Let’s say a Jewish person asks you how a conversation went with another Jewish person, who acted like a jerk to you—perhaps even after you got referred to them by the first Jewish person.
How do you deal with telling the truth (or at least not telling a lie) without committing lashon hara?
Isn’t it an aveira to say only good things, because doing so might lead the person to refer more people in the jerk’s direction?
Yet isn’t it lashon hara and also an aveira to harm a Jew by speaking badly about them—especially when they aren’t around to defend themselves?
Really curious to get the sub's thoughts on this. It deals with ethics, science, and abortion which are all issues Sam had addressed (for that one guy whose always like 'What does this have to do with Sam Harris'). So after the TX abortion law passed, Richard Hanania tweeted out the following:
"You can’t screen for Down syndrome before about 10 weeks, and something like 80% of Down syndrome fetuses are aborted. If red states ban abortion, we could see a world where they have five times as many children with Down syndrome, and similar numbers for other disabilities." More here https://twitter.com/RichardHanania/status/1433288552498929670
Hanania is hard to peg politically. I'd say anti-PC libertarian might be the best descriptor. Anyway, the tweet received massive backlash with people calling Hanania a eugenicist and attacking him with various stories of their fulfilling relationships with people who have Down's syndrome. He has said that he was not calling for abortion in the case of a fetus with Down's syndrome but merely noting the implications of the law. Some of the attacks are coming from pro-life people which is no surprise but many are also coming from pro-choice people.
This I find strange. If you think it's fine for a woman to, say, get an abortion because she's 23 years old and wants to start a career and travel or simply not raise a kid with the man who impregnated her or what have you, then why is it not fine for her to get an abortion because of the massive burden that would come with raising a child with Down's syndrome?
It's also notable that Hanania had few defenders and yet, if he's correct, 80 percent of people do indeed chose to abort a fetus with Down's Syndrome. Are 80 percent of those people crypto-eugenicists? This seems to be a case of massive social desirability bias, kind of like when you ask people 'Would a potential romantic partner's income be a factor for you' and everyone says not at all or only a little when we know in reality this is a major factor, at least for women (the 'at least for women' being another un-PC thing to say).
None of this is to say I can't imagine counterarguments to the idea that it is right to abort a Down's fetus or even against abortion generally, only that there's a lot of hypocrisy here. It seems to be that Sam's whole project of having difficult conversations is really quite hard given that few people are willingly to publicl
... keep reading on reddit ➡
The recent post about schools with "nice" students reminds me of this piece based on surveys filled out by MBA students and alumni for Businessweek's latest ranking. Agree or disagree with these findings? https://poetsandquants.com/2021/11/18/ranking-business-schools-by-teamwork-social-impact-and-ethics/
Have you guys seen this trend, as well?
- A Quiet Exodus: Why Black Worshipers Are Leaving White Evangelical Churches
- How Black Lives Matter is changing the church
The PCUSA had ECO split off over LGBTQ ethics, and I've been seeing a lot of BIPOC folks leaving PCA circles due to lack of taking social justice and antiracism seriously as a component of the Gospel, etc.
I'd be curious if there are other articles observing this same trend, etc.
It came to my mind again because a black minister friend of mine from divinity school just announced that his church had voted to leave the PCA, and I resigned and left my pastoral staff position at a PCA church this past spring. Abe Cho at Redeemer NYC left his position, although he was less forthright about it strictly being about these themes -- but he did say the transition would afford him the ability to do more justice-oriented ministerial work in the city.
John Piper's church has been roiled with multiple pastors resigning, and while the chief concern there is toxic elder leadership, there are also concerns and reports about these same surrounding themes:
>In 2019, the church set up a Racial Harmony Task Force and hired an outside expert to explore race issues. An 85-page report was presented to the church’s 40-member elder council but was never shared with church members. Taskforce members say the church never took any action on the report’s findings, in part because some of the 36 white elders on the council complained it was too “Marxist” and “woke.” Now, some task force members are among those in the exodus from Bethlehem.
>Howard said his visit at Bethlehem made it “abundantly clear” that Bethlehem had “challenges” surrounding race issues. He added that prior to coming to Bethlehem, he had spoken with several Black pastors in Minneapolis, who all referred to Bethlehem as a “white church within a Black space that doesn’t actually
... keep reading on reddit ➡
Social media ethics post
Posting here since r/psychotherapy doesn’t even allow unflaired users to post anymore.
Question for psychologists on the subreddit
Hello everyone,
I have begun becoming interested in writing up something for publication on ethics in social media for psychologists.
I’m curious what people’s thoughts are on the ethics of using various social media sites? I will clarify that I am specifically really only referring to ethics of psychologists in the U.S. (APA code).
In particular, I always see posts like “therapist here! Feel free to send a private message if you’d like to chat!” Or something like this. I am wondering what the ethics code perspective is on this sort of behavior.
I also am wondering how people see the ethics code applies to other more general posts on social media sites and Reddit posts and things like that.
In looking at the APA code- you see things like code 5.01 and 5.04 on media presentations and advertising. Some of these could be interpreted in applying to social media as a function of “public comment” or something in this line. I think in particular for those that promote a “message me to talk about your problems” sort of message it becomes particularly tricky as this clearly could be seen as implying a sort of relationship maybe? But it still is unclear, as if you actually look at the ethics code they took out the part about stating it’s not a professional relationship and actually now you just should not indicate a professional relationship has been developed. This obviously is much more lenient.
The real kicker though is in the beginning of the ethics code it states that this only applies to psychologists ij their professional roles. This would mean that technically you can give public comment on anything you want and even state in that comment “I’m a psychologist” and as long as you don’t indicate you’re having a professional relationship you could make the argument that you’re not acting in your professional role, no? It far too vague for this reason and is unclear to the extent that I feel like the apa code loses all of its teeth because in the description of professional role it doesn’t actually say public comment. As such it would seem to me that unless you’re providing comment in a news article or radio show where this is a clear Connection to “public policy” or “public service” as a function of indicating that you are attempting to help in the public (for example you go and provide an outreac
... keep reading on reddit ➡are sociopaths pure choas who threw their life aways every day and care about nothing.
are sociopath pure evil or do they have good inside them
So, apparently there's now a "challenge" on social media for force-free trainers to get some money by training a dog with predatory aggression towards livestock to no longer be so. More-or-less as a slight against force-free training and act as a reason why e-collars shouldn't be banned in the UK. Somebody mentioned that the lobbying group ARDO is funding it, but I'm not quite sure.
Thankfully, most groups have just ignored it at the risk of balanced/compulsion trainers mockery, but this brings up a number of ethical concerns to me, not just with the training style but the ethics of allowing a dog with a history of aggression towards livestock make contact with them.
In order to win this challenge, you would have to:
-
Have a dog who has been put in a situation to have injured livestock before.
-
Have a dog at some point who has possibly injured or killed livestock before come into contact with them again.
-
Being willing to leave a dog alone at a location with known predatory aggression with livestock, with livestock, because apparently most dogs are mostly at risk after breaking out of their yards due to lack of supervision.
-
Be a person who prioritizes off-leash around livestock over the wellbeing of the livestock with a dog who has already shown predatory aggression.
-
Be willing to do all the above for money and to prove somebody else wrong for the sake of promoting your training method.
-
Support an unethical challenge by an unethical person who is making bets that their punishment history is greater than the self-rewarding predatory behavior, which risks their own dog's wellbeing and the livestock in question.
So, here's my contribution for this challenge with my dog with a predatory history against rodents (he's killed mice in my yard). If your dog attacks livestock or risks hurting other animals try this method, and it has a guarantee to keep all parties safe.
So, on that note, what are your ethics here with a dog with past predatory behavior? What is the line where ethics comes in where something should be managed vs trained?
I left school some years ago (was majoring in political science) due to mental health difficulties, etc. But, I'm ready to go back and finish (most likely with a degree in economics instead, but I'm still deciding). My ultimate goal is to complete a Masters in Public Administration as I have a passion for understanding all the "boring" parts of how government bureaucracy works. But, I haven't decided in what specific role or capacity I'd like to work in public administration. I'm especially drawn to the armed services and the DoD for some reason, and the State Department. My interests may seem a bit broad, but I'm genuinely interested in all of these areas: social justice & ethics, sustainable economic development, foreign languages & foreign relations, accounting/auditing & logistics and supply chain management. I'm still trying to narrow focus and decide which of these I want to spend the rest of my life specializing in, but it's so difficult to do when you haven't been able to get any real-life exposure or experience in any of these fields. I don't want to go all-in on an auditing career and waste time (at the already advanced age of 30) majoring in accounting, etc. only to find out that it's not what I thought it would be. How can I narrow down this list a bit? And most importantly, how can I get SOME job experience, ANY job experience in public administration that'll be relevant/applicable to ANY of these focus areas while I make up my mind?
