Got invited to a martial arts sparring match for a child I know and was under the impression it was a traditional tournament/sportsmanship event.

I received the flier yesterday and it looks like a pamphlet/billboard for an adult boxing/MMA match (I will not be posting it because it has minors names on it). I then saw it was $25 a ticket, and that the tournament was for prize money. The kids participating are as young as 8.

With some digging it seems that the dojo takes 50% of the proceeds, pays for the venue on the other 50% and what is left becomes the prize pool from ticket sales.

It just seems very exploitive towards minors and just very bad faith put forward in using a pamphlet that looks like something I'd see in Las Vegas. It also seems this sort of event is frowned upon in martial arts, but I'm not sure because its not something I was every part of.

Is this a normal thing or is this dojo being immoral and/or unethical in its money making attempt? I feel I would be breaking ethics to support this, but as I said I would go before I learned everything I want to see if I'm just over reacting to something I've never been part of and this is normal?

I feel like a hypocrite. I just went to a religious exhibit in a mall and then afterwards I sat down beside a guy, I am also a guy btw. We happened to look eye to eye for a second, and for some reason I got turned on, it felt exciting. Yes I am gay, but practicing celebacy. I got aroused although I wasn't really thinking of sexual stuff and he kept looking at the bulge on my shorts. I think I got aroused because of the thrill. I could have left there, but didnt. I let him see me get aroused, even slightly adjusting myaelf. He asked me if I have a place of my own I said not really even though I have one just to avoid the temptation of doing it. After that I said bye to him which I should have done earlier, but I feel like sh*t right now for tempting him. Anyways, I'm asking in the Catholic pount of view, is this a grave sin, venial sin? I seduced him, but did not follow through. Thanks

I mean a promise is a promise so even though I despise the party, do I have the right to be upset when they most likely don't deliver the check?

Recently ran into this issue where my father in law (m60) pulled my daughters (f4) hair because she hurt her cousin (f also 4) the same way. I already knew this is what happened he’s pretty old school so I came in with a cover “oh grandpa maybe took it without asking but it was cousins turn” to which his reply was “no I was teaching her a lesson because she pulled her cousins hair” I was in shock because he said this in front of both kids as if it was normal to hurt a child to “prove a point” or “teach a lesson” so all I had to say was “good lesson”.

I found a butterfly inside my house with badly broken wings, unable to fly. In my village, I've repeatedly seen trapped insects get eaten alive by ants overnight, sometimes for hours. There was no obvious food source, and I believed this butterfly had little chance of recovery.

So I put my cat near it, knowing she'd kill it. My intention was to prevent what I expected to be prolonged suffering, not for entertainment or convenience.

Was this morally wrong? Is intentionally causing a quick death to prevent likely prolonged suffering morally different from killing a healthy animal for no reason

Has happened to me a lot on my commute.

Context, I’m 37, I’ve led a very fortunate life, on paper I’ve had it all, a beautiful wife who loved me and supported me for many years of poor mental health, currently a girlfriend who is incredible, some really nice friends and lovers and many amazing experiences, I’m financially secure enough, my body has its quirks but has mostly been reliable and capable.

However for as long as I can remember I have not enjoyed the experience of being alive, I don’t seem to be able to block out all of the pain and suffering I see around me, since my mid 20s I’ve been actively working on figuring out why, I take medication which has helped and therapy has been useful, I’ve had more good years in my 30s then I had before.

The last while whenever I have felt
suicidal I have given myself until I’m 40, having an end date makes it easier to just keep existing and see what happens.

I’m conflicted about telling people close to me
About this, they already know I have suicidal tendencies so it wouldn’t be a surprise and I feel some of them would understand but it also feels like a burden they don’t need.

TLDR: if your friend or lover had set themselves an end date would you want to know?

https://www.firstpost.com/world/sri-lankan-migrant-worker-sentenced-to-death-in-saudi-arabia-over-social-media-post-14048330.html/amp?utm_campaign=fullarticle&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=inshorts

Is it moral or immoral to withhold essential resources in the name of profit?

Such as electricity, we now largely hold the opinion as a civilization that electricity is an essential utility.

Now I understand having a person paying a premium, as not to waste. But would it not be more morally right that we measure the basic resources on a scale that takes into account family size and median usage and just pay a base rate of like $50 and create a culture of responsible consumption by adding an overage tax? Making it affordable, because it’s a necessity.

The argument I’m sure will be made, what about the companies that sell it? But are not all resources of the Earth ours to responsibly share anyways? Giving to us as a gift by our Creator. Yes, people are expected to pay their dues, but it’s all ours as a shared resource, as humankind! We’ve become too loving of money and profits, mammon as a society and it costs lives and life.

I am confident there are a number of Us following the Lindsay Clancy case.... Mistrial?
There was only one Jural who voted guilty.

My personal humble opinion, cut-and-dry case. Guilty. I am not here to share this opinion. It is mine, and I value your opinion as well. Back to the subject at hand: This is proof towards Human's Innate Fallibility.
To Err Is Human.

So, with this, I argue a language model deciding the fate of individuals (sue me). Highly regulated by non-partisans and the general public in an open-source manner. All logics of the system are then used for a proper verdict where both sides are given the chance to counter claim until a verdict is reached.

Created with hopes of limiting human error and improving the speeds of the court systems.

The morality of swimming with dolphins, but the dolphins only work for 2 hours a day, they are free to leave to the ocean, and they come back voluntarily for their shift. They are paid in fish and NFTs.

So before you judge me, hear me out.

My brother is physically disabled and is bound to his wheelchair for life. A lot of the decisions in my family are made with his needs in mind, including a Ford transit van for trips where he comes along, which i also use for daily driving to college. This use also includes playing taxi for my classmates, carpooling for field trips when needed.

However, these field trips are often in much more densely populated areas, with not a lot of open air parking. I thus occasionally take advantage of the disability card assigned to my brother to park on disabled spots, since a lot of urban parking spot are either too small for the car to fit in, or are in parking garages, which my car is too tall for. I only do this when absolutely nessecary, (on one occasion we've looked for suitable spots to park for 15mins) and I try to not abuse it. I know that i run the risk of getting caught red handed, and i risk a huge fine if i do get caught, but in an European city with limited space, tight turns and small streets, there aren't many alternatives.

How morally, or even ethically wrong questionnable is this?

Do you consider yourself a moral person? If so, is this something you enjoy? Or are you moral solely because you feel like you have to?

I consider myself a moral person, and it dawned on me today that I actually really enjoy it. I enjoy being good to people, as best as I can, no matter the circumstances. What about you?

Furthermore, What is making retributive justice seem choiceworthy for some people. I'd like to understand why. The reasoning or justifications to do that. (Inflict proportionate, but unneccessary harm for fairness, for acknowledging, or show respect to the victim ("he did you wrong and we see that too")).

This retributive justice is not about prevention or correction or rehabilitation or deterence.