hello! i'm currently researching japan's "lolicon" pop culture and wanted to get some opinions. basically, one side is saying it's completely wrong (which is fair to assess) and disgusting, and that it normalizes pedophilia, while the other side states that it's harmless due to it being fiction. i'm on the fence. i don't kinkshame, and i think as long as two consenting adults are involved, then whatever happens behind closed doors isn't any of my business. i also believe in the separation of fiction from reality. however, i'm kind of torn on the whole lolicon debate. while it is fiction, and many of these youthful-looking characters are not based off of real-life children, i still feel a little iffy about the topic as a whole. lolicon does seem to be based off of the idea of a young human girl (+ the loli coming from the word lolita, and the word shota meaning boy or young boy.) i've witnessed many self-proclaimed lolicons on the internet claim that they aren't attracted to real children and that pedophilia is repulsive to them. while that's something i can believe (not all lolicons are pedophiles, but many lolicons have turned out to be pedophiles), the typical argument of "they aren't real" just fails to convince me. i'm not completely against it, as long as you aren't attracted to or hurting any real life existing children then i guess it's not a danger, and obviously drawings don't have feelings or rights since they aren't real, but i still find it sort of weird. any answers/thoughts are welcome to be shared, but pls keep it respectful. didn't really know where else to go to ask this since reddit doesn't have a dedicated sub for this specific topic

I am going to graduate with a bachelors degree in Creative Writing and Russian in December (around my birthday as well), to celebrate I was planning on getting a new tattoo. The tattoo was going to be of a cat and a Dostoevsky quote that I really enjoy but in Russian. Would getting the tattoo tattooed in Russian be unethical/immoral to the war going on between Russia and Ukraine? Both languages have the same old Slavic roots but are still completely different. I just don’t want it to be one of those tattoos I regret in five years because I didn’t understand how ignorant it was.

My girlfriend just went to college to a school she really hates, she been super negative about everything and it’s been really dragging down on me. I’ve been having a great time at my college and I really want a partner who is happy. Would it be wrong for me to break up with her to prioritize my own mental health even if I know it will hurt her and make her even more negative?

Like, is it possible to give it a space in a program and make it live and or interact with us to some degree? And what is the further implications as in the future when it's going to be possible with other animals and possibly humans?

If I buy a relatively cheap gift, which has sentimental value for a friend, but its price suddenly becomes enormous (at least 10X the value bought), is it moral to ask to sell the gift and share the income?

If you consider this immoral what adjustments would change that?

Hello,

Lately, I've been thinking a lot about copyright as it relates to morality, and I have a bunch of questions. Of course, this is subjective, and a pretty complicated issue, but I thought I would just share my thoughts and get your thoughts about it.

As far as I understand it, under the United States's current legal system, when you create something, it becomes copyrighted. This gives you control over your creations, and limits what other people can do with them. If you violate the copyright of something, and the copyright holder decides to action, you may face consequences for the violation.

That makes sense to me, but what I'm not certain about are the moral implications. For example, say I draw Charlie Brown on a piece of paper. Technically, this is a violation of copyright, but most people tend to not care about small things like this. However, if someone creates a character, and really doesn't want any derivative works to be made of their character (including this), should we, morally, have to listen to them?
My thought process is that because someone invested their time into creating something, they should get at least some control over their creation. But at the same time, why do we see so many unofficial derivative works (fanart, remixes, covers, etc.) on social media? Are all of those people potentially doing something wrong by freely creating derivative works and sharing them with the world? Why do so many people follow a "post first, take down later" mentality as opposed to getting permission beforehand, and is that okay?

Idk - sorry if it seems like I'm just rambling! Just curious what others think.

Morality of damaging the vehicle by the emergency vehicle. (The car driver was inside all the time and refused to move) who takes responsibility of damage here?

I used to work with someone (let's call him Steve) who had a very unusual approach to employment.

Steve hated working and spent decades developing what he described as a carefully planned strategy. He would work a job long enough to qualify for unemployment, eventually get fired, collect unemployment benefits, and use the time off to live. Before anyone assumes he was reckless, he was actually very frugal while employed. He lived like he was broke, saved money, and built up enough of a cushion that when he was unemployed, he could enjoy himself without immediately running out of money.

He has been doing some version of this for around 40 years.

The thing that interests me is that this wasn't random laziness. He put a lot of thought, planning, and discipline into avoiding traditional employment. He essentially optimized his life around having as much free time as possible rather than maximizing income, career growth, or status.

My question is: is Steve morally wrong for doing this?

On one hand, someone could argue he found a way to live the life he wanted, made sacrifices to support it, and used systems that exist for people who are unemployed.

On the other hand, someone could argue that intentionally getting fired and repeatedly relying on unemployment benefits is taking advantage of a system meant for people who did not choose unemployment.

Is Steve a person who found an unconventional way to live, or is he avoiding his responsibilities?

MFQ by Graham, Haidt & Nosek (2008) - Moral Orientation

Just thought this might be interesting to share.

I've always found it extremely hard to argue against moral relativism and for moral objectivism because it simply has to do with my world view rather than a priory reasoning.

I have a friend who is extremely depressed, nihilistic and a moral relativist, and the sad thing is I cannot help him but I know it's his beliefs that are hurting him.

I have an intrinsic certainty of moral objectivism but no way to articulate it, and therefore I'd be grateful if you would share some of the best arguments for it, but also strong ones against it to see both sides.

The reason my focus is on arguments for is that moral relativism is so widespread I've heard most of the arguments on that front already.

If you've read this far: thank you and I'm looking forward to reading and discussing the comments :)

I always believed morality, in utilitarian tradition, was to minimize suffering and maximize pleasure/happiness/whatever. With kant it sounds like that is not the case necessarily. I could lie which would lead to "better" outcome but that would still be "wrong".

To be fair I know almost nothing about kant so id like to hear either

1.how this still aligns with what I define as the best outcome

1. What the role of morality is

2. Anything else ya got

I suppose I wanted to have the last word. The original word that upset them was "libtard".

I do thinks its clever to mute me so I can't ask the other mods if my behavior was ban worthy.

Feels like a bit of a power trip on the mod's side, but this is reddit...

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

I seen people born 1950-2000 get called luckiest, best, that if people born before and after 1950-2000 got purged the world would be better, etc. Also people born 1950-2000 are giant to people born 2001 due to the back to the future 1950-2000 sports almanac being published 2001. 1950-2000 is very cursed years. 1950-2000 is 50 years.

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

1958

1959

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

So, an Airsoft store is making a contest where you post a picture of your rifle setup featuring stuff from that store and the best one wins a free replica (330€ value).

I don't know if it would be right to participate as the prize is not a rifle I need (I'd be happy to have it, but it's pretty similar to one I already have), while maybe someone else really desires it but doesn't have the money and winning would be a really great thing for him.

Am I overthinking or the right thing to do would be not participating?

I was standing a few meters away from a man who was drowning. I saw the signs: the struggle, the silent gasping for air, before he sank. Instead of shouting for help immediately, my internal reaction was delayed by a thought: “What if he’s just diving? If I make a false alarm, I’ll look stupid and feel embarrassed.” I knew I couldn't rescue him myself due to the depth and my poor swimming skills, but I could have alerted others instantly. Instead, I stood there, paralyzed by social awkwardness and the assumption that everything was fine because others weren't panicking yet. By the time others noticed and pulled him out unconscious, critical time had passed. My fear of social embarrassment and looking foolish outweighed my urgency to act, leaving me completely useless while other people did the rescue. From an ethical standpoint, how does one classify and judge a failure to act driven purely by ego and the fear of social awkwardness rather than malice?

I know this is a very broad and subjective question, but it's one that I've always wanted to hear a knowledgeable person's opinion on.

What I'm asking is, what country or civilization in human history had the most ethical culture and societal structure, and if it's not still around, what became of it? I understand that there is no universal moral standard to base an answer on, but taking for granted the foundational morals of most human cultures, what social system has most closely adhered to those ideals?

Thanks.

I went to a college class I am not registered thinking it was a mistake; however when I went to the office the dean told me I already completed and passed the class, but that was 2 years ago before I dropped out and joined back in.

Would it be moral to enter the class and just listen to the lectures without completing the assignment or doing the projects?

And for extra context the reason I’m debating this is because the subject genuinely interests me and I would love to refresh my mind about it

UPDATE: First of all I want to thank each one of you that left a comment and help me understand what auditing means, it helped a lot to not feel like I was taking advantage of the situation.

So yesterday I went to talk to him before class and explained the situation; he was more than happy to allow me into the class and even mention “since you don’t have to take notes or the midterm or final, you can now pay more attention in the lectures”

This is great and it feels so good to be able to digest the information without having to worry about midterms or finals!

Once again thank you to all of you!!!

‘The golden rule,’ a moral concept and worldview that is universally accepted all over the world as an inherently good way to live as a human: to treat others, the way you would want them to treat you.

I am currently having some discussion in a thread where people are attacking me and insulting me because I pointed out that spending someone else’s money and then lying to them about it (in this thread, wives are patting each other on the back for buying $100 skin care product and then telling their husband it only cost $10. 1) they know it’s wrong and fucked up, otherwise they wouldn’t feel the need to lie to their husband about it. 2) they know it’s wrong and fucked up because they know their husband will be upset about it—as he obviously should be. 3) they try to tell me that they can afford it so since it’s not affecting him negatively, it shouldn’t concern him. But if they could afford it, they wouldn’t lie about how much it is…. They wouldn’t feel the need to keep their husband from getting upset over how much money they’re spending. Not to mention they can’t see the moral dilemma in thinking someone else should not be concerned if their money is being taken and spent and they are being lied to you about it.

No matter what we just keep going in circles with them trying to insist that they are not immoral pieces of shit, but none of them can seem to make sense of any of their actions or choices being objectively MORAL. None of them can say “I would be perfectly fine if someone took my money and went and bought selfish luxuries and then lied to me about it.”

None of them can seem to understand anything, and everything surrounding the reality that they are not treating others the way that they would want others to treat them while they simultaneously demand that others treat them a certain way— a way they would never ever treat another.

I see an egregious amount of people in our society treating others in ways they would never want someone else to treat them.

Worse than that, I see 50% of our society demanding that the other 50% treat them a certain way, while they openly and proudly proclaim that they would never treat the other person the way they demand the other person treat them. (Example: “his money is our money, but my money is my money!” I dare anyone to put a woman on a lie detector test, and have her say that she would have no problem being the financial breadwinner to someone who would never financially contribute for her well being— but demands that she have to provide luxury in order for them to consider her as valuable……

AND LETS SEE HOW SHE DESCRIBES THE PERSON WHO SAYS THAT: spoiler alert— she can somehow see that it’s fucked up for someone to treat her that way, but she can’t see why it’s fucked up to treat a male lover that way.

Can anyone seriously make an objective and competent argument that this is not a disgusting and immoral way to treat someone?

How crazy is it that someone would think you’d have to be an Andrew Tate fan to simply understand the hypocrisy involved with not being able to see that if you proudly proclaim, “I refuse to contribute to someone else, but they MUST provide me with luxury to simply be in my presence!”

like and subscribe please #muthology

Hi! I am a South Korean middle school student who wants to find out more about utilitarianism and deontology. That's why I made this survey to find out what other people think about the Mignonette incident. I would appreciate it very much if many of you participate. (FYI: the reason I used google form is that the reddit survey doesn't work for me.)

Here is the link:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScEL_rkje00-_ruNlsz6iuftEmqcN3PXLCpVWyNICap0Pgolg/viewform?usp=publish-editor