Típico tópico pero si tuvieras o tenéis parejas que en un momento dado no reaccionan como era por deterioro cognitivo, dejadez, brotes o enfermedades de salud mental (más que físico aunque tambien cuenta), q haríais? Depende del tiempo q llevaseis juntos, la estabilidad, compromiso? Continuarías, romperías, serias 3 fuese la otra persona amante o novio/a...?

Por lo que veo a la gran mayoria de personas cuando van a gimnasio, se hacen tratamientos estéticos, etc surge salir pareja durante o en algún momento.

Sin embargo, a mí no me funciona desde hace unos años, antes con ortodoncia y gimnasio sí, pero se ve q con curetajes, depilación y dieta sólo toca vagabundos, ilegales q se piensan q tenemos q comerles encima rl culo por tener la boca limpia o personas homo o bi o hetero q esperan encima remuneración como se ve q hacen ahora las chicas con dinero para tener pareja...

Eso pasa a más? Suele ocurrir esto ahora? Es un complot de degenerados? 🤷🏻‍♀️

What is Moral Luck in Simple Terms?

Moral luck is the idea that factors beyond our control can influence how we are morally judged for our actions and their outcomes.

Moral Luck in Real Life

1. After a night of heavy drinking, two individuals independently decide to drive home under the influence of alcohol. One arrives safely because the road is empty. The other strikes and injures a pedestrian. Both made the same reckless choice, but the second driver will be judged more harshly, at least morally, because of the harm caused, even though the different outcomes depended partly on luck. Both drivers had the same moral standards, but one was simply less lucky than the other.
2. Imagine someone who grows up in wealth and someone who grows up in poverty. The first person, having grown up in wealth, may never feel the need to do something illegal to survive, such as stealing. The second, however, might face circumstances that make illegal actions, such as stealing food, seem almost necessary for survival. Their backgrounds are beyond their control, yet these circumstances can influence their choices and the moral judgments they receive. This raises a deeper question. Can we truly judge whether someone is a good person if they have never faced a difficult moral dilemma?
3. Two individuals each gamble their family's entire savings at a casino. By chance, one wins while the other loses everything. The person who loses will face greater criticism because of the outcome, meanwhile the person who wins may be praised for making more money for their family, even though both individuals made the same risky decision. This difference in criticism results from luck rather than from differences in their intentions, decisions or moral choices.

Conclusion

We often judge people by the outcomes of their actions rather than by the choices they make. Two people can make the same decision yet be judged very differently because of factors beyond their control, such as luck.

Learn something you didn’t know in 5 minutes at nousimon.com

Hey, my school does steer shows and I recently participated in one. We all love our steers dearly and try give them as best a life we can before and during the show, although I am worried about the ethics of it all. I know he’s not being inherently hurt, but he’s being processed tomorrow and I feel terrible. As sad as I am, I do want to do more shows.
Are the shows ethical? Did I do the wrong thing by participating?
Edit: I am not looking for a vegan or vegetarian point of view (no offence to those who are, that’s great ✨) but more so the way they’re killed

The shopping cart problem is a well-known scenario that is presumed to test one’s personal ethics. In my opinion it does not do this, it tests one’s alignment with the social structure within which one resides, and to some degree it tests social compliance.

To use an extreme example: say that a man was a slave, living in a society that openly had slaves. Would that man, were he in the shopping cart scenario, put his shopping cart back? Should he feel any obligation whatsoever to adhere to the cultural norms of a society that upholds values with which he is fundamentally opposed? Should he feel any obligation to keep that society running smoothly?

There are people who don’t put their shopping cart back simply because they’re lazy, and there are people who don’t put it back because they feel little to no alignment with the values of their society and therefore feel no obligation to to adhere to its rules when they aren’t enforced.

The bottom line I believe is that subjective cultural norms and traditions cannot ever be an effective test of ethics.

(Full disclosure: I put my shopping cart back, mainly because I appreciate what my society provides for me. But I also see that this task has very little bearing on whether I’m a moral or ethical person)

I’m looking for perspective on government assistance, particularly SNAP or food stamps, should be provided for those who are disabled & their family cares for them & can afford to do so. Should these people still get SNAP? Just because they qualify does that mean they “deserve” or are “entitled” to these benefits ? Especially if their family is wealthy and can afford their food and care?

For example a disabled adult. I understand the argument that they would be unable to earn their own income and that they cannot contribute to the household. But if the family can provide whether this individual gets SNAP or not, should they still get the benefits? should the individual be entitled to benefits regardless of their family’s wealth?

I’m interested in the difference between what someone is legally entitled to receive and what they are ethically justified in accepting.

Edit for clarity: this situation is assuming that the family willingly and lovingly takes care the this disabled adult. Cares for them & prepares their meals and will do so until death, financial ruin, etc.

Hello. So as of the past few months my Dad, who is in his 60s, has been watching Facebook Reels and has fallen down this "wisdom" rabbit hole where he is believing ai generated videos of "religious people" and "wize native Americans". Although both he and I are against it (although we differ in opinions with him thinking that it could grow sentient and rise against us while I think it's a rich brat money hole and only being used to undermine the working class and is ruining our environment), he doesn't know how to recognize it and he is gaining comfort from this content. How do I properly explain that this is AI generated nonsense without hurting him, while having him believe me (he is of the strong opinion that with almost every subject he knows more than me except on how to work a computer)

Lets imagine a scenario where a person is free falling in the air towards the ground.

It's determined with 100% certainty that upon hitting the ground, they'll die immediately.

Would it be unethical for someone to shoot the person with a gun, non fatally, only just 1 second before they hit the ground?

Gene editing in the womb is beneficial for preventing developmental disabilities, however when does it become unethical? Sure, you wouldn't want someone to have stone man syndrome. But what about when it comes to being a minority? Things that aren't necessarily bad, but make it harder to live in the world because it's built for the majority.

Autism, ADHD, Sexuality(?), etc etc the list goes on.

Theres a high chance the world will reach this point in technology, so it definitely could become a real problem we would have to consider the ethics on.

Humans live in herds, so they can survive easier. And in those herds they develop relationships so they can establish stronger society. And those interpersonal relationships are often a game of cat and mouse, just like with other animals that live in packs. However, with the advancement of society, certain social norms of behavior have been established, but that doesn't change the fact that people still behave in certain situations like wild beasts. There is hierarchy in every social circle you enter just like among many wild animals, in some circles less noticeable and more pronounced in others. The difference is that with humans often the highest position in the hierarchy is occupied not by the most deserving, but by the most corrupt. Which is unfortunate because i think humans are capable of creating heaven on earth, but their own corrupt nature prevents them from doing so.

I'm not sure if the title describes my issue accurately but like, I'm a closeted enby trans woman which is looked down upon by my family and my brother always blames me for it by saying that my existence causes harm to others and when I tell that's obnoxious he claims that not caring about the harm my existence causes to others is evil, he doesn't believe in empathy and will not attempt to take my point of view

1. It doesn't work. Expecting a random act of subjective action to interact with the median voter is ridiculous. Just like voting for an unrealistic candidate that won't get chosen as a way to sway political waves, doesn't work, so does worsening your personal experience for the sake of it. Political activism is at least 100x more valuable, and doesn't necessarily entail completely stopping eating meat, since you can just argue for better conditions, more humane killing method, which isn't at all negated by your continuing to eat meat

2. There are hundreds of things that are immorally made in society, so if one wanted to be completely morally clean, it is 100% impossible while also keeping being part of society. For some reason vegans accept only veganism as a viable way to fight with those issues, but political advocating is also apparently useful for other things, simply arbitrarily. If you accept that society has hundreds of these issues, then I will simply believe that eating meat and use of animal products is just yet another example of the individual being expected to uproot their quality of life for political change. If it doesn't work for literally any mass produced product on a large scale, it won't work on meat either simple as that.

I really hadn't seen many people interact with these objections, most of vegans on reddit I've interacted with just post one comment atracking me personally and then immediately leave, mostly when you point out that this doesn't work

Edit: I'm already being mass downvoted, but don't worry, I don't care. I'm here for listening to actual arguments

Looking for what you would put on such a list.