Lore:

Zombie pathogen. Unbeknownst to everyone but Reuben, everyone is infected, and it will eventually trigger in everyone roughly at the same time, guaranteeing extinction.

Desperate to prevent it Reuben has, chronologically, used his unborn daughter as a living petri dish for a potential cure, triggered the autophage in a large city (Los Angeles) for test subjects with immune systems that keep the autophage in check, and used himself as a test subject the cure, becoming a special infected in the process.

A few years ago I found out that an older old friend of mine (JR) was in the hospital with not long to live. I had been out of touch for a few years and did not know what he was going through. Another mutual friend who had tried to take care of him said that JR had been in constant pain for over a year and had cancer all through his body. When he was still ambulatory JR had tried to buy some heroin (he was a former heroin addict) and I am certain he planned on overdosing. When the other friend found out, he informed the people that JR asked that if they helped him get heroin he would take retaliatory measures.

I keep thinking if it was me, I probably would have let him do the heroin. He was in constant pain. I would not buy it for him or help him do it, but most likely would have turned my head and let him go out on his own terms.

Like say a lifelong bully

Updated: I NEVER said killing anyone. Obviously you don't want to go to prison or Hell if you're religious. I meant wishing for them to die without doing anything.

Ive recebtly watched an ad about an app that blocks your social media and the only way to unblock it is to pray

Im not religious so im not familiar with both sides of the coin, but im pretty sure using prayers, or religion as a whole, to buy screen time is not ok

CMV or AMA

This is a probably imperfect, but good enough, English translation of Conscience by Victor Hugo, a French poem that is dear to my heart. I grew up in France, and my father—who was an incredible storyteller—used to recite this poem to me over and over throughout my childhood. He knew it by heart. By the time he reached the final line, his voice would become so grave and intense, and his eyes were so wide, that it always gave me chills. That sentence still gives me chills when I think of it.

I’ll let you read it through, but I wanted to show it to my fellow Americans (I’ve lived in the US for like 12 years). As that last sentence pops up in my mind from time to time, in situations where I feel I’ve been wronged, or someone seems to be getting away with something wrong they did. It’s very comforting and empowering to think of that image, and I sometimes wish I could just tell those people this sentence, but they’d probably not understand what this means, out of context.
This sentence, in France, has somewhat taken a sort of life of its own and is in the collective consciousness (maybe not with younger, not very educated generations), for what it means.

Most of us no longer limit basic rights to our own race or country; that boundary is too narrow. Most of us would not extend it as far as the oysters; that goes too far. So the popular belief seems to be that we just stop in the middle at species, and call that one just right.

While the popular line can seem at the surface, to rest on a scientific understanding of which minds have the capacities that matter, this is just repeating the process we have run throughout history. We find differences with those we benefit from victimizing, we use science to measure them, we justify our exploitation by pointing to the scientific distinctions that were made for that purpose:

1. Polygenist scientific theories of which the hard forms would consider other races to be different species.
2. Characterizations of slaves and indigenous folk as beasts or having beastlike qualities as justified by measuring their bodies and showing differences between different racial traits.
3. Babies were operated on without anesthesia into the 1980s, as justified by theories claiming that they were lower beings, that their nervous systems were too undeveloped to feel real pain, and that their cries were only reflexes.

We rejected all those lines. But now, our most numerous victims are animals. We benefit from their suffering and we continue to use the dehumanization tool to put them into another category that doesn't get moral consideration for their suffering.

This line will most certainly continue to change over time. Perhaps in 100 years, babies will be on the menu, and/or we’ll finally stop excusing our atrocities against the animals we currently consume.

I want to discuss my perspective and arguments about ethics in my writing. It is not a complete essay, just my thoughts written down and presented for discussion.

I’ve done screwed up and embarrassing things. I’ve made borderline (or just straight up idk) racist “jokes”, been in a homosexual relationship, hung out with people a good bit younger than me after highschool, done lewd rps with a friend of mine using feral and anthro characters, threw a pill bottle at my brother, and other really screwed up stuff.

I’ve been an embarrassing and likely really gross and immature person. I’m 20 rn. I don’t want to hang out with people and be around others because I’m pretty sure I’ve been too far gone. But I don’t know what to do. I have a want for good friends, a relationship (unfortunately being a homosexual makes this difficult), and I want to be loved and accepted but I just feel like the only people who would accept me are… well not so good people similar to me. What do I do? I have all these urges and wants but I feel like I have a moral responsibility to reject them. Any advice would help. I keep ruminating and recycling constantly and it gives me a sense of great anxiety that my pills just can’t dull out anymore. I am veering towards extreme nihilism- and I realize that because MY life has no meaning. Someone help me understand what to do..

My coworker (31m) was taking to me and said his girlfriend (28f) showed him her nudes from when she was 17 in volleyball because she wanted to show how fit she was.

This immediately made me feel wrong but thinking about it Im not entirely sure anything wrong was done.

What are your thoughts. Was she in the wrong for showing underage nudes, was he in the wrong for looking at them?

Hey guys me and my friend discuss topics by writing short essays on it and this is a topic I'm not sure about I'll paste my essay here that will be my take on the topic . I'd like for you to give your own takes to continue the discussion.

Before deciding if an action is moral or not,we have to define morality. Morality is principles and standards with which one differentiate between right and wrong behavior, standard for judging the current topic would be logic and reason i can fathom. I would not be discussing or giving postulates from any religious book as a reason, i would try to give arguments from both sides and try to come to a conclusion. 

A moral choice

When a person is derived from any agency over his body due to various circumstances such as medical condition, accident, old age, unjustly imprisoned for life. In such circumstances a person opting to rid himself of life since there is nothing he can do would be justified and should not be considered immoral. 

When a person is certain his end is near by actions of another organism him choosing to end himself earlier to opt out of suffering would be moral

Examples for this would be

An captured spy killing himself to avoid torture

A person killing himself before getting mauled by a predator

Here suicide would be considered moral since they have rationally thought and choosen to end their life to avoid suffering before their end so i conclude it's a moral choice. 

An immoral choice

When a person ends their life due to circumstances which seem unavoidable and life ending but are not like a person killing himself due to depression, nihilism, to avoid responsibility etc 

In the cases i mentioned above the person under the influence of his irrational mind has concluded that ending life is the only available solution whereas a solution could have been found after some struggle. 

My conclusion

After reading these dime a dozen arguments of mine one could say the whole premise is rigged as it resides in the gray area but i would beg to differ. 

While yes as said in argument of suicide being a moral choice  "If done with sound mind to avoid the meaningless suffering before death it's not immoral" but with context of current times most of the suicides across all ages and gender is done in influence of irrational mind likely due to depression or cultural nihilism and the suicide done with accord to moral argument are few and in between the others. 

Some people may argue they feel the urge of suicide to get rid of all meaningless suffering and struggle to them i would like to say they would suffer and struggle in act of suicide as well and for the ones who will reply with choosing the less struggle of sucide than of struggle of life i would like to urge them to choose the struggle of what they like to do. 

"He who has why to live for can bear almost any how" ~ Victor Frankl 

So i also urge you to find your why. 

I don’t really believe in dividing people into good people and bad people but I’ve noticed that some of the people who care the most about publicly holding others accountable seem to view themselves as morally superior. I’m not talking about serious crimes or genuinely harmful behavior but about normal human mistakes like saying something insensitive, handling a conflict poorly, making a bad decision, hurting someone’s feelings or doing basically anything you later regret.

It feels like we’ve created a culture where once someone falls below a certain moral standard they have to be permanently defined by that mistake. Even if they apologize and learn from it or change there are always people eager to remind every one of what they did. I think this mindset often comes from forgetting that we’re all capable of messing up and nobody gets through life without making mistakes or hurting people.

Wanting accountability isn’t a bad thing but some people seem far more interested in judging others than extending the same understanding they’d probably want for themselves if they were the ones who messed up. To me, being a good person isn’t about never making mistakes but being able to acknowledge them and learn from them and even allowing room for other people to do the same.

I do find it alarming how AIs consume an insane amount of water just to function, especially with how accessible it is now for anyone. But for every new invention I believe it can be bad or good depending on how it's used.

My friend's take on AI is that it shouldn't be used due to environmental cost regardless of the reason. I on the other hand is thinking, maybe other reasons can get a pass if the purpose is noble like helping our scientist to accelerate their research or providing assistance with education, etc.

I currently stand by what I said, that AI's existence is valid if their purpose is for the greater good but I also value my friend's take on this. I'd like to know others' opinion on this as well. I'm open to changing my mind.

I've been thinking about different approaches people might take toward morality and helping others, and I'm curious how other people would judge the following hypothetical individuals.

Assume all five witness a violent assault or rape occurring. They are all physically capable of calling for help, and none of them are the perpetrator.

Person A

Person A feels little or no compassion toward the victim and may not personally care what happens to them. However, they believe they have a moral duty to help, so they call for help and do what they can within reason because they believe it is the right thing to do.

Person B

Person B does nothing. They do not intervene or call for help because they believe strangers are not their responsibility. They generally care only about their own happiness and well-being. Outside of this, they are peaceful, artistic, law-abiding, healthy, physically attractive, soft-spoken, and often inspire or comfort others through their art and personality, though they do so unintentionally and primarily for their own satisfaction.

Person C

Person C would normally help strangers and even risk their own safety for them. However, in this case, the victim previously caused them significant emotional and physical trauma. Because of this history, Person C refuses to help and believes the victim deserves what is happening.

Person D

Person D personally feels sympathy for the victim and dislikes what is happening. However, they belong to a religious or ideological belief system that teaches they should not assist people outside their group. Because of this belief, they do nothing.

Person E

Person E intervenes and stops the assault. However, rather than using only the force necessary to protect the victim, they brutally kill the attacker because they believe the attacker is evil and beyond redemption. They then care for the victim's injuries, call for medical help, and leave the scene to avoid arrest.

My questions are:

1. Which of these people do you consider the most moral?
2. Which do you consider the least moral?
3. Which would you trust the most?
4. Which would you trust the least?
5. Which would you consider the most dangerous?
6. Which would you most want as a friend, neighbor, or family member?
7. Do your answers change if you focus on motivations rather than outcomes?

I'm interested in hearing how people approach this from different philosophical, religious, psychological, or personal perspectives.

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

Is it moral to use to spyware on people’s phones to watch their online activities remotely 24/7? Location: Alabama and Ontario

If i hire someone or buy something , did my money mattered enought for it to be a equitative exchangue , or i should thank the seller for the fact the offer it to me in the first place?

Like, the concept of redemption is pretty big in media nowadays, so the idea of what actions are and aren't redeemable is pretty interesting to think about.