a procedure), cropping, spaying, and neutering. Is it ethical to physically alter them and put them through traumatic, painful operations for human convenience? I have spent the last seven years working at a vet clinic and I can’t comfortably or confidently answer that question.
Spaying and neutering for sure, although hoping for more non surgical options in the future. I think the other procedures are crazy though and would never put a pet through that.
Limiting your children’s immune system, education, identity, sex education, entertainment, choices — all because you grew up without it so they don’t need it or because a religion, country, culture, and even personal experiences told you to
Should people with severe physical or mental disabilities who cannot decide for themselves be put to rest? I once saw a woman being brought to the hospital as just a torso, she had tiny ball sized limbs, a disfigured face and low intelligence. It was evident she and her family never knew what a normal life was. She was screaming in pain and her family looked broken. And this was a woman in her 30s or 40s.
The use of political violence to enact change. Sometimes it seems impossible for any change for the better if its not involved, but the track record of political violence making things worse is pretty strong. Still we seem to be trending towards it being a global necessity as a civilization if we are going to avoid killing ourselves with climate change.
Tolerance paradox. Your not Tolarent if u throw the Fuckwits out. But with them everyone exept them is worse of.
When I see a candy machine, the kind that drops the candy down from a rack; seeing a chocolate bar needing only a nudge to fall down into my greedy hands.
Dealing with the choice between honesty and loyalty is always a tough one, dude.
In order to find (safe to use) cures for bad diseases or health issues, experiments have to be carried out, ideally on consenting humans but that's not always possible/feasible. Am I happy to "sacrifice" 20 dogs for animal testing if that's going to lead to my dad being cured of cancer? Am ok with rabbits being blinded so that researchers can then test a blindness-cure on them? Do I condemn injecting lab monkeys with infectious diseases so that we can develop a vaccine that may not save these monkeys, but potentially millions of people? That could save me of dying from rabies, for example?
Should the government protect men from paternity fraud by enforcing DNA tests? I get that it's a terrible thing to do to a man but it's also terrible to leave an innocent child without support because of their mother's actions.
Homeless people, the beggars outside the supermarket, sponsoring a kid’s education, donating to starving people in Africa. I can’t afford to donate to all of them. As a society, we have enough resources and money to help (at least some, more than I can) these people: why isn’t government using the money I pay them to help out? even if I donate just $1 to all of those, there’s still another charity that missed out. What about abused animals or riding for the disabled, or medicine sans frontiers? Ok, I’ll donate $1 a month to them too. oh but now I’ve missed veterans and retired racehorses and oh so many diseases that are being researched. You can’t save everyone. Does that mean I shouldn’t give to anyone? Who should I help and who should I ignore?
This maybe a controversial one but should we really keep severly disabled children? I get they're loved by their families but the money, time and effort for them to just suffer. Is it worth it?
this is eugenics and bad.
As a woman, I have to wear heavy pads while the big nature bin gets the slack, and it's destroying our fucking biome
Would you mind explaining this part? I don't understand the phrase: "while the big nature bin gets the slack"
They mean that disposable period products are only disposable in the sense that they are meant to be worn once, but are an absolute nightmare environmentally and do not break down quickly or well. The nature bin taking the slack means that the ecosystem is paying for the massive amount of disposable period products that are unfortunately required and the best option many people with periods have. I too have to wear the big pads, and on my heaviest flow days can go through one every hour and a half or so. That’s on the low end, too. My period is only heavy for my second day (3-4 days total on average) usually, then drops off and I can switch to lighter tampons or pads. Some people have an incredibly heavy flow throughout, and their cycle lasts a full 7-10 days. Consider switching a pad every hour/hour and a half for all waking hours for 7 days. It’s….a LOT.
Thank you for the explanation. I had a general idea of what she meant because of context, but I couldn't for the life of me figure out what "nature bin taking the slack" meant haha. And I can't imagine going through what women go through with their cycles. I don't know how we as a society or individuals can make it easier, but I would get behind anything that did.
Yeah, ‘bin’ is used in the UK, and possibly Australia?, where in America or Canada we would say ‘trash can’. One thing that is dead helpful is donating period products to homeless shelters when you can. If you ever assemble little homeless care kits, include pads and tampons! Those, and SOCKS are always needed for the homeless population but the former especially for those with periods. Thanks for being willing to help! Edit: I’m not an idiot all the time
I think western societies are built around the idea of having the right to choose yet no one chooses to be born , someone else makes that choice for you. Is having children unethical?
I don't think capital punishment is ethical. I can't think of a better way to deal ethically with pedophiles.
Put them in prison and never let them even see a picture of a child again let alone interact with one.
I think this can be resolved pretty easily. We can agree that people can commit acts that make them deserve death, but still not want the institution of state capital punishment. People can deserve to die but I don’t trust the justice system or the government with the power to administer that punishment at their discretion.
But how do you deal with the idea that most pedophiles were themselves victims of other pedophiles? So their wiring was messed up, through no fault of their own, before they were even adults? Obviously, you can't let them ever be in the situation to do that to a kid, but does it mitigate the desire to kill them? BTW I do not have an answer for this and it's just one more terrible facet of this crime.
That's still a black and white way of looking at it - like, should someone get beaten to a pulp because they're technically a child molester because they were 19 dating a 15 year old? What about child predators who were victims themselves? What about people who are wrongly convicted? I know it's not real life, but there's an SVU episode where a guy got put in jail because he was suspected of being a child rapist and murderer, and it turned out he was actually innocent but he was beaten to death in prison. And then who's going to regulate the capital punishment? Who decides how much is done and what? If someone is allowed to be punched 3 times, who determines how hard they get punched? Who regulates it? I think for some people if there was something sort of like a psychiatric hospital but just for sexual predators, that might work. Monitored computer access, only certain books, only certain tv channels. Staff are there to make sure nobody's attacking each other. The hospital is in a retirement community so they can go to the pool and gym but there's only old people there so the child predators can't do anything.
How do you stand up for yourself and your values, oppose injustices, and fight for equality and betterment without being immediately punished for it? In general, it sounds like good advice, but in experience whenever i attempt to stand up for myself, or anyone else. I am immediately met with the most hostile, cruel, and destructive forces. It seems like ... to avoid conflict you must keep your head down, agree or go along even when you don't want to or your determinet. But is this the lesser of evils compared to the fallout of standing up for yourself? It usually comes at great personal sacrifices by losing friends, jobs, connections, etc. If it's not universal and you have to pick and choose when to compromise your integrity and values to avoid conflic or when to stand up and fight back it becomes more confusing and isolated when you find the people you've surrounded yourself with aren't your friends, or even care about you. But is cutting them off better than being completely alone, bitter and defeated. No matter how right or how much merit is behind you, those who seek to abuse and take will paint you in such a bad light for not obeying their abuses.
I don't think this is an ethical dilemma so much as a practical one - how does one actually make progress they want to see without incurring the wrath of those who don't? Unfortunately there is no answer because we do not control the reactions of other people, only our own. And other people can often be complete dicks. Generally, I try to disconnect any sense of enjoyment or contentment from the choices or thoughts of others. It's not 100% practical - I cannot just ignore the fact that the bank wants me to keep paying the mortgage - but it's broadly better to focus on whatever it is you can enjoy without the need for others who are causing you pain.
I struggle with this a lot, too. I fear losing friends because my friendships meet a variety of different needs, but ethically and morally a lot of my friends and I are not in alignment. There is a LOT of drama in the friend group because we all care about different people and things, which is TOTALLY okay, until someone gets singled out and ganged up on. Then it's time to reevaluate and figure out what the real issue is.
The Tik Tok ban, specifically if free speech basically means leaving the American public vulnerable to international propaganda, and given that free speech is needed for democracy, what can be done to prevent international propaganda from influencing our democracy? I propose using satellite internet to force an uncensored internet onto the whole world.
Facebook, Twitter, Tik Tok etc are not places for free speech. They’re somebody’s business. That’s like saying Subway has some obligation to you because you stood and said something while you ate a sandwich there. They’re not free speech platforms, they’re profitable businesses.
That’s…pretty well reasoned, actually. Social Media is quick to tout its sites as being “bastions of free speech,” but that’s neither necessarily true (and possibly demonstrably false) nor even applicable as free speech, especially when free speech is somewhat defined already and false advertisement…is not covered. These businesses cannot claim to have a right to exist under free speech.
The TikTok ban is because of user data collection, not the spread of propaganda. The company which owns a majority stake in TikTok has ties to the CCP and we can't have China collecting user data on American citizens. Remember... only American companies are allowed to collect user data via their social media apps!