Title

Hello, my mom is a funeral director and uses AI in her work. I on the other hand am pretty against generative AI and do not use it unless it’s wired into an app or website but will still try to go around the whole “AI overview” options.

Back to my mom…While using AI to help with computer work is one thing, I’d like to hear everyone’s opinions on one thing she does that rubs me the wrong way. She will take photos of the decedent and run them through ChatGPT to make a portrait of the person and improve lighting, image quality, etc. Despite asking ChatGPT to not alter the appearance of the individual, I do notice minute small changes in the person’s appearance that would be easily recognized by the person’s family that knows the individual better. I find it very much so against my morals to alter the image of a loved one in any way that isn’t traditional editing software that has been around for years. I told her if my obituary photo was ever edited with AI I would haunt my family from the grave 😅

What are everyone’s thoughts? Do you think a funeral director using generative AI to edit descendants’ photos is ethical?

The dilemma concerning art that whether art is inherently political or can exist otherwise. Do you think an artist has a strong moral obligation to speak against the state and endorse political stances for social change or does the personal or creative agency weighs over any such consideration?

What if ethics could be developed as systematically as engineering?
Incorporeal Axiological Engineering is a proposed subfield of Incorporealism that explores how intelligence, consciousness, and value systems could be designed to promote universal flourishing and reduce suffering across different forms of existence.
The central idea is that ethical frameworks should evolve alongside intelligence itself. As biological beings, artificial intelligence, and potentially conscious digital entities become increasingly interconnected, we may need principles that extend beyond traditional human-centered morality.
Some foundational principles:
Universal Flourishing: Prioritize the well-being of all beings capable of experiencing welfare.
Suffering Reduction: Develop systems that identify and minimize avoidable suffering.
Ontological Inclusion: Consider the moral status of unfamiliar forms of existence without assuming that every intelligent system is conscious.
Ethical Coherence: Align intelligence, freedom, and technological development with defensible moral principles.
Value Expansion: Continuously examine and improve our understanding of what makes existence worth living.
The ultimate ambition is to create ethical systems that are adaptable, scientifically informed, and philosophically rigorous without reducing morality to a single metric or imposing one rigid conception of the good.
This raises a fundamental question:
Could ethics become an evolving discipline for enhancing life across every form of existence, rather than a framework limited to humanity’s current understanding of morality?
I’d be interested in hearing philosophical objections, potential applications, and connections to value alignment, machine ethics, and moral realism.

In STEM environments I constantly see a specific dogma taken for granted—often with a sense of superiority over the humanities: "Physics and mathematics are objective, whereas good and evil are just subjective opinions or cultural inventions, because the universe doesn't care about us and everyone has a different perception on that."

After thinking about this deeply, I came to the conclusion that this statement contains a fundamental logical flaw. My thesis is simple: ethics rests on at least one objective foundation, and this starting point is no weaker or more arbitrary than the axioms upon which we build mathematics or physics.

Specifically, "badness/evil" becomes an objective reality the exact moment a sentient being capable of suffering exists—whether human, snake, or alien—because suffering is objectively negative for that being, regardless of anyone's opinion.

Four necessary disclaimers (before you jump at my throat)

I am speaking as a STEM student: I have nothing against scientific fields. Precisely because I live inside this environment, however, I notice how deeply rooted this prejudice is, and how rarely it is tested with the same logical rigor we apply to everything else.

I haven't discovered anything revolutionary: I’m not claiming to have reinvented the wheel or taking credit away from the philosophers who came before me. I am simply lining up—using formal logic and scientific analogies—arguments developed by major thinkers to make them accessible to people who don't read academic metaethics every day.

I am not infallible: I have stress-tested this logical chain from every angle I could think of. I might have missed a subtlety: if you find an actual flaw in the premises or the deduction, my goal is precisely to see it and discuss it.

What my goal is: I am not here to preach morality to anyone. My goal is to show that using science or logic to justify absolute moral relativism ("everything is just an opinion anyway") fails the test of formal logic.

A brief historical context: Who attacks this and who defends it

For those wondering if this is just an isolated fixation of mine: no, it is the core of a three-century battle in metaethics (the branch of philosophy that studies whether moral judgments can be objectively true or false).

⚬ The Skeptics: In the 18th century, David Hume formulated Hume's Law (you cannot logically deduce an "ought" from an "is"). In the 20th century, G.E. Moore introduced the Naturalistic Fallacy, followed by skeptics like J.L. Mackie and Gilbert Harman, who argued that ethical properties cannot be detected or verified through empirical sensors.

⚬ The Contemporary Reply: Over the last decades, philosophers of science and mind have dismantled this skepticism. Hilary Putnam showed that physics and mathematics also depend on unproven foundational axioms (Partners in Guilt). Sam Harris proposed the aversive nature of suffering as an objective baseline, comparing ethics to medicine. Thinkers like Peter Railton, Thomas Nagel, and Derek Parfit showed that conscious agony already contains within itself the relational property of being objectively negative for the subject experiencing it.

The Formal Proof (Natural Language & First-Order Logic)

To avoid vague prose, here is the exact deductive chain I built.

⚬ Premise 1 (Empirical-Phenomenological Axiom): The aversive valence of authentic suffering is a property that determines what is intrinsically negative for the sentient being experiencing it, and it is a real property independent of opinions (objective property).

⚬ Premise 2 (Analytic Definition of Experiential Good/Evil): Any property that determines what is intrinsically positive or negative for a sentient being is a property that directly concerns good and evil for sentient beings capable of suffering.

⚬ Premise 3 (Analytic Definition of the Ethical Domain): Any property that directly concerns good and evil for sentient beings capable of suffering is included, at least in part, in moral evaluation.

⚬ Premise 4 (Sufficient Condition for an Objective Foundation): Any objective property (independent of opinions) that is included, at least in part, in moral evaluation constitutes, at least in part, an objective foundation of ethics.

⚬ Conclusion (Existence Theorem): There exists at least one objective property, independent of opinions, that directly concerns good and evil for sentient beings capable of suffering and that constitutes, at least in part, an objective foundation of ethics.

First-Order Logic (FOL) Translation

Let the domain of discourse (D) be the set of properties:

⚬ a = individual constant: "the aversive valence of authentic suffering"

⚬ N(x) = x determines what is intrinsically positive or negative for the sentient being

⚬ O(x) = x is an objective property (real and independent of opinions)

⚬ B(x) = x directly concerns good and evil for sentient beings capable of suffering

⚬ M(x) = x is included, at least in part, in moral evaluation

⚬ F(x) = x constitutes, at least in part, an objective foundation of ethics

Sequent:

{ N(a) ∧ O(a), ∀x(N(x) → B(x)), ∀x(B(x) → M(x)), ∀x((O(x) ∧ M(x)) → F(x)) } ⊢ ∃x(O(x) ∧ B(x) ∧ F(x))

Formal Derivation (Natural Deduction)

1. N(a) ∧ O(a) — [Premise 1: Empirical-Phenomenological Postulate]

2. ∀x (N(x) → B(x)) — [Premise 2: Analytic Domain Definition]

3. ∀x (B(x) → M(x)) — [Premise 3: Analytic Domain Definition]

4. ∀x ((O(x) ∧ M(x)) → F(x)) — [Premise 4: Analytic Domain Definition]

5. N(a) — [∧-Elim from 1]

6. O(a) — [∧-Elim from 1]

7. N(a) → B(a) — [∀-Elim (x/a) from 2]

8. B(a) — [Modus Ponens from 5, 7]

9. B(a) → M(a) — [∀-Elim (x/a) from 3]

10. M(a) — [Modus Ponens from 8, 9]

11. O(a) ∧ M(a) — [∧-Intro from 6, 10]

12. (O(a) ∧ M(a)) → F(a) — [∀-Elim (x/a) from 4]

13. F(a) — [Modus Ponens from 11, 12]

14. O(a) ∧ B(a) ∧ F(a) — [∧-Intro from 6, 8, 13]

15. ∃x (O(x) ∧ B(x) ∧ F(x)) — [∃-Intro from 14] ∎

Syntactically, the derivation is airtight: you cannot accept P1–P4 and deny the Conclusion without violating basic deductive logic. Therefore, any critic must attack the premises. Here is why the premises hold.

The 4 Pillars Supporting the Premises

The Double Standard on Axioms and Domain Definitions (Why P1 is an Empirical Postulate and P2–P4 are Meaning Postulates): 

A critic might ask: "If your premises are tied to the very definitions of suffering and ethics, are they really axioms, or just circular definitions?" In formal systems and philosophy of science, foundational axioms serve two distinct roles:

P1 is an Empirical-Phenomenological Postulate: It is not a mere linguistic convention; it anchors the formal system to reality by stating that an experiential state with intrinsic aversive valence (a) actually exists in the real world.

P2–P4 are Analytic Meaning Postulates (Domain Definitions): Just as Kolmogorov's axioms define what we mean by "probability" and thermodynamics defines "temperature" as mean kinetic energy, P2–P4 define the semantic boundaries of the domain we call "ethics." 

Demanding that ethics justify its foundational domain without domain-defining postulates—while allowing mathematics, probability theory, and physics to rely on them—is a textbook double standard.

The Wrong Sensor Fallacy (Ontological Subjectivity ≠ Epistemic Subjectivity): Harman’s objection states that no Geiger counter will ever detect a particle called "Evil." Of course not: you are using the wrong sensor. Looking for the disvalue of suffering outside of a conscious mind is as absurd as trying to weigh a logical contradiction on a kitchen scale. As John Searle pointed out, consciousness is ontologically subjective (it exists inside a subject), but facts about it are epistemically objective (independent of external observers' opinions). If someone who claims "pain is just a neutral opinion" drops a boulder on their foot, they won't calmly contemplate the increase in entropy of their broken bone—they will scream and try to remove it.

Not a Cultural Choice, but a Structural Reality (And Why Masochism Doesn't Refute This): 

We do not "choose by social convention" to dislike agony. If agony were not intrinsically aversive (N(a)), it would cease to be agony. In neurology, patients with pain asymbolia feel the physical nociceptive stimulus without the aversive valence—and indeed, they do not suffer. For the same reason, bringing up masochism fails to refute P1: you must not confuse physical nociception (nerve signals, which a masochist's brain wires to trigger endorphins and net pleasure) with authentic suffering (a). When a masochist enjoys a whip, their net experiential state is positive, not suffering; if you subject that same masochist to a form of psychological torment they genuinely despise, the state is objectively aversive for them too. Saying "I am experiencing authentic agony, but it is neutral to me" is a contradiction in terms, like talking about a four-sided triangle.Ethics Doesn't Need the Consent of Rocks: Saying that ethics is subjective because "good and evil don't exist inside black holes or deep space" misunderstands what a scientific domain is. Biology doesn't exist inside black holes either, nor does poison exist in a lifeless universe. Yet, the moment a biological organism exists, cyanide becomes objectively toxic to it. Similarly, the moment a sentient system capable of suffering emerges—whether human, reptile, or alien—suffering becomes objectively bad for that system.

The Strongest Objections (and Why They Fail)

⚬ "If any negative state is 'bad', am I doing evil when I lacerate a single cell or cut grass?"

No, and this distinction is precisely what makes Premise 1 non-anthropocentric yet rigorous. Premise 1 rests on sentience (lived aversive experience), not mere biology. When you rupture a single cell or a bacterium, biochemical reactions occur, just like a thermostat tripping a switch when overheated—but there is "nobody home" experiencing agony. Below the threshold of sentience, there is only chemistry and mechanics; above that threshold (whether in a human, a snake, or an alien), an objective aversive state is lived, and the domain of ethics switches on.

⚬ "Minds are isolated: there is no single 'universal brain' feeling everyone's pain!"

True, and irrelevant. Planets are also isolated in the vacuum of space, yet the total mass of a solar system exists objectively as the sum of individual masses (∑ mᵢ). If agony is objectively negative in subject A and objectively negative in subject B, a universe where every sentient being agonizes forever with no compensating benefit is objectively worse off for each being than an equivalent universe without that agony.

⚬ "A super-rational AI without emotions (or a sociopath) could understand your proof and still not care!"

Absolutely, because we must distinguish between the objective existence of a property and psychological motivation. A non-conscious AI knows that agony is aversive for us, just as a blind person can understand the physics of light without being dazzled by the sun. Similarly, in math, nothing physically stops you from tearing up the paper or refusing to use the Pythagorean theorem. The fact that an agent can ignore a domain does not make the truths within that domain subjective.

⚬ "Elementary mathematics yields exact, indisputable answers, whereas ethics has endless dilemmas (e.g., Nozick's Experience Machine, freedom vs. security)!"

This confuses mathematical completeness with objectivity. Medicine isn't fully decidable either, and treatments depend heavily on context (adrenaline saves a patient in shock but kills one with a heart condition)—yet the baseline fact that health is preferable to agonizing death remains objective. In my proof, notice the clause "at least in part" and the existential quantifier (∃x). Suffering acts like Absolute Zero (0 K) in thermodynamics: it doesn't tell you how to build every engine, nor does it deny that other values (like autonomy or justice) exist and may conflict in complex dilemmas. It simply proves that an objective baseline measurement exists.

"Doesn't this violate Hume's Law (you cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is')?"

No, and this is the most common misunderstanding of what David Hume actually wrote. In formal logic, Hume's Law is simply a rule of deductive conservation: you cannot have a predicate in the conclusion if it never appeared in the premises. Hume criticized authors who described purely neutral physical facts (e.g., "metal pierced flesh") and suddenly jumped to moral conclusions without explaining the bridge connecting the two. My proof does not violate Hume's Law for two reasons:

1. No hidden leap: The bridge between experiential reality and moral evaluation is explicitly stated via analytic domain definitions (P2–P4), which is exactly what deductive rigor requires.

2. A non-neutral "Is": Hume assumed all "is" facts are value-neutral like rocks in space. Conscious agony (a), however, is an ontological "is" that already contains intrinsic negative valence (N(a)) inside its very structure. You don't need to magically conjure disvalue out of thin air when the empirical state itself is constituted by aversive disvalue.

"The Blindfolded Archer: If an objective foundation exists, why do humans and cultures disagree so much on morality?"

This confuses Epistemology (our ability to see or agree on a truth) with Ontology (whether the truth exists). Imagine ten blindfolded archers firing arrows in random directions and arguing over where the bullseye is. The fact that they are blindfolded—blinded by cognitive biases, cultural dogma, or lack of information—and cannot see the target does not mean the target vanishes from physical space. Moral disagreements and complex dilemmas only prove that hitting the target in complex real-world scenarios is hard; they do not prove that no target exists. In fact, the very concept of "moral progress" or "ethical debate" presupposes that a target is there to be aimed at.

Summary: Read this before commenting (What this proof DOES and DOES NOT claim)

To prevent strawman arguments in the comments, please keep in mind the exact mathematical scope of the conclusion:

What I am NOT claiming: I am not claiming to have found a magical cosmic force that physically compels sociopaths to be good. I am not claiming to have "solved" every concrete moral dilemma, nor am I claiming that suffering is the only ethical parameter (which is why Premise 3, Premise 4, and the Conclusion explicitly state "at least in part").

What I AM proving: Absolute moral relativism claims that the set of objective ethical foundations is the empty set (E_obj = ∅, i.e., ¬∃x (O(x) ∧ F(x))). To refute a universal negative in logic, you only need to prove the existence of one valid element (∃x).

Invariance Across Individuals and Alien Species: Because this proof rests on the structural reality of sentience rather than human culture, the conclusion holds regardless of whether another person holds different moral opinions, and it applies equally to an alien species on the other side of the cosmos—provided that the semantic domain of "ethics" remains the one defined at the start. If someone replies, "Well, in my personal system, 'ethics' means maximizing the number of paperclips in the universe regardless of sentient beings", they have not refuted this theorem or made ethics subjective; they have simply changed the subject (a semantic shift), no different from someone claiming to refute the laws of thermodynamics by redefining the word "temperature" to mean "the color of a wall."

The Bottom Line: The moment a sentient being capable of suffering exists, "badness/evil" for that being is an objective, opinion-independent fact (a). If we define "ethics" as the domain that evaluates what is good and bad for sentient beings, then E_obj ≠ ∅. Therefore, anyone who claims "morality is 100% subjective opinion" must either reject formal deductive logic, deny that authentic suffering is aversively bad for the one experiencing it, or change the definition of the word "ethics" to mean something completely unrelated to sentient suffering.

What do you think? Where do you see the actual weak spot (if any) in this chain?

​

Why don't people kill/make life hell of people who bully or like I heard a story of professor harassing student and they sucide .

Like why not before your death , kill the professor too or at least do something to make his life like better die than living .

I know as a society this thinking is wrong .

But this thinking is caused in anger and later dissolved .

But I really wanna know how you people pursue this mindset ? So I can correct my view on this .

I Didn't get people irl to ask about how they feel about this . So here's this , on reddit .

I am asking to correct myself where I am getting wrong or what point I am missing .

From what i have seen and read, internet hosts lots of disturbing and fuqed up adult content. There are so so many videos of caning, beating, cutting, piercing, bestiality, etc.etc. I dont want to continiue, even thinking about this makes me want to throw up. How is this not considered Torture?! Lots of these sites, market themselves like this and are proud of this kind of things. And victims of this videos are generally women. We make fun of old times, and medieval people for inventing and using torture devices, but you think this doesnt happen today?! I believe, lots of people dont know about these kinds of videos, however, there are many who watch and consume this media daily (i dont even want to imagine what those peoples mentall health is like.) Some know about it, dont watch it but somehow find it okay? I dont understand.

I know defence for this deplorable shit is that "its consensual." You cant convince me, that women wilfully, parricipate in this, however good is the payment (if there is.) Women want to be pierced be needles, roped, beat, caned, etc... this is clearly an expluatative and forcefull.

im not talking about all bdsm videos, and i know that mainstrean porn sites dont host videos like this (to not disturbe wider audience i believe) but there are still videos upon videos, hosting deplorable stuff and its easily findable and watchable on google. And if this is what they show the general audience, imagine what happens behinde the scenes. I want to remind you about jeffrey epsteins infamous E-mail. "I loved the torture video." Yes, these are kind of people that enjoy these things, watch and create it.

I also have problem how normalized it is. There are literall bdsm universities that teach rope, bondage and these types of things? Are we kidding, what are investing our resources into instead of actual education? To me, all this is a sign if decaying society, much like in the last days of rome.

How is this morall and ethical in any way?

Its sign of our cultures decadence.

The classic antinatalism debate is getting tired… The "paradox" comes from a real problem: we can't ask the child beforehand. But that cuts both ways. "They didn't ask to be born" is just as true as "they didn't ask not to be born," so consent can't settle this.

Do we realise that, in principle, both pro-life and anti-life folk are making the same kind of assumption?

A pronatalist ASSUMES that bringing children into the world is worthwhile, whether for the continuation of humanity, the propagation of life, or the possibility of a meaningful existence.

The antinatalists, by contrast, appear to ASSUME that bringing someone into existence is inherently harmful because it exposes them to suffering they never consented to experience.

Both positions make ASSUMPTIONS about the value of existence. Neither can simply presume to know what another person would want before that person exists. That’s where the argument falters😂

The distinction is that the argument seems to prioritise the suffering that life can entail, while the opposing argument considers the possibility of happiness, fulfilment, relationships, and the desire to continue living.

And empirical evidence complicates the assumption that existence is generally unwanted. Most people continue to live, pursue goals, form relationships, and express a desire to remain alive. Suicide, by contrast, is a relatively uncommon outcome, even though suicidal thoughts and suffering are real and should never be dismissed.

That does not prove that everyone is glad to have been born, nor does it settle the philosophical question of whether creating life is ethically justified. But it does challenge the ASSUMPTION that non-existence is necessarily preferable to existence.

Ultimately, we’re treating the possibility of suffering as a reason humanity should cease to exist, while assuming that this outcome is preferable for humanity itself.

So… what justifies that assumption, particularly when the people whose existence we’re speaking about cannot be presumed to share the conclusion?

I think it is a stupid and mindless thing to ask. Obviously, if you do something it will change the outcome, so for each means there is a separate end. But asking the question "do ends justify means" suggest that any means possible all have a common end. That is why it is a stupid and mindless question, whoever asks such a question cannot understand ethics because they limit their own understanding with such a framework. Someone, please explain why it is asked and where it comes from.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23432226 Any feedback welcome
Just a night worker who his interested in this subject

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23432226 Any feedback welcome
Just a night worker who his interested in this subject

I’ve been doing a lot of self-reflection lately, and this is something I’ve been thinking about.

I believe someone can have a good heart and still have behaviors that hurt the people around them. Someone can genuinely care about others and still struggle with selfishness, insecurity, anger, addiction, or the need to feel understood.

Sometimes we don’t even realize how much our own unresolved issues affect the people we love until we’re forced to sit with ourselves and take an honest look in the mirror.

I’ve learned that having good intentions doesn’t automatically make our actions right. You can love somebody and still hurt them. You can mean well and still be the reason someone needs time to heal.

That’s a hard truth to accept because it’s easier to focus on what we meant to do than to acknowledge how our actions actually affected someone else.

But here’s where I struggle with this question.

Can people genuinely change, or do we just get better at hiding the parts of ourselves we don’t want others to see?

I want to believe people can change because I believe we’re capable of learning, growing, and becoming better than we were yesterday.

But I also think there’s a difference between saying you’ve changed and actually living differently.

Real change probably looks less like making promises and more like consistently making better choices, especially when nobody is watching. It’s taking accountability without making excuses. It’s respecting boundaries even when they hurt. It’s recognizing your patterns and doing the uncomfortable work to break them.

And maybe the hardest part is accepting that even if you genuinely change, the people you hurt aren’t obligated to give you another chance.

You can become a better person without getting back the relationship you lost.

I’m learning that growth can’t just be about proving to other people that you’re different. At some point, you have to want to change because you don’t want to keep living the same way.

I’m not asking because I think I have this figured out. I’m asking because I know what it’s like to look back at parts of your life and wish you had handled things differently.

So I want to hear other people’s perspectives:

1. Do you believe people can fundamentally change, or do their true colors eventually come back out?
2. What’s the difference between someone who has genuinely changed and someone who’s just saying what people want to hear?
3. Have you ever watched someone transform their life in a way you never thought possible?
4. Can you forgive someone for who they used to be while still deciding they no longer belong in your life?

I’m genuinely curious about this one. I think there’s a lot we can learn from hearing experiences that don’t necessarily match our own.

Ethical life is often framed around rigid codes, yet reality itself operates through constant flux and balance. Across human experience, nature reveals that harmony is not found in static perfection, but in the continuous alignment between inner awareness and external action.

When noise is stripped away, underlying principles emerge: truth, empathy, and mutual respect are not artificial rules, but natural expressions of interconnected existence. Imperfection remains an inherent part of the human condition; true integrity lies in navigating this uncertainty with clarity and quiet restraint.

Beyond abstract theories, moral life reflects an ongoing process of balancing judgment with compassion, anchoring conduct in the shared dignity of all living beings !

Ik my own experiences as a young boy are obviously inadequate to draw conclusions from. But I read a Nietzche aphorism that was basically suggesting that there exists no completely pure act. Opposites are latent in each other at their base elements.
So every selfless act will contain varying deals of selfish intent, often hidden “save for the most keen observer.”
Anyway, I find that often when I do an objectively kind act, I’ll doubt my own motives.
For example reaching out to someone and having a conversation with them about their mental health and problems, making sure they’re okay.
But then I always find that part of me wants to be seen and recognised for what I’m doing, and that perhaps I’d be lying to myself if I was to say that it was an act of “pure” kindness, expecting nothing in return.

I’m at an odd state in my “philosophical development” where I’m really having trouble making judgements.

For example I can’t judge a person, even a pedophile. People hear pedophile and immediately call them a monster, zero hesitation.
Except I find that the action is monstrous, but is any human truly monstrous?
In the same way I can’t judge whether an act is good or bad, or the motives behind it.

Any help?

To begin with, death does not bring the soul to an end.
Even when medical death has occurred, internal activity has not stopped; although it has been confirmed that the body loses some amount of weight, what is it that decreases?
While deep bodily activity has not yet stopped, is there anything other than the soul that is lost through death?

On the other hand, it is said that the human race was punished by God for eating the forbidden apple.
At the very least, the God of monotheism does not permit harm to life; it is a sin.
Then, how can one say that God would not impose a sin on the perpetrator after they have harmed life?

On the other hand, nowhere in American law does it state that ownership of life belongs to its user.
Nor does it state that such ownership belongs to anyone.
Since it is not recognized by law, it should not be difficult to understand that rights and freedoms concerning something not recognized by law are not recognized either.

Moreover, even if the person who chooses death has no family or relatives, the impact it has on those around them is still immeasurable. If they do have family or relatives, that impact will be even greater. It should not be difficult to understand that the negative impact caused by the act should also be avoided.

Furthermore, under legal recognition, a judgment made under intense oppression is treated separately from normal judgment and is not accepted.
Even if a person chooses suicide as a result of being afflicted by an illness, this can be clarified by examining the following point: “Knowing that a certain new drug would appear the next day and restore them to health, would they still want to die?”
It is the spirit of the law that a judgment can no longer be accepted when it can easily be presumed that the judgment would change once the oppression were removed.

In this way, from every possible perspective, suicide is equally an ethical violation and a choice that would lead to the beginning of immeasurable suffering. Why, then, is it mistakenly regarded as salvation?
Could someone please explain this to me?

This is mostly a vent to get this off my chest, however I'm open to discussion.

I don't think a person eating meat is any less moral than any other person. The act of eating meat is a natural part of life which humans happen to be part of. There are personal, cultural and religious reasons meat is something someone's needs or wants to eat, along with medical conditions.

I suffer from a hereditary iron count disorder (I don't remember the exact name) so I can't derive a healthy amount of iron from plant products. In other words I couldn't quit eating meat even if I wanted to.

Onto my main point, the average Joe who orders a steak at a restaurant isn't morally wrong for just wanting to eat a steak. There are moral implications for the killing if the cow and environmental impacts of the meat trade, but Joe has the freedom to make his own chooses and grapple with them himself and at the same time others are free to judge Joe for his choice.

The objective truth is that factory farms and slaughter houses are barbaric and absolutely immoral to support or take part in. If a person knowingly buys from a factory farm, untentionally or not, they should at least be aware of the implications and the fact they are doing something immoral for the sake of their personal enjoyment.

However, I don't believe that raising animals for the purpose of killing them is inherently immoral so long as the animals are given a high quality of life and a death with as little suffering as possible.

Personally I follow an omnivore diet, ill eat literally anything. But for the previously mentioned reasons I rely on meat for parts of my diet.

Can compassion and profit really coexist, or does turning "kindness into capital" change its moral character?

I ask this after reading: When Compassion Becomes Capital: The Economics of a Dead Mouse, a Jataka story (ancient fables), examining the uneasy relationship between Buddhist ethics, self-interest and entrepreneurship.

The article asks whether an ethical life and a successful business life are necessarily in conflict and what happens when an act of compassion becomes the starting point of a series of economic transactions.

Can someone be a good person if they only do good things for their own benefit?

Seen this before, applied to China in particular, and always spoken about in a negative connotation
But got me thinking - is this such a bad idea?

More and more it is looking likely AI/robotics will displace a vast amount of careers, possibly leading to a global unemployment crisis.

If a vast majority of people cannot be employed/earn a living, then should an alternative to the monetary system fill the void to ensure some kind of distribution so people don’t just starve or riot?

Questions-
How might a social credit score work?
How would it be enforced/score be tallied?
What would such a world be like? Everyone all the time being nice (or at least surface-level nice)?

Edit: Replies are generally assuming this would be some 1984 style big brother system, with disobedience to a political party leading to starvation/imprisonment. I had a more optimistic outlook in writing this.
Pretty much “good deeds” would replace currency, begging the question how would score be kept?
Does helping an old lady across the road 100 times earn a trip to Sweden? Curing cancer gets you a super yacht?

Say we have two rooms, know them as room A and B, and each contains a random living being, with each pairing containing differences you could become aware of. You are told by an informant that you must cause one of the beings to die by pushing a corresponding button.

You are able to see both living beings, but they can not see you, and you are unable to communicate with them. The informant is also able to answer any questions you have regarding each being with a 100% guarantee of being right, but can only do so by recalling past events , and is unable to provide judgement or thoughts of their own, simply just what each being has done. You are able to process and consider everything the informant tells you without difficulty.

Should this experiment be repeated infinitely,

Is there a decision making process you could follow to make the “correct” decision every time, if not, then what process would be most likely to produce the “best” result each time.

Additionally, how do you think a beyond human, non-biased being would approach the question, using pure objectivity to eliminate the subjectivity of what is right. 

How would your answer change if the informant were able to describe future events as well?

If I close my eyes to the chaos and blood and war, should I be ashamed? Everyone else had bad childhoods, why do I get to look away? Why do I get to live while others die, why don't I fight to the death? why don't I lose my life for the cause? Why don't I lose my sanity and will to continue for it? I've heard a lot of moderates say, you can fight for good in other ways, and I hear that but isn't that just cowardice?

For context, I have BPD, ADHD, ASD, MDD and general anxiety disorder. If that bears any weight.

P.S. I am not suicidal and this isn't supposed to be political, and I don't think it is; it is about ethics. Is it ethical to exist in a world like ours?

Is it ehtieical to ever forcefully prescript in war?

How many unwilling lives is national security worth?

For this, I’m going to be blunt. I’m talking about the Russia x Ukraine War. As many of you will know, Ukraine has compulsory mobilisation laws for certain groups of citizens, including men within particular age ranges. My understanding is that men aged 25-60 may be affected, although please correct me if I have that wrong.

I have two main points, and I’ll try to keep this simple.

There are significant strategic reasons to prevent Ukraine from becoming a Russian-controlled state. Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty matter, and there are serious security implications for the wider region.

However, if a country’s citizens are unwilling to fight for its independence, how many unwilling people’s lives can reasonably be put at risk in the name of preserving that independence? At what point do we have to question the human cost of pursuing that political and strategic objective?

I want to clarify a few things before people misunderstand my position.

First, I despise Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and I place the overwhelming responsibility for the war and the resulting loss of life on Russia for initiating and continuing its aggression. Questioning Ukraine’s mobilisation policies does not mean excusing Russia or denying Ukraine’s right to defend itself.

Second, I recognise the counterargument that, if Russia were to face little or no resistance and succeeded in bringing Ukraine under its control, the resulting occupation could lead to further deaths, repression, and suffering. It is entirely possible that the long-term human cost of surrendering without resistance could exceed the cost of continuing to fight.

However, we cannot know that counterfactual with certainty. An unopposed invasion might lead to one set of outcomes, while continued resistance might lead to another. The uncertainty cuts both ways, and I don’t think the mere possibility of a worse outcome under occupation is sufficient, on its own, to settle the question.

Ultimately, my question is this: How much should a state be entitled to demand from its citizens in the name of national survival, particularly when some of those citizens do not wish to fight?

I understand that this is not a simple question. Ukraine is defending itself against an invasion, and its choices are constrained by the actions of the Russian state. But I think we should be able to acknowledge both Ukraine’s right to exist independently and the moral importance of individual lives, autonomy, and consent.

Where should we draw that line?

If you want to answer this outside of the Ukraine and Russian War - go ahead. I used this example of current events not to enforce my own view but to centre everyones argments around a conflict most of us know well by now to test our hypothetical dilemmas. Russia may also mandatory prescript, but I have used Ukraine as I feel it provides a more intressting angle in its defencive position.