I'm referring specifically to dosing people against their consent. And, more specifically, I'm not talking about dosing innocent people. I'm thinking, oh, Nazis? So there's this whole punching Nazis thing going on right now. While it sounds satisfying, I don't believe it actually solves the problem. I'm wondering what a good dose might do for them...
This is purely academic. I'm not actually gonna go out and do something like this. And it's something I've never done or believed in. But, fuck, man, maybe some people just need it. If some people can't be reached with ration and love, then maybe they just need to be catapulted to Saturn to realize how small they are.
The "Dose Trump" bumper stickers that have been popping up come to mind.
So I have considered myself almost an absolute pacifist almost my whole life. I got in 3 or 4 fights as a teenager, but I always regretted them afterward. I enjoy recreational sparring with boxing gloves with willing opponents, but that's purely for sport and I always adhere to strict rules of engagement. I have never believed in violence as an effective problem solving method.
However, with the recent events in the United States, I am starting to believe that the fascists among us cannot be reasoned or bargained with. I wish we could but I just don't think they're open to it. The ideology of left wing groups such as Antifa have been intriguing me. There's just something so satisfying about the idea of punching a Nazi in the face. Of course this is all purely academic, but these are ideas I've been struggling with ethically recently.
Would love to read pieces from as many perspectives as possible. Thanks.
Say we have an individual named John. This man named John cannot feel empathy for other human beings. He could be said to suffer from antisocial personality disorder. In addition to this; John is quite an immoral human being.
Can you create an argument for John practicing moral behavior in the absence of any negative consequences for his immoral behavior? And by negative consequence; for example: Divine or Societal punishment, emotional distress or decreased well-being for the individual (John) committing the immoral act, etc.
And keep in mind that I mean that you are creating an argument in order to convince John not to act immorally; not just in principle.
In my opinion; in the case of this individual, no such appeal could be made to him in favor of acting morally in the absence of any tangible reward for his good behavior.
Let's say a civilization has the technological means of altering the perception of time or simulating beings, and you have incontrovertible proof that they were about to use this capacity to trap a sentient being into an eternal hell of the highest pain imaginable. In this case, I mean eternal in a literal sense: the subjective experience of the torture would never stop or diminish in its intensity from the perspective of the being. Essentially something more or less identical to the −∞ found in Pascal's Wager.
If the only method to prevent this were to eliminate every single person or trace of that civilization, would it be ethically permissible to do so under utilitarianism?
What if the proof were not incontrovertible? Would the mere nonzero probability of one being experiencing eternal torture also permit the destruction of the civilization? How low would the probability have to be for this to no longer be permissible given that it is the worst utilitarian outcome possible or imaginable for the single being involved?
What is the main theses and arguments in Stoic ethical theory?
First I will start with critiquing 2 PC arguments which will provide a basis for why this new argument is needed for PC group;
1. Critique of Judith Jarvis Thomas "Violinist" argument; So many may of heard JJTs' argument of disconnecting the Violinist. A. It asserts that ordinarily people would agree that the person has the right to unhook the biologically dependent violinist at the connwctor site, even if they die. B. However the issue with this is that ordinarily in abortion the umbiblical cord is not just cut, or the fetus is not simply gently unhooked via unhooking the placenta from the woman's blood supply. In a lot of abortion the fetus may be torn into pieces or ripped out piece by piece or suctioned out in a way that crushed the embryo/fetuses body. It is not a mere "disconnection of the connector zone". Second issue with the JJT argument is it does not link back to ethics and or laws already in place.
C. Conclusion; not a great argument because a lot of abortions ie suction aspiration and D and E are not a "disconnection of the connector zone", but rather a physical distruction of the ZEFs' actual body.
2. Critique of "Evictionist theory" by Walter Block; A. It asserts the woman's body/womb has 'property' rights and so she can 'evict' the fetus, but not specifically kill. B. Issue with this is, similarly to in the JJT critique, the ZEF is specifically killed in aspiration and D and E abortions and not merely gently removed. Second issue is bodily rights are not the same as property rights. Walter treats them the same which leads to problems when the same theory is applied to non-bodily property. Ie if a person is on your property according to Block you have a right to evict them instantly even if they would die due to outside conditions (ie blizard, drowning etc). Third issue is it provides no ethical guidelines for cases where the fetus would be delivered on border of viability and would suffer and die. Or from genetic disabiloty and deformations. Block seems to assert that these fetuses should be delivered live and just allowed to suffer until their eventual death. C. Conclusion; not a great argument because a lot of abortions are not a "mere eviction", but the zef dies from physical damage in D and E or suction. Also serious ethical issues for 20+lmp fetuses.
New Argument - Stopping Unwanted Contact/Self defence, with Ethical Considerations for ZEF; The New Argument attempts to amend issues with the previous 2 arguments o
... keep reading on reddit ➡This week's episode of the Troubles Podcast is about the life of Freddie Scappaticci.
During the Troubles, the PIRA had a massive problem with informers and leaks.
It became so widespread, that they set up a new unit to deal with it. This unit was known as the Internal Security Unit, which had the nickname The Nutting Squad. Their job was to find informers, and then violently execute them.
Freddie Scappaticci was selected to lead the group, who was a reputable republican from the markets area. The IRA had a fatal blindness when recruiting Scappaticci, they believed that because of all the violent acts he had committed, there is no way the British Army would recruit him.
There are many questions raised in this episode:
Did the British Security Services allow agents to die, in order for Scappaticci to live?
Did the British Army use his information to stage 'shoot to kill' situations with the PIRA?
Why wasn't Scappaticci killed by the PIRA?
You can listen to the episode by searching 'The Troubles Podcast' wherever you get your podcasts. Cheers
I am already a vegan because it's better for the environment and supporting some kinds of animal abuse but avoiding eating meat is logically inconsistent. Regardless of this I don't really get the ethical arguments. People angrily talking about murdering animals sound like lunatics to me. I can't really understand why people care so much about animals (admittedly I have this problem in all spheres of life and can't understand people having hobbies or interests), and the ethical arguments bounce off me. Honestly I feel like a shitty person because honestly I'd love to be able to get upset about important things like this, and I'm hoping someone can explain the ethics to me a bit better. It would be interesting to see if I'm as dead inside as I'm telling myself or should I just give up vegan since clearly my heart and soul isn't as passionate as everyone else so I'm a fraud. Thanks.
Aside from the climate issues, more so the arguments of speciesism and the idea that killing a sentient animal is wrong.
There has been a litany of posts and comments on this subreddit elaborating why OPs think that ethical investing is ineffective and just a feel good virtue signalling thing latte sipping folk do. I thought I'd dispel the notion (in some small way) that ESG investing makes no impact.
>Certainly, asset owners and institutional investors who are shunning the [fossil fuels] sector do not appear to be budging on the ESG commitments and are instead playing the long game, steering clear of a sector that is already seeing capital costs rise due to a lack of support from lenders and investors and will see demand fall over the long term. They have no shortage of clean energy investment opportunities to chase.
https://www.afr.com/chanticleer/gas-powered-trade-surplus-shows-markets-esg-conundrum-20211005-p58xgi
While, of course, the impact of any one person is far less than an institutional investor, to say that there is no impact of an ethical investor on the company that is not being purchased (i.e. some polluting or otherwise disagreeable firm) is patently false. Institutional investors are also driven by public sentiment, and ethical investing on a personal level is one expression or metric of that.
When dogs are bred to have flat noses or otherwise extreme proportions, they usually have physical health problems as a result. Either the dog has to rely on human assistance and human technology in order to be comfortable, or the dog inevitably suffers.
When sheep are bred to have extreme amounts of wool and are unable to move around as a result, they sometimes starve to death or are killed by predators. Either the sheep has to rely on human assistance and human technology in order to be comfortable, or the sheep inevitably suffers.
Why do you condemn breeding dogs for human enjoyment, but support breeding sheep for human enjoyment? I'd like you to name a real trait that differentiates dogs and sheep enough such that human enjoyment outweighs animal suffering in one example but not the other.
According to Erich, (2004) “Organ donation” is defined as the taking away of tissue from one individual’s body to let the transplantation of that tissue into another individual’s body.
Friend pulled a fast one on me the other day and asked me to prove that cutting is unethical.
I cited deontology with "using your own body as a means rather than an end" as well as CST (I know, boooo) and natural law with "the preservation of life is an ultimate good." Also talked about Aristotle's eudaimonia and virtues. Ended with my own personal end-all-be-all belief that relationships are the most important part of life and self-harm undermines them.
Probably should've used an anti-hedonism argument that relief from pain/pleasure is not necessarily the human telos.
Neither of us was really satisfied with my limited arguments. My Ethics teacher provided very little insight, unfortunately.
Disclaimer: I actually believe that it is unethical to coerce anyone into vaccination, but I'm going to steel man myself with some very valid points. If you have a counter-argument, add a comment.
Coerced vaccination is a hot topic, especially with many WEIRD countries plateauing in their vaccination efforts and large swathes of the population being either vaccine-hesitant or outright resistant. Countries like France are taking a hard stance with government-mandated immunity passports being required to enter not just large events/gatherings, but bars, restaurants, cafes, cinemas, and public transport. As you'd expect (the French love a good protest), there's been a large (sometimes violent) backlash. I think it's a fascinating topic worth exploring - I've certainly had a handful of heated debates over this within my friend circle.
First, let's define coercion:
"Coercion is the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats."
As with most things, there's a spectrum. Making vaccination a legal requirement is at the far end, with the threat of punitive measures like fines or jail time making it highly-coercive. Immunity passports are indirectly coercive in that they make our individual rights conditional upon taking a certain action (in this case, getting vaccinated). Peer pressure is trickier. You could argue that the threat of ostracization makes it coercive.
For the sake of simplicity, the below arguments refer to government coercion in the form of immunity passports and mandated vaccination.
A Steel Man argument in support of coerced vaccination
- Liberté, égalité, fraternité - There's a reason you hear anti-vaxx protesters chant 'Liberte, Liberte, Liberte' - conveniently avoiding the full tripartite motto. Liberty, equality, fraternity. You can't have the first two without the third. Rights come with responsibility, too. While liberty (the right to live free from oppression or undue restriction from the authorities) and equality (everyone is equal under the eyes of the law) are individualistic values, fraternity is about collective wellbeing and solidarity - that you have a responsibility to create a safe society that benefits your fellow
And into politics
Mainly, The Veganosphere/Vegetarianosphere.
When dealing with the topic, the most prevalent issue with animal product consumption (to my knowledge) is the ethics behind the slaughter of Animals.
The sentience argument of veganism is roughly that plants aren't sentient enough to feel pain, and ergo are fine to consume. Animals, do. But, I find this generally assumes that sentience is only possible with a mammalian nervous system, despite plants reacting just as much to "painful" stimuli as animals (without moving, obviously)
There are other ways to process information that don't include nerves, eyes, ears, etc. and whenever someone says "plants don't feel pain", the only accurate way I can come to interpret that is "they don't feel pain in the way animals do".
Which leads to the quandary: Is the Plant version of a 'pain response' as valid as the Animal one?
I don't know how heavy/sticky this topic is, especially in regards of rule 4, but I thought I'd try here to start a discussion without angry arguing back and forth
Here are some reasons to which you can use to justify eating from 'ethical local farms' is not in fact an ethical choice.
**Disclaimer - this is intended to help educate you/others and nudge them towards veganism, NOT to be used to discourage people from making any attempt to reduce factory farmed animal products.
Reasons:
1. To actually profit and sustain the business, farm owners often have to use these methods: Checking the pregnancy, branding, tagging and tattooing, castrating, dehorning, and finally slaughter. In addition, whenever their Is a profit motive, animals will be seen as a resource which inevitable means farmers can rid of unprofitable,sick, injured animals instead of trying to help them. Also, the living conditions of these animals vary by farm and unless u live next to every farm you purchase from you won't be certain it lives up to be this "ethical" haven you hope it is. Lastly, even if every single condition was perfect, these animals still can't all live great lives filled with joy and exploration. The closest that happens is at animal sanctuaries where they get to live out decent lives.
2. Not scalable, no potential to induce a global shift in food production change like veganism can.
3. Huge inefficiencies
Livestock takes up nearly 80% of global agricultural land, yet produces less than 20% of the world’s supply of calories (UN Food and Agriculture Organisation)
Here are the calories of feed to calories produced ratios
Poultry – Calories – 11%
Pigs – Calories – 10%
Cows/Beef – Calories – 1%
Source: World Resources Institute (w/UN & WB): Creating a Sustainable Food Future, p.37
Another analysis using 5 sources: "All plant-based crops (soybeans, dry beans, dry peas, lentils, wheat, and sunflower seeds) yield more calories (kcal) per acre than even the most productive animal product (chicken)"
AVERAGE PLANT CROP CALORIES PER ACRE: 4 million AVERAGE ANIMAL CALORIES PER ACRE: 500,000
You can provide so much more food to people with lower cost with non animal farms.
4. Environmentally destructive, large areas of natural land are cleared, Animal agriculture is also responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. ("Livestock's Long Shadow: environmental issues and options". Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome 2006)
Grass-fed cattle also emit 3x more methane than crop-fed cattle. Instead, CO2 can be absorbed from plants and requires mu
... keep reading on reddit ➡.
It’s a bone of contention in my house how the name of this biscuit is actually pronounced.
Personally I pronounce it Nice, however my wife wrongly insisted insists it’s pronounced Nice. So which is it. Nice or Nice?
If it helps my mother says it’s Nice; however my sister disagrees and claims it’s pronounced Nice.
Everytime I see someone make an argument of "we were here first!" (from any of the sides) or "this the right thing to do morally" I laugh a little.
Let's think realistically. Does it really matter what's right? No,what matters is the current situation and what are people willing to do about it.
It doesn't matter who was where first or what happened 70 years ago,1000 years ago, 2000 years ago, what matters who is where now and the current balance of power. Dredging up the past won't take you anywhere.
Do you agree with this line of thinking?
The conclusion being that existence with positive utility is preferable to non existence AND, that it is a good to bring beings within these circumstances into existence
Now that Brexit has made it more expensive to buy from ethical/sustainable brands from the UK, what are some brands that people have tried that they love?
I had an interesting conversation with someone who told me that he would not want to invest in index funds because he thinks that a fund which contains so many companies must contain some companies which engage in activities that go against his beliefs.
He is Muslim so for him it would mean not wanting to support companies which produce alcohol, tobacco, weapons, etc. It's not that he thinks consuming alcohol or smoking makes you a bad person, but just that as it is frowned upon in his religion he doesn't want to support it.
I did a bit of research and found that there are some index funds which are catered to Muslims - which I find interesting. Also makes me wonder if there are funds for vegetarians, environmentally conscious people, etc.
I was just wondering, are there any people here which purposely invest in funds like this - or have similar ethical qualms about indexing?
This is an old thread I made in r/TalkTherapy, in which I wrote about my difficulty accessing therapy and my frustrations with it as an unemployed, low-income person with DID, and asked therapists for their input. I didn't feel like I got much of anything useful out of it, and that it was mostly people chiding me for being mean to therapists, or showing some sympathy, but offering no solutions or making suggestions that I know won't work because I've already tried them.
https://www.reddit.com/r/TalkTherapy/comments/ne9j4x/how_is_it_ethical_to_raise_rates_or_not_take/
I know this is very long, especially if you read every comment, but I was wondering what the people here think about what I wrote and the responses and back-and-forth I got. I'm in a much better place now than I was then (I even have a job!), but it's because I resigned myself to never seeking therapy again and ignoring everyone who told me it was necessary, or who said that I shouldn't address my mental health issues myself without the guidance of a therapist.
she said she’s politically neutral when it comes to china and america but goes on to quote anti-china propaganda from western mainstream media. she truly believes that talking about the tiananmen square incident will get you arrested and killed, or the fact that she thinks the heavy surveillance in china means the government is tracking your every move and every action at all time. in retrospect, seeing how she constantly puts the UK on a pedestal im honestly not surprise how anti-china she is. But I don’t blame her, anti-china propaganda runs rampant in the news, its only normal she comes to believe these lies. I’m just a tad disappointed because she genuinely thinks she’s being “politically neutral” it’s honestly laughable. I know this sounds ridiculous but I don’t think I can look at her the same way anymore and I don’t know what to do. have anyone of you encountered anything alike before?
For those rationalizing like I did for so long (and still do on bad days), here is an argument I have come up with for the irrationality of M (Masturbation) for any Christian that is based on the general structure laid out by Michael Rota's version of Pascal's Wager:
-
If M has ~50% chance or higher of being wrong, then it is irrational to engage in M.
-
M has ~50% chance or higher of being wrong.
-
Therefore, it is irrational to engage in M.
Defending P1:
This premise seems virtually undeniable to me. If we engage in M and it is wrong, then we notably decrease our chances at salvation by living in persistent sin, and we interfere with the most important goal in our lives (becoming Christlike), and furthermore we risk falling into additional moral vices (pornography, objectification, etc). With all this in mind, it seems that so long as the odds of M being wrong are at least 50/50, it would be utterly irrational to engage in M for the finite enjoyment it may bring. Consider this analogy: If you were given a coin that would significantly decrease your chances at infinite utility and stop you from fulfilling your life purpose if it landed on heads, and would give you finite pleasure and release from tension if it landed on tails, would you flip it? The obvious answer is no, you would be irrational to flip the coin.
Defending P2:
-
Argument from Catholicism: The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly condemns masturbation: "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action." "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved." Even if the likeliness of Catholicism being true isn't particularly high (say 20%) and if it's true then there's a 90% chance that M is wrong, then we have already reached ~18% likeliness that M is wrong, which means that we only need 32% likeliness on Protestantism/Orthodoxy to reach 50%.
-
Argument from Orthodoxy: Although I have no Catechism to cite here, from what I understand Eastern Orthodoxy and the Orthodox tradition is also largely in
I’ve been vegan for over a year now and am firmly against animals being needlessly killed and harmed. Despite this my confidence on the ethics of hunting remains poor. So out of curiosity I’m just gonna put some of my thought on screen and hopefully some of you can give me your opinions. With modern animal farming animals are born specifically to be killed, so by ending this industry the needless deaths of animals will also stop. With hunting the animals already exist and are almost certain to face a terrible death of mauling, strangulation, bleeding etc… at the hands of a wild predator. Could hunting(with a rifle) then be seen as a form of euthanasia?
It seems obvious to me that hunters should leave the body of the animal where it lies, that way a predator can eat it and not need to kill another animal. By eating the body hunters are practically dooming a prey animal to be mauled by a predator. If this practice was stopped what else would make hunting unethical?
That sounds to me like a moral anti-realist and preference utilitarian stance. How come it is used like a base argument for moral realism?
Im against it but my college "debating skills" subject requires me to be for torture in case national security is threatened. Please give me something apart from the "ticking bomb" scenario.
