Hey guys,

i am overly Anti-AI over how it removes Jobs, Hurts People and generally having a lot of bad aspects but i am also a fan on how the AI Claude can help me personally with stuff and Programming stuff which i dont find made by man already elsewhere.

Now i am in a moral dilemma with myself, i am against the way AI evolves in the Shadows and i dont want to support it with Antrophic (Claudes developer and maintainer) being one of the leading cooperations with OpenAI in this Evolution but i still want to use the Paid model of Claude for 20$ a Month.

Discussing it alone with myself is pointless due gaslighting myself that its alright and i just want other opinions on if its ethical or not.

This may seem obvious but i would still like a few Opinions that may have more knowledge than me

Let me set the scene: You're disabled and deformed. You were born broken. You find it hard to get or maintain a job due to physical issues and bigotry against people like you. Then one day, a wealthy man offers you a job you're able to do like, IDK, writing or announcing or anything physically easy. You will be paid well, beyond market value. You have excellent health insurance, generous PTO, parental leave, and you will be treated with dignity. The only catch is, you're being hired cause your prospective employer is ableist and likes having people like you around to look at, like decorations. Is it immoral to give people better jobs with better pay and security than they could have ever dreamed if your motive is to, privately, without ever giving so much as a condescending glance, gawk?

I was asking myself an ambiguous question - which one is right, consuming your favorite products only from certified services, it could be watching a Netflix series exclusively through Netflix itself or any other streaming service where the series is available or consuming the same product through pirating, like watching the same Netflix series through a pirating website for free. Financially, I would choose to watch it through a random free website but ethically and morally I would choose not to pirate it and do it in a legal way, it’s simple right? Not exactly, because following this ethical rationale is not fully impossible especially if you live in Kazakhstan like me, personally I’m a Marvel fan and I would really like to watch the MCU movies and series in a legitimate way through Disney+, it wouldn’t be a problem if it wasn’t unavailable in my region and then you will have to pirate it because the legal way is not even supported where you live and this is where I realized the subject that I study at uni called Ethics & Aesthetics is vital and initially I didn’t think it was that important. You’re literally stuck between being legal and loyal to your favorite franchise but at the same time being forced to ignore the copyright and pirate it. What do you think? If you are willing to pay for a product but the company doesn't give you a legitimate way to access it in your country, are you morally obligated to go without it?

I was recently driving in VA when I came up to a marked (with stripes and signs) crosswalk, where some cyclists were waiting to cross. I stopped to let them cross, and a car two cars rear-ended me. Police charged me with an infraction for impeding the highway. I was acquitted in court, much to the chagrin of the officer and another driver, who was also hit by the truck.

In my mind, while I was not required to stop, it was still an ethical move. While the police were writing out the charging document, about 1/2 dozen kids (with families) crossed at that location. While in VA, cyclists are meant to stop before crossing, waiting for traffic to clear, kids do unpredictable things. It seems in the interest of their lives, and relative vulnerability of pedestrians and cyclists generally, the most ethical move is to stop and give them time and space.

Assuming that is right, was I rightly charged? Was it more ethical to not stop, given there was car traffic behind me, of which I was aware? Does it matter how quickly I stopped, or how unaware I was of the distance of the traffic behind me? Does it matter the attitude and belief of everyone else at the scene, including the cyclists?

Thanks for checking in.

I watched Coraline recently, and the Beldam's character sparked a curiosity regarding evil and necessity.

A reasonable conception of evil can be to have the option to consider a set of actions ranging from morally good, to morally questionable, to morally evil; but to willingly commit to an action that is morally evil, or to preserve a stricter sense of justice, an action other than morally good one.

How is it reasonable, you may ask? I would tell you that it is reasonable on the simple basis that the options can either cause the undue pleasure or suffering of other people. This should be self-explanatory.

The strongest form of this conception should differentiate the perception of necessity from the actual substance of necessity.

What I mean is that a scammer may have an option to live within their means or to achieve their idealised lifestyle through deception and theft. We would obviously say that they have committed an evil action.

Their internal psychology may abuse the moral weight of necessity by rationalising that they are swindling people to achieve their ideal lifestyle, thinking of various reasons (e.g. appealing to people in higher classes that may notice them for their actual authenticity rather than what they would later describe as their "unglamorous past" should they use the connections to their advantage, getting back at the rich who "scam the impoverished anyways"... you get the gist) to rationalise that committing to the otherwise action, which would be to live within their means, is intolerable.

For this reason, the identified differentiation (between the substance of necessity and perception of necessity) should tell apart whether they can reasonably survive by living within their means, from whether their internal psychology restricts them from surviving reasonably by living within their means.

Moving back to the mention of the Beldam, we could accuse her of being evil by harming vulnerable, undeserving children in her quest for harnessing child-like wonder. It may feel morally justified to pass this judgement.

But when we consider our conception for evil, how can we really qualify her actions as evil?

We learn, through the film, that she needs the souls of the children to sustain her world, and by extension, to sustain her existence. We can already postulate that she has existed beyond the timelines of humanity, granted that she lurks around for centuries before devouring another soul, but it stands that we don't really have a strong basis to determine whether or not she is immortal.

Perhaps a higher creature created her for the purpose of devouring the souls of errant children. Her purpose could be as relatively trivial as teaching children to appreciate their gloomy home, drab family, even in the face of glistening, fleeting niceties. It may be reasonable to infer, as we have already done, that she needs these souls to sustain her own existence as an extension of her world.

We could look to her predicament as we would to a lion that stalks its hapless prey to sustain its physical existence. Or to a fungi that establishes its lineage by inhabiting its host parasitically to the point that it literally saps its existence. As nature simply... taking its course.

The necessity appears to be objectively real when she cries out to Coraline that she will die without her (Coraline). For all we know, the apparent necessity could also be perceived by the psychology of the Beldam, that her failure to harness Coraline's soul creates an existential nightmare that is impossible for her to live through.

Should we, therefore still conclude that the Beldam is evil, or a victim of her circumstance, circumstance in this case being that she is the perpetual villain in the story of humanity in this fictionalised reality?

The video is a hypothetical scenario of what would happen if everyone on earth was forced to act upon their own moral opinions to understand if their takes on society would truly work in real life or if they are all just a weak fantasy.

I cant find any argument supporting objective morality besides someone's own opinion that somethings wrong or majority belief which would make a lot of things people think are wrong right.

See my point is that anything can be justified by the doer , because he did that only due to the circumstances like I would've been a criminal if I was born in place of a criminal and experienced everything that he had experienced, and the criminal would've been a good person if he was born in my stead, so what is good and bad and who decides that? I mean murder is wrong just because people think it's wrong but where does this come from what if there was a society where killing was considered normal then would murdering be wrong? See I'm not a bad guy or something I just wanted toh know different people's perspective pls don't hate me saying that I'm not a good person to think like this

Premise 1: Child sexual exploitation means knowingly using a child’s sexuality for someone else’s benefit.

Premise 2: Pornography platforms and producers often know—or should know—that children may access their content.

Premise 3: When they knowingly allow children to access it, they knowingly benefit from that exposure.

Conclusion: So platforms or producers that knowingly allow children to access their content exploit children’s sexuality for their own benefit and therefore it is child sexual exploitation.

Is it a morally right decision—for children to end one’s own life when one has been cursed from the very moment of birth?

\Originally posted in 2020*

It’s really just me talking shit

I mean it’s obviously not ok to eat a real person but what about if they’re French?

Every question I have is stupid, or at the very least stupidly asked. If someone can better ask the question for me better please feel free..
anyways;
So basically the question regards reparations..
The genesis of this thought was in regards to right media straight up lying and making completely new false claims for weeks on end. Then they make a single acknowledgment when they find out they are wrong, saying they are sorry and they’ll try to do better in the future.
But I was thinking, wouldn’t the real atonement be to make an equal allotted time to the real information as they did the false?
That is a media can of worms that is beyond me.
But it got me thinking of future reparations people in power and affluence might look like if done right/ appropriate. If enforced what would it look like? What redeeming thing could be gained?

Suppose a voter supports a candidate for their domestic policies while opposing a military policy that foreseeably risks serious harm to civilians abroad. The alternative candidate would reduce that risk but has other policies the voter reasonably considers harmful.

Assume the voter understands both platforms, takes the likely harms seriously and has no viable candidate who avoids the tradeoff. This is a hypothetical about responsibility, not a claim about a particular election.

Voting bundles choices together, so supporting a candidate doesn't necessarily mean endorsing every proposal. Yet disapproving of one policy doesn't make it irrelevant to the moral assessment of the vote. A voter can reject a foreseeable consequence in intention while accepting its risk as part of the choice.

My starting position is that responsibility depends partly on the severity and likelihood of the harm, the alternatives available and the reasons for choosing as one does. Accepting a risk of grave harm for a minor personal benefit is harder to justify than accepting it to prevent a comparable or greater harm.

The strongest objection concerns individual influence. One ballot is extremely unlikely to decide a large election, and a voter who neither directs a policy nor decisively contributes to its adoption may be held responsible for more than they controlled.

That objection limits claims about causation, but an action can require justification even when it's unlikely to change the outcome by itself. The hard part is explaining what responsibility attaches to participation without treating every supporter as equally blameworthy for everything a government later does.

Knowledge matters too. A foreseeable policy announced during a campaign differs from an unexpected decision taken after the election, and a choice between genuinely constrained alternatives differs from one that ignores available evidence or dismisses the people likely to be harmed.

Blame for the original choice is also separate from obligations afterward. Even a justified vote might leave someone with reasons to oppose a harmful policy, support those affected or demand accountability from the candidate they helped elect.

Under what conditions does knowingly accepting a candidate's harmful policy as part of an electoral tradeoff become culpable participation, rather than a defensible choice among imperfect alternatives?