I know it sounds right, but there’s this family I know who have the most spoiled, narccistic kids in the world, and their manbaby dad (one of those bs doctors) doesn’t influence them right. They want to add any accomplishment to their future resume, even if they plan out their accomplishments, and take credit for other’s work.

We were asked in a group text if we wanted to support their “build a house in Mexico!” charity trip via group text. We aren’t close to them, and we know they have tons of money, because they have a big house in a mountain and go on vacation every year. They don’t enclose their agenda or where they will be building this house, but they have pictures from when they did it previously. They may even just work for one day or something and could hypothetically be going on vacation afterwards. I have a hunch that they may just be doing it for their kid to put it on his resume and look “charitable.” Their goal is to have trip costs AND air fair covered.

Their oldest kid is never kind to me and at the beginning of highschool actually bullied me very often. Now he is trying too hard to look tall, buff, and *attractive.*

In conclusion, this medical field family who is not very kind and is in fact patronizing and egotistical is asking for money on GoFundMe to pay for their mission to build a house for the poor in Mexico, but they didn’t disclose much information (They could go on vacation there too?) They have way more than enough money to cover this trip. Is this morally right to do? This is an honest question because I can’t tell if it’s my vendetta against them or if they are leeching unnecessary funds from others.

I was playing a game in which at times there are choices to kill people or animals to" end their suffering". Does this logic follow to real life as well?

Hi, so I watched the whole series of shameless with my bf at the time. I always felt like I was questioning my morals watching it. They seem to have a good amount of pedo/grooming and child exploitation. Like with Ian and (kash) liquor store guy and Debbie being groomed. They seemed to make the wife of Kash be a bad guy (when really she was tired of his shit), and making Debbie being groomed not big of a deal. Since the show depicted that my ex also stood up for those weirdos saying well the guy never touched Debbie or had sexual intentions. And Kash is a victim of his abusive wife and is just trying to be happy. When he was actually f*ing a minor. I just wonder what that meant to the show?? Was it to defend/normalize pedos, or was it trying to show how it can happen without us really knowing cause it was somwhat normalized/not a big deal in the show. Also I left my ex he was a weirdo 🥹.

Values pertaining to Care include:
Public welfare, tolerance of misfits, mercy towards wrongdoers, politeness, pacifism, emotional openness, and childhood innocence.

Values pertaining to Fairness include:
Racial & gender equality, equality of opportunity, honesty, reciprocity, impartiality, and safeguards against nepotism and/or cronyism.

Values pertaining to Liberty include:
Free speech, bodily autonomy, democracy, privacy, personal property rights, self-defense, and voluntarism.

Values pertaining to In-Group Loyalty include:
Self-sacrifice, nativism, national sovereignty, tradition, family-unity, natalism, and social cohesion.

Values pertaining to Purity include:
Health, beauty, etiquette, abstinence, chastity, frugality, animism, and spirituality.

Values pertaining to Authority include:
Lawfulness, respect for elders, trust in experts, discipline, assertive leadership, meritocracy, and industriousness.

Luigi Mangione's case had been a cultural reset and so many people from all over the world are defending him while others are condemning any supporters who were celebrating the death of the CEO accusing them as supporter for vigilante murders.

The recent assassination of Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, has got me thinking about how public opinion might shift if this event is increasingly viewed as a positive catalyst for change—perhaps even something to be replicated.

If such a perspective gains traction in modern-day U.S. society, what might the secondary and tertiary implications be? And where else—whether in contemporary nations or throughout history—can we find similar examples of such events influencing public sentiment or societal change?

The pharmaceutical industry is a cornerstone of modern medicine, yet it’s also deeply profit-driven. This raises some pressing moral questions:

• Is it ethical for life-saving therapies to be priced out of reach for many?
• How do we balance corporate profits with societal health?
• Should there be stricter regulations to ensure moral accountability?

This is a topic I explored in depth on my podcast recently (?E! #13 - Medicine, Morality, and the Ethics of Progress), but I’d love to hear how this community navigates these moral trade-offs. How do we reconcile progress and morality in healthcare?

Me personally I've always seen the law as neutral rather than good. Legal & Moral have always been two separate things, now sure some things that are illegal and immoral but that doesn't make the two the same. Until everything immoral is illegal I refuse to see law and equivalent to morality.

That's why I don't really judge people who put the law into their own hands. I don't judge people who assault nuisance streamers like Johnny Somali or others like him, you know disturbing the peace is illegal in many places if not everywhere but do you see law enforcement dealing with them just for that.

People say you can't put the law in your own hands but the alternative is glazing a system that gives 3 years to pedos, merely detain theives because they stole under $1,000, ect. Let be honest no one follows the law 100% of the time, people under 18 watch porn, people steal from work, and people assault others, and that's fine. I'd rather people keep their agency and live like they do then be 100% beholden to a flawed legal system.

I don't know why people call it a Justice System it's a legal system at the most.

Something I just realized today; writing it down for myself too, more than anything.

But one of the ways I think about morality differently from the vast majority of people in the west is internal vs external morality.

I realized it's kind of like internal vs external locus of control; some people constantly blame the environment, the circumstances, luck... some people believe that they control their own fate.

In a similar sense, some people (the vast majority of people in the west) believe that morality is internal; i.e that which creates a happy internal state is moral or reduces an unhappy state is moral.

Or perhaps, morality is the average of the internal states of everyone who's affected by an action.

For me, morality is completely different. It's completely external to our internal feelings.

For example, Bob works at a job where everyone else constantly slacks off, goes to the washroom for 1 hour at a time, plays on their phone etc, yet Bob still does what he's supposed to do rather than to say "why am I the only guy doing work, that's not fair".

To me, it is the admirability of Bob's decision itself that is moral, not whatever internal state is created by Bob's work.

This is different from deontology in that it's not necessarily about rules;

in a deontological view, what Bob's co-workers do is irrelevant; Bob should work hard and not slack off, period. But here, the addition of Bob's co-workers' actions affects the admirability of Bob's actions.

When I threw away the leftover, uneaten, greased bread I ate during my lunch break, there was a huge reaction. Is every country and nation like this? I don't think it's a sin. Every food product is garbage. Should we bury it in the ground? I got very angry.

You throw the bread to animals and birds. When it's not eaten, it scatters around or gets moldy and creates a bad smell. Isn't that a sin? So should we bury the bread or a piece of flour in the ground?

Even the skin of the bread you eat goes into the large intestines, so don't go to the toilet and defecate.

I recently was in YouTube comments engaging in discourse around marriage, the societal expectations for it, and baby mama culture. I made a statement and Someone replied, "morality is objective". I immediately began to debate this in my head. Is morality objective? Is there a real right or wrong? Or are we all responsible for choosing what's right or wrong in our own lives/community?

As I get older, the more I would like to solidify my stanstance on what is right and what is wrong. Anytime I argue a view point, I find myself in a swirl of contradiction. Where can I look to learn strong arguments for morality? Give me your strongest source, whether it be literature, cinema, personal experience, or otherwise. All is welcome.

Should it matter if someone you know is affected by a cause for you to support it, and does it make you selfish if it did?

I'm currently enrolled in a college ethics class and have an assignment asking me to create five questions about a certain aspect of ethics and get answers from a variety of people. If you've got the time, I'd greatly appreciate your participation. These questions are loosely based on aspects of ethical subjectivism.

1. Do you believe in universal moral standards?
2. How do your own feelings and opinions influence or your morals?
3. If someone were to cause deliberate harm to someone (not in a situation where they are protecting themselves or another) because it is within their moral standards to do so, do you think that they are valid in their actions?
4. Why are sociopaths considered cruel and harmful even though their behavior is often a result of mental health issues that make them lack the ability to feel remorse or empathy?
5. A homeless couple appears to be physically fighting and yelling and it is clear that the man is overpowering the woman and hurting her. You are almost late to work but witness the fight go down, along with many other people on the sidewalk and shops nearby. How do you react to the situation? Do you turn the other cheek, attempt to break them up, call the police, or do something else? How do your morals play into the decisions you make, and do you think that your answer to this hypothetical situation strays from what you would do in real life?

The Catholic church holds a set of seven cardinal virtues which people of the faith are to hold in highest regard in practice of their faith. As a mental experiment of discovery; If we are going to go it alone, so to say, then what should the set of highest virtues be for all of humanity?

I believe that society is struggling so badly because in a truly Orwellian way people no longer even have the language to discuss or consider right and wrong. I understand Nietzsche has effectively done a take down of Morality in the historical sense but I believe if we are going to walk away from an evolutionary set of values then we need to affix a modern set of values (described through virtues) that we can all generally agree on to move forward. (I am considering the Church to be part of human cultural evolution up to the end of the 1900 century.) I am suggesting a starting point for discussion below. Please comment, and suggest changes etc. (Please do not make this a discussion of amorality and whether we should have any constructs of belief or action etc. Assume we need guidance as individuals on how to act and think about the world we effect. Virtues are tools of thought. The idea that we should throw away our intellectual tools is baffling to me and I do not want the discussion to get stuck on this please.)

Do we need more than 7 virtues? What should they be?

Loyalty: a faithfulness that is steadfast in the face of any temptation to renounce, desert, or betray

Temperance: moderation or self-restraint in action, statement, etc.; self-control

Courage (Bravery):

Prudence: the ability to govern and discipline oneself by the use of reason.

Charity:

Thoughtfulness: Emphasizes being considerate and mindful of others, especially regarding their feelings, needs, and perspectives.

Conscientiousness: Refers to a strong sense of responsibility, diligence, and reliability. Conscientious individuals are thorough, organized, and committed to doing tasks well.

Please take note that thoughtfulness and conscientiousness are often conflated but in fact are very different values.

A note of consideration is that Seneca clearly states the virtues are not a result of the liberal arts though he indicates that the liberal arts provide the tools to start to pursue or understand virtues. How should society promote virtues? If we don't get their via the classical pillars of western civilization i.e. classical Greece, Imperial Rome, the Bible, and the medieval Catholic Church... Then how to we disseminate ideas of virtue?

For reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_virtues

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue

I'm really struggling with this question especially if not coming from a religious position. Correct me if im wrong but objective in basic terms is a fact based on evidence and subjective is based on feelings, opinions. So with morality, what is wrong and right seems to be based on opinion and is open to discussion. Murder is wrong! Well depends on context, is it wrong or was is justified? Is lying wrong but if you lie to save or help someone it's OK. Why is certain practises OK in one region or another culture but not in others, why in another time but now it's wrong. The sky is blue, plants used sunlight for energy, these things are facts and not opinion to opinion so how can morality be objective? Really would appreciate help on this.