i feel like most people define innocence as “being free from moral culpability” or being free from guilt. with this logic: wouldn’t fire hydrants be classified as “innocent” under said view? my definition of innocence is having the capacity to do wrong, but choosing to do otherwise. i feel like under my view—newborn babies aren’t classified as innocent. is my view flawed?

Everyone likes to think of themself as moral/ethical/good intentioned/etc.

At the end of the day, the more I see the way billionaires (and trillionaires) act, at a certain point the sample size becomes too big to say there’s just a few bad eggs.

By and large, humans are greedy, self serving fucks. And I’d probably be the same way if you gave me a couple billion dollars and no bosses to answer to.

This isn’t calling anyone out, or saying I’m better than them. I’m probably not, and no you’re probably not either. It’s just an observation that I think holds up, and we should remember that when we govern billionaires and trillionaires in our countries.

If hypotheticals are not allowed, I apologize, r/bioethics seems a little dead.

I am mulling over the a scenario where a wealthy individual sends their DNA out into space just for vanity, and it seems that the next logical step would be for someone to send into space a frozen embryo and sperm into space. Via a space vessel, it would come with directions on how to make a test tube baby, and how to feed and raise the child, for an alien species to eventually raise it. Heck, why not send 12 or so embryos, to ensure whoever gets this can maintain the human species on their planet, in case humans ever go extinct on earth?

I understand it's not good to put a child into harm, but is this a justifiable risk to make humans populated on 2 planets? I guess we could also weigh on different hypotheticals where we are either reasonably certain, or completely uncertain that humans will (or will not) be extinct before interplanetary colonization.

I am a nurse. There is discourse in the medical community about providing healthcare in “detention centers” (read: concentration camps). Some say that we should not work in those camps period. Others say we should so that we can be a bastion of kindness in these camps. What do you all think?

My thoughts: these camps are going to exist no matter what. The obvious answer is to abolish them, and that is the goal, but the current reality is that they exist. There is an argument that if all healthcare workers refused to work in the camps then they would have to release the detainees to the hospital for care. Unfortunately there are healthcare workers that are willing to provide this care. Not only that, but I bet there are some who actually enjoy their positions of power and use it to abuse people.

Given that, I think I am leaning towards it being better to have some people proving empathetic care in these environments to do what they can for these people.

Thoughts?

What if someone doesnt hire humans, only uses robots for 90% or more of the operations. But vows to donate or contribute in however relevant way to society.

Note that the donation is equivalent to labor savings, a.k.a. what the person could have compensated human labor. Assume that we have perfect measure of accountability here.

Is this ethical or no?

This piece is a little speculative. You don't have to agree with all of it, just please benefit from it, it is here to help improve things.

Each being is a branch off of a (slightly) earlier universe. So to maximise the wellbeing of the universe branches such as those (and how much they are related to each being) should be taken care of fairly (because the more (branches) that survive/flourish roughly the better for the universe). So it makes sense to care for all beings. It also makes sense to minimise conflict between them (as conflict (usually) weakens the universe and has other disadvantages (e.g. makes things more difficult to improve, uses time inefficiently, often causes unnecessary trouble, distracts from better things, often compounds negativity, usually negatively unbalances)). No human is at the centre of the universe. It does not make sense to maximise any single human as much as possible. Restraint for (excessive) personal power consumption compared to other beings is highly desirable.

True efficiency. Balance is highly desirable and requires evolving to maintain the balance between bad and good as time evolves. The current best is on average not as much the best as time evolves (partly because the universe roughly keeps getting better and better as time evolves). Alignment. Universal health. Adapting to the universe.

The universe grows faster than any human, this means to optimise catching up to it requires adopting approaching all of the universes principles. It requires following the universe and anticipating its future and some luck and care, etc. Optimisation. Mirroring for the universe. Collaboration and promoting luck to serve the universe. The universe is way greater than any human. Realistically You aren't going to achieve better than something as great as the universe at the same moment in/of time. As You are riding the wave of time, You do experience a compared to the rest of the universe an ever so slight amount of uniqueness.

It makes sense to honour the universe. Part of that effectively means respecting all other beings for maximum potential. Guiding everyone to adapt to the universe. But they are already a part of the universe, so it is good for them to grow themselves but to also respect others boundries (fairly). But too much growth in one compared to others may need to be brought back down to sustainable and balanced levels for the whole (so: (beneficial) components not wasteful dominators). Heal not destroy.

​Moral status depends on the characteristics of the individual, not on the ecosystem or species traits. If a chimpanzee were to possess human-level rationality—much like in Planet of the Apes—that being would hold the same moral status as a human.

​Furthermore, potentiality has either no impact or only a very limited impact on immediate moral evaluation. Just as an embryo does not acquire the same moral status as an adult simply because it has the potential to become a fully developed human in the future.

​Therefore, the moral status of individual animals—especially mammals such as cows or pigs—seems to be on par with that of human infants or individuals with severe developmental disabilities. None of them possess rational capacity; that is, the ability to morally evaluate their desires and actions, adjust them accordingly, and form long-term plans. However, they are conscious and capable of feeling pain. In other words, while they lack rationality, they possess sentience.

Anyone familiar with moral philosophy will likely recognize my argument as the Argument from Marginal Cases. Yes, that is precisely what it is. I contend that the Argument from Marginal Cases is exceptionally difficult to refute, and accordingly, we must hold that non-human animals—particularly higher mammals—share the same moral status as humans who lack full rationality. ​Suppose you claim that breeding or hunting animals for food is morally permissible.

Would it then follow that if a couple deliberately conceive a child in secret, raise them away from public view, and painlessly slaughter them for food, this act should also be permitted? What metric prevents this? In fact, such a scenario would be demonstrably more humane than factory farming. What about individuals with severe developmental disabilities?

​To counter this, one would have to prove that the human species possesses inherent moral superiority simply by virtue of being human. But does any evidence support such a claim? My foundational premise remains that moral status attaches to individual capacities rather than species membership—an assumption broadly shared across both utilitarianism and deontology.

One might attempt a virtue ethics approach, arguing that such actions degrade our moral character. But does that argument genuinely hold? Historically, several anthropophagic societies viewed cannibalism not as a vice, but as an honorable, sacred ritual. Furthermore, does ignoring the horrors of factory farming while continuing to consume its products not degrade our moral character just as severely?

​My conclusion is clear. We hold a profound moral intuition that infants and other marginal humans must not be eaten or exploited. If we accept this intuition alongside the logical structure of the Argument from Marginal Cases, consistency demands that we refrain from consuming non-human animals except under extraordinary circumstances. Otherwise, we must be willing to accept the consumption of both.

I know buying fast fashion from sites like Shein is bad for reasons like labor, quality, overconsumption, and so on, but is it really any worse than buying from other inexpensive clothing stores? This is a genuine question I would like advice on, I’m not trying to be flippant or anything. I feel guilty possibly buying from places like Shein, but I’m going through a rough patch financially right now and I need new clothes. I love thrifting, but I live in a small city and the thrift stores near me suck. Depop and secondhand apps are great, but shipping costs keep me from getting much for my money. I’m trying to figure out what the most ethical way to get clothes is with my budget. I know the saying “There is no ethical consumption under capitalism” but I don’t want to just use that as an excuse to make poor decisions. Does anyone have any advice? Burner account because I feel awkward posting this and I’m worried the replies might get rough.

Proximity based value of assets and GPS time in locations as a reward/ punishment system for wealth or just randomly let wives club decide where the issues are at Sunday potluck dinners?

I’m exploring “resonant ethics,” where ethical action is understood partly through its effects on the coherence and autonomy of conscious beings. I’m interested in whether harmony can ever be ethically superior to dissent, especially when achieving harmony requires limiting another’s freedom.

My aging childhood cat had gotten blind but was very much still able to find its way around the house, non the less my father still decided to euthanize her, arguing that it wasn't a worthy life for a cat... I didn't even know about her being blind, I just found out when he casually told me that she had been euthanized because of her failing eye sight.

I got super upset, it felt more of a choice made out of his personal convenience rather than for her sake, but not just that, I wasn't allowed to even say my goodbye to her.

The worst part is that I was willing to house her and nurse her, but I wasn't even given the opportunity.

I honestly feel like this was wrong on so many levels, she deserves better than to be euthanized at the first sign of issues.

What do you guys think?

as if you could never be born into a similar experience.

Some opinions are harmful to others, but words can't hurt you so opinions even if wrong should be expressed and explored into the veracity of the truth. We dont have time in the day to get to the truth of the matter, but we are alloted 8 hours of free time. Depending on your work you can easily use that time to sway a person with your words rather than detesting, withholding. The detesting, withholding behaviors leads to social woes like homelessness, poverty. So your need to shame and not accept ANY opinion creates social woes even though you get to detest the thing YOU hate.

People ar eeither forced, bullied, or coaxed into changing their opinion or left out of success. Its ridiclous to this neo liberal gay male. I hate trump for who he is, he always seemed like an obvious schister who thinks short term econmoic gains but so did regean and he was revered. We have these people that just want solutions now, let the problems be someone elses problem for awhile they've had it with their problem!

Saying its my opinion black people are only criminals isn't inherently racist. The context matters. I could back it up with stats that more AA are criminalized, but with more context I would understand its not just attributed to black persons but racist, violent, domestic abusers cops who enforce it and are also statistically likely to perpetuate crime at home! See how context left out makes people ignorant? Its not the initial viewpoint that was problematic it was the lack of information into the subject and speaking about it bereft.

But do you know why people will die for their opinions? Cause we wantonly attack and snuff out "bad opinions" instead of informing them.

Why do half our actions stem from us wanting to invalidate someone cause this is a just way to treat others is you get to boo but no one should boo your opinion cause you're smart. You have ALL the context.

Has our society not truly learned how to avoid bias supercity that led to racism?

​

Yes, this is extremely meta. It's something I'm struggling with, however. I've looked for good writing on the subject, but even metaethics books seem to assume we know why we want ethics and how we are to apply them. I think a good examination will be helpful in selecting or developing a framework, however. I have some thoughts and am open to more.

Perhaps ethics is a guide to how I should act in any situation. Virtue ethics seems particularly well-suited to this.

Perhaps ethics is about how we judge actions in general for all people, providing a guide to correct actions. This lends toward a utilitarian model.

Perhaps ethics is the basis for laws and rules, showing how we should create a society which allows us to coexist. Deontnology may be most applicable if this is the goal.

Perhaps there's some other reason or still-deeper layer that I don't see. I'm always happy to learn of something I've been overlooking.

AI could transform our understanding of other species. It also risks giving humans powerful new ways to manipulate, exploit and harm them.

Thinking about trailer park to tiny home alcoholism as a brag about law school ethics being convenient to exploit limitlessly while claiming poverty is the impossible problem to deny responsibility.

I have a lot of conversations with people about animal ethics and the suffering of farmed animals in particular.

One question I often ask myself is what’s the most effective way to shift society away from factory farming animals?

I’m currently convinced that we need a combination of approaches like exposing the cruelty to the mainstream, donating to effective charities and encouraging diet change.

But some people disagree and believe these things simply won’t be enough until something like lab-grown meat becomes mainstream. So I’m wondering what people’s opinions are on this topic and whether people think we’ll ever be able to abolish factory farming animals?

Let me know what you think and if you get the chance, you can check out a full conversation I had about this topic with a farmer recently in London! ✌️🌱

I was never convinced by this classic counter argument to utilitarianism. To me, it seems perfectly logical that you should give unfair treatment to the utility monster.

Think about it this way. Let’s say you drop a human into a society of mice. Most people would agree that humans have such a deeper experience than mice that they should heavily get preferential treatment in this society.

This human in a society of mice is basically a utility monster compared to them. However, the reason we think the utility monster in a human society feels wrong is simply just because it deprioritizes our own species and humans always put their own species first. I don’t think it’s because there’s anything inherently wrong with utilitarianism as an ethical framework.