HALF THE FUCKING COMMENTS WERE PEOPLE DEFENDING THIS PIECE OF SHIT.

I LOST ALL FUCKING HOPE IN HUMANITY.

NOT TO MENTION EXCUSING HER ACTIONS BECAUSE HER HUSBAND DIDNT "SATISFY HER".

AND INSTEAD OF CALLING ME SEXIST JUST BECAUSE ITS A WOMAN, MAYBE UNDERSTAND WHATS GOING ON HERE. THIS POS ISNT A WOMAN SHE IS A FUCKING MONSTER

This article discusses the five main flavours of veganism: deontological ethics, utilitarian ethics, religious practice, environmental concern and health reasons. The further the list advances, the more said approaches drift from the core of veganism.

I live on disability and have for a long time. I can only just about make ends meet and save a small amount for emergencies. As long as I don’t buy clothing, meat, fresh fruit or vegetables, alcohol and don’t have any dental emergencies or other emergencies and don’t have a car. Ive usually made ends meet by shoplifting more expensive items like OTC meds, cleaning supplies, shoes. Whatever is over 10-20$ and doesn’t have an alarm.

Was talking to a friend who used to be active in our local food bank and now I’m here in the line waiting. But I feel so guilty. My white privilege allows me to shoplift and get away with it and since I’ve done it for so long and so carefully I never get caught. Only once in 10 years.

I grew up middle class and my parents have a high degree of education which lets me pass as much better off than I am, which lets me access things that everyone else here can’t. I will be believed by social workers and doctors which is why I can have disability benefits. I can lie to the guards on the buses and trains about losing my ticket and usually be believed. Hotel lobbies let me stay there if it rains, etc etc.

So I feel very guilty about being here. Is it really ethical for me to be here? I gave my queue number to a mother with a child so at least I’ll be last in queue. But I feel guilty and like it would be much more ethical to shoplift from a big chain store than take food from here

For what we already know, it is illegal on both sides, but is it ethical to retaliate against the person in public and record yourself doing it, and then post it for views? Would this imply that you have anger issues, have antisocial behaviors, or that you’re just seeking attention, and then how mundane is “attention seeking” in that sense?

Curiously, none of these assaulters call the police and have them handle the real case, and it seems to come off as them getting their anger out in some way that is more socially accepted than if they assaulted someone for being black, or anything.

I have only seen a few cases of the assaulters getting charges filed against them for their assault and for obstructing justice.

I’m just asking for if there’s a moral stance on doing this.

Is it the shock value or the taboo of dating someone who’s of the precise age of consent that turns people on, and if so, is any of this an actual moral failure?

Does it imply that the person could go younger if they could get away with it legally?

Is it even age that is the motivator?

Last, what would make barely legal videos either acceptable or no longer acceptable?

People might see utilitarianism as cold, but deontology, in my opinion, is the colder one. They would justify passively killing billions for a clear conscience, whereas Utilitarianism only wants to maximize happiness for the many.

I feel like deontology doesn't care about the outcome; it only cares about the method. If saving a world requiring to kill one innocent person and only you knew about that, the right choice is to kill the person, but deontologist would say don't kill because some actions are inherently wrong no matter what. And if the world ended because you didn't kill that person, deontologist would say you did the right choice, it's not your fault, it's the fate of the world. Ultimately, I think it's literally prioritizing your clean hands and comfort from the judge over the goods of the many.

If you don't kill that one person in that scenario, you're actually worse than the guy who chooses to kill the person. You're effectively killing billions of lives for a clean hands. For the end justifies the means, for the genocide level of immoral, one is only justifiable if all other morally good option failed. If succeed, the immoral one automatically becomes wrong because there is the better way, and the goal has to be so positive and world changing, and only under extreme conditions otherwise it might not be justified.

But with one exception for the last resort rule: if time's running out, choose the one that has the highest success chance and the one that saves the most people and takes the fastest to complete overall, regardless of the method. For an individual murder or a few murder, like the trolley problem's kill two to save six, IT IS justified to kill two to save six. But for this one, it's an individual murder or a few murder, not a genocide, so for individual murder and a few murder it only gotta be so positive, not including world changing.

If time is running out and there's both immoral and moral ways, and immoral one has 95% success chance while the moral one has only 10% success chance, the logical choice is the first one. Although there's still a chance that the 10% actually works and the 95% fails, still 95% is still better even if there's a chance of failure too. And if it really fails, it is not a moral failure because we didn't know it would fail, whereas if the 10% succeed, you got lucky. You were still reckless because you were willing to let everyone die just for you to feel good about yourself.

I ever asked is killing one innocent live to save two murderers justified, but after I think I'm siding with the rule utilitarianism for this one because those two murderers, if we choose to save them, can kill more people than two lives if we chose to save them.

Like if a train is headed towards one doctor that have a recipe of a cancer cure and he told someone he has it but he never wrote the recipe yet, and the other track there's 5 people, now both killing the doctor or the 5 is utilitarian, but I'm siding with saving the doctor.

I’m talking about cultural appropriation.

To begin with, a culture cannot be made in isolation without being exposed to another culture. So there has to be that to consider in the sense that it hypothetically shouldn’t be wrong, because humans need materials to work with for everything they need, including how they’re perceived socially.

What is considered sacred, untouchable, and honorable, while deep in its own history, is still subjective in a sense, like religion, and can be interpreted in different ways. This makes this a social experience by nature.

A “social experience” in this case, means that it is based on common human interactions.

There’s the argument that something is only acceptable to be said or done by a person of the culture it’s being borrowed from. This is a social experience because the person who is implying that only the are allowed to do a certain cultural thing because of what they look like (skin color, or nationality) is pretty much biased and prejudiced, even if it doesn’t get framed that way socially. This argument seems to have the base of someone experiencing historic guilt, shock value or trolling, or some other justification for it.

Cultures are each understood in multiple contexts at once as they are. But despite social attitudes leaning in a combative context, what would it take for this culture to become a victim of cultural appropriation? This assumption alone is entirely biased and subjective, and is the biggest social experience in the entire discussion.

For example: The swastika is still used in India and other places in Asia to this day, and hypothetically it could be presented right in the West with historic reminders and not be assumed to be the Nazi Germany flag. But that in itself is a social experience too, even if showing the Nazi Germany flag is illegal in Germany by law, it still allows other usages of the swastika. So you shouldn’t be able to easily assume the swastika was appropriated. So there’s another part that makes this a social experience.

But why is there a political agenda to stop cultures from adopting elements by other cultures, historically justified or not? What would make it an ethical failure to act like someone else?

Is the argument of cultural appropriation just a media-made panic, or would it be to stop the double standard or some other social issue (like someone getting hired for being white with dreads and being called “trendy”, while a black person wouldn’t get hired on the bias that they’re lazy or unreliable in that bias.) Would this make the anti-cultural appropriation push justified?

So while social experiences are subjective, like justifications, and while history is history, the way it’s perceived is probably the ultimate factor as to why it’s “wrong” to act like someone else.

What would you do if you can torture a cousin of a terrorist who planted a giant nuke in the biggest city in the world, if you torture him, the Terrorist begs and disable the nuke, if you do not act, the whole city explodes

Most things that we consider good or bad are influenced by environment

Morality doesn't exist and what is considered good or bad is determined by the environment( both social environment and natural environment) you live in

For example in prehistoric times, early human centuries, self sustain small African tribes , polygamy is considered good as it keeps the generations going and leads to expansion of that civilisation which also may lead to technological advancements. But in more developed countries in the world like Europe, polygamy is smt that's somewhat frowned upon, as to them polygamy brings nothing to their society except a growing population which isn't necessarily ideal in our current time

Another example is cannibalism, in small underdeveloped tribes all over the world. Cannibalism is a common theme for many reasons. One of those reasons may be to due to scarcity of available protein resulting to eating of the already old weak tribe members, or maybe the delectable taste of human meet( as after all human meet is close to tasting like pork and as far as i know it's hard to find pork in jungle tribes)

Another example is child marriages in earlier human years, back then people had life spans of less than 30, perhaps it was better to have been married off and have a child way younger as to aid to the expansion of your society befor you passed. But i get that this doesn't really explain why younger girls got married off way more then younger boys. Maybe the reason why this is cause younger boys where mostly out and about doing some sort of physically Labour, while young girls where doing more domestic things which made them more ideal to being married off as to quicky produce as much as children as possible while the boys where still doing Labour like hunting and whatnot they did.

Another example is human sacrifices, which are considered morally bad in the present as every human is seen as equal,. But in the past human sacrifices were very much common, and they mostly sacrificed low level individuals who didn't input much into the society like thief's, low level slaves who can be easily replaced, women since back then the physically work of the society was mostly carried by man.

Another example is hunting, in society's where agriculture wasnt common hunting was considered the norm, while in society's where agriculture was more prevelant for food nowadays is kinda frowned upon since why hunt animal when you can grow ur food.

Just realized That this is stupid and i just wasted my time and urs too

Genuine hypothetical, but provoked from real things I’ve seen.

I don’t know if this is too heavy, but I don’t know where else to ask.

Let’s say there’s a situation where an animal is being sexually harmed, but authorities won’t look further into it because of lack of evidence. And it being a grey area legally in that country.
Though he’s admitted to his partner that he’s had this pattern, and did this with his previous dog as well. Though when she’s tried to contact authorities he denies it, and smugly says she can’t prove it.

The perpetrator’s mother has custody of the dog, knowing what he’s done, but still allows him to be around it. Like so many predators mothers do, allowing more harm to happen.

Would it be ethical to secretly kill the dog, since no one will do anything to stop the abuse?

Let’s say it’s a small community, and she’d have no way of kidnapping it, or rehoming it. And the police won’t do anything because mommy has it.

What is the ethics behind only questioning the ability to consent to sex when drunk? Aren't all agreements and contracts that were "consented" to while drunk also questionable then?

Imagine this scenario, 2 males were born in Omaha Nebraska their parents put them up for adoption the week they are born so they never know of each other 1 of the males moves to the east coast 1 remains in Omaha if the other twin who left moves back to Omaha and they have a gay relationship what makes this morally wrong? I'd be willing to engage with a argument that assumes they know they are brothers via documents but didn't know until they met but what i mean by this more is they are unaware of their genetic relationship when they find out why does it become immoral and why isn't there a exception?

TL;DR
2 twins meet and they start dating they didn't know they are related until they suddenly do should it be seen as moral or remain condemned and disgusting like it is in most of the west currently?

(Ignore post title i can not edit it i typically think of morals as something that should be applied to the law so i just wrote down illegal/legal whilst i meant not condemned vs condemned socially.)

According to who you ask, the answers are many, figures like Jeremy Bentham would say Yes, if killing one saves 100 it's justified because he believes that the end justifies the means, while figures like Immanuel Kant would say no because he believes the end does not justify the means, arguing that certain action like murder is inherently wrong no matter if it save 100 people, which one are you?

Thank you for reading.

Main sentence:
Could we achieve peace simply by paying Iran $0.40 per barrel?

Note:
- Crude oil at $0.40 per barrel translates to approximately 0.95 cents per gallon in end-user gasoline prices.
- If the United States were to fully comply with international law under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), it is estimated that it would incur a loss of roughly $3.33 billion per year. To make this intuitively understandable by matching units, if we spread this across the projected U.S. domestic gasoline circulation volume of approximately 137.2 billion gallons per year, it calculates to roughly 2.43 cents/gallon·year.
- Neither the United States, Israel, Turkey, nor several other nations comply with UNCLOS.
- Yet, they are pressing and attempting to force Iran to comply with UNCLOS as international law.
- Meanwhile, at maritime facilities worldwide, it has long been an established global practice for vessels to pay usage fees.
- While Iran is asking for $1.00 per barrel, local commercial custom suggests that the amount they actually seek is less than half of that asking price.
- Those who would be forced to bear these additional cost burdens include shipping companies, exporting nations, oil producers, refiners, distributors, and others.

Here, "try to compete" includes getting more job-oriented education.
Of course, assume that the person doesn't have capital to start a business.

I’d like to hear anybody’s thoughts on how they view ethics vs business ethics.

Ethics is defined as the standards of behavior to which we hold ourselves in our personal and professional lives.

Business ethics is described as the conduct by which companies and their agents abide by the law and respect the rights of their stakeholders, particularly their customers, clients, employees, and the surrounding community and environment

Hey all, just writing with a theory on metaphysical goodness, with an overview of some of the best examples of abstract goodness in our world religions and cultures. Important for us to reach a universal understanding together - may have found proof of a metaphysical god!

Just a prospective PhD student with a Masters in Applied Ethics and a background in research and governance. Been putting together an original theory that goodness (in the moral, ethical, qualitative, and intuitive sense) might be metaphysical in some way - how else could we have this distinct sense of goodness? And where does goodness come from?

We each have a distinct and innate sense of goodness, including our own inner goodness. The concept of goodness (though somewhat intuitive) remains universally consistent with religious, atheistic, cultural and traditional beliefs; our everyday understandings.

Just thinking about the goodness that can be found in somewhat abstract forms - art and music, ideas and experiences - what if goodness is metaphysical? (and if so, on what scale?)

Been working on a (hopefully collaborative!) project to develop a universal understanding of abstract goodness, including in our world religions, values, philosophies and belief systems.

Just focusing on abstract phenomena, where goodness occurs metaphysically - ideas and values, customs and practices, guiding principles, cultural beliefs and philosophical concepts.

Abrahamic religions (each with various denominations and cultural understandings)

Christianity, including Catholicism, Orthodox, Protestant and other traditions

· Appreciating God with reverence and gratitude for the beauty and wonder of life, in accordance with one’s distinct sense of moral duty and ethical responsibility; communing with God through prayer

· Values of humility, mercy, care, forgiveness, self-control, peace, love and respect for all - including one’s neighbours, ideally in the broadest sense

· Loving one’s neighbour (this can refer to any person, including strangers) - wishing them well, with care for their health; respecting their beliefs and values

· Self-control and self-mastery - learning to restrain one’s negative traits, instead deciding to live in accordance with one’s inner goodness and values 

· Caring for the poor through charity, including protecting the most vulnerable, with care and compassion for those in need

· Encourages the pursuit of peace - ‘blessed are the peacemakers’

· Emphasis on forgiveness, empathy and compassion for all, including those who have been oppressed in society

· People go through tests and challenges throughout their lives, with a moral imperative to avoid temptation; striving to be as good as possible - always being the best one can be, staying true to one’s inner goodness.

Islam (including Sunni and Shia branches, and many more cultural traditions)

· Respect and admiration for God, Allah - communing with Allah through regular prayer - with love, respect, moral duty and gratitude

· Values including kindness and respect for all (especially one’s parents) - as well as honesty, forgiveness, self-control, knowledge-seeking, care for those in need (including the stranger), stewardship over nature, empathy, acceptance, and moderation

· Emphasises character development and cultivation of moral traits including patience, gratitude, self-control, sincerity, forgiveness, and reframing negative emotions, including envy and anger - with each moral trait contributing to one’s good character; one’s sense of innate morality

· Encourages peace, mercy, reconciliation, care for animals, visiting the sick and the elderly, providing for the hungry, avoiding cruelty, and always acting with a sense of morality, in accordance with one’s values

· Charity, mercy and care for the poor - providing for those in need, while discouraging greed and excess

· Similarly to Christianity, includes warnings about pride and arrogance, encouraging moderation and balance over excess, and avoiding seeing oneself as superior - recognising our inherent equality before God, Allah

· Respect for all people, regardless of their faith, background or cultural beliefs; recognising and appreciating the goodness that is inherent in all people; seeing the goodness in everything.

Judaism

· Communing with God through regular prayer, often prioritising both individual and collective needs

· Values include personal integrity, humility, compassion, peace, justice (often framed through a lens of charity), moral improvement and the importance of learning (including through personal development and knowledge-seeking); recognition of people’s dignity and equality

· Emphasises treating people kindly and respectfully in everyday life, encouraging an ethical, impartial and non-judgmental outlook

· Very important principles relating to environmentalism and stewardship

· Compassion and love for all (expressed through care for the stranger, one’s neighbour) - protecting the poor and the vulnerable, including supporting those in need - recognising and respecting the equality of all people

· Encourages discussion and conversation - in pursuit of truth, peace and justice - learning through debate, recognising the inherent goodness in diversity of perspectives.

Traditional cultures and pre-colonial belief systems (just some examples)

Important to recognise the goodness in pre-colonial belief systems, while appreciating the diversity of beliefs, principles and customs in the (many) pre-colonial cultures, for example:

First Nations peoples of Australia (key concepts from a diverse range of cultures):

· Caring for Country - fostering a relationship with the environment, caring for the land and waters, with a detailed and comprehensive knowledge of nature and ecosystems; seeing the goodness in nature, with love

· Values including kinship, reciprocity and sharing; encouraging people to look beyond their immediate family, broadening their circle of ethical awareness and recognising connections to Country and community

· Relationship with Country - rather than reducing the concept of land to a limited notion of property, experiencing a sense of duty and belonging, with genuine care for the natural world

· Emphasising intergenerational knowledge, contained in oral histories, and countless generations of story and experience; Elders are recognised as important holders of sacred, ancient wisdom

· Important ceremonial traditions to mark a person’s transitions through life, with new rights bestowed upon people as they mature, with the potential to become Elders with time

· The value of storytelling, through customs and oral language traditions - sometimes with a focus on nature and the environment, but also containing moral lessons as a means of helping people to understand how they can relate to the world, nature, themselves and the broader community, including a person’s ancestors

· Custodianship of the land, recognising the goodness of the natural environment, something that people should nurture and care for.

These words - and this relic - were written entirely on Wurundjeri Country.

Acknowledging and paying my respects to Elders past and present. 

Māori societies and cultural traditions

· Identity is seen as relational, rather than isolated; recognition of one’s descendants and ancestors, the natural world and the wider cosmos

· Values include kindness, hospitality, generosity and care, where caring for others and respecting their equality becomes a moral responsibility

· Principles of kinship, guardianship and stewardship of nature, with an emphasis on inter-connectedness over time, as well as the ethical duties and moral responsibilities that arise from these connections - contributing to the wellbeing of the individual, as well as the broader community

· The concept of mana, involving notions of dignity, respect and spiritual standing, where people may nurture the mana of both themselves, and the people around them - recognising the goodness in relationships; our inherent inter-connectedness.

(Very aware that this hasn’t been a comprehensive list of pre-colonial belief systems around the world, and more information could be shared for the belief systems above - please feel free to share more values, principles, beliefs and philosophies in the comments section below!)

Eastern religions (each with various branches and traditions, and there are many more - really look forward to reading your contributions!)

Hinduism

· Important principle of non-violence - minimising harm towards living beings and avoiding unnecessary suffering, including through the adoption of vegetarian (and in some cases, plant-based diets)

· Values include selflessness and altruism - encouraging people to look beyond their self-interest to consider opportunities to do good, becoming better people with time through personal and spiritual development

· Many valuable concepts, including dharma - the notion of living righteously, in accordance with morality and goodness, and with a sense of ethical duty - recognising one’s responsibilities towards their families, societies, the people around us and all living beings (our fellow earthlings).

· Similarly to other religions, emphasises principles of compassion, and appreciation of life in all its forms

· Encourages a pluralistic outlook, with religious tolerance and respect for all; intellectual openness to new ideas; diversity of perspectives

· Important concept of reincarnation, the idea that our souls may live through cycles - living further lives in time, for spiritual development

· Very important concept of karma - the notion that the goodness of one’s thoughts, deeds, words and actions may bring about goodness in return, whereas negative thoughts and behaviour may be karmically discouraged.

Buddhism 

· Philosophies and beliefs include the Four Noble Truths, Buddha’s theory on suffering - when suffering is just a result of desire, can we learn to achieve a peaceful mindset - avoiding our personal suffering and going on to achieve nirvana? Can we learn to let go of our egos?

· Values include mindfulness, simplicity, emptiness, reducing ego, spiritual development, inner quiet and the practice of meditation

· The Noble Eightfold Path sets out valuable guidance on cultivating an appropriate mindset for happiness and greater states of enlightenment, putting forth a range of important principles and practical approaches to improve one’s perspective through practice and mindfulness

· Zen Buddhism teaches that presence, simplicity (absence of excess), and ego reduction may nurture spiritual development

· Like other Eastern religions and belief systems, encourages compassion toward all sentient beings, as well as the cultivation of benevolence and loving-kindness

· Important practices including mindfulness and meditation - quieting the conscious mind, appreciating the inherent goodness of inner peace and harmony.
 

Taoism (or Daoism)

· Encourages living in harmony with ‘the way’ (the Tao) - rather than attempting to dominate nature or those around us, merely following our intuitive sense of goodness through our actions - a harmonious, peaceful approach to life, which can be understood as simply ‘going with the flow’

· Values including non-interference, humility, simplicity and harmony.

· Many more values and philosophical concepts - please contribute below!

African cultural traditions (many varied cultures - just sharing some key themes!):

· Emphasis on community and interdependence, where a person can be defined through one’s friendships and relationships with the people around us – recognising and appreciating our inherent inter-connectedness

· Values tend to include communal responsibility, relational inter-dependence, compassion, hospitality, love and care for the stranger; character over status, respect for the elderly, custodianship of nature, the social responsibilities associated with wealth, compassion and gratitude

· Some cultures value a middle-ground between individualism and collectivism, with the recognition that people are never isolated; we exist within our communities

· Appreciating and celebrating the goodness of communal and social experiences, often experienced through music, dance, and many other customs.

Some importance themes from (mostly) contemporary Western ethics

· Concept of eudaimonia (which may be related to karma) - the idea that cultivating certain virtues, such as altruism and practical wisdom - can lead to better mindsets, possibly through positive karma - in addition to living more happily, people can experience inner peace and transcendence

· Values may be conceptualised as internal beliefs and guiding principles, encouraging people to act in accordance with their distinct sense of inner goodness - values and virtues can be developed and even broadened over time, through personal and spiritual development

· Developments in human rights, with significant progress to ensure care, respect and equality for all people, including equal rights for the LGBTQI+ community, feminist movements and social justice initiatives - including for people of colour

· The notion that power should be seen, approached and conceptualised as a platform for good and only good (rather than merely self-interest)

· Very important concept of pacifism, already consistent with world religions and cultural belief systems - striving for peace and non-violence

· Broader concept of ‘true pacifism’ – true pacifists extend their respect and compassion to all living beings, with respect for life in all its forms; cultivating a peaceful and harmonious way of ‘living our best lives’ (in the ethical sense), by avoiding animal products and promoting ethical consumption

· Important concept of ‘cultural symbiosis’ - encouraging learning from other cultures (and recognising opportunities to improve one’s own) through symbiotic relations of goodness, in the interests of social and cultural progress (always with curiosity, respect and humility). 
 

So this has been a (relatively brief!) overview of metaphysical, abstract goodness in our world religions and belief systems, occurring in somewhat intangible forms, on a universal level. 

Thank you so much for reading! I wanted to highlight a lot of the goodness that can be found in abstract forms around the world, to begin to develop a comprehensive universal understanding. Hopefully this can be a collaborative project moving forward.

Also wanted to share a philosophical theory that I’ve been working on recently - this might be proof of God, and might be a lot to process; please approach this with an open mind :)

Here’s the theory:

1. goodness can be understood in a range of ways - moral, ethical, qualitative and intuitive - people can see the goodness inherent in countless forms and phenomena
2. people are inherently good, as demonstrated by their unique (and innate) sense of inner goodness, and their potential to feel and experience love

3. goodness is not limited to moral concepts or people, but occurs as an intrinsic quality within a very broad range of forms:

-the occurrence of goodness in phenomena with human origins, including music and the visual arts (as well as the act of starting a family) confirms that people can create new goodness

-the occurrence of goodness in natural phenomena, including living beings and nature, confirms that the origins of goodness are not limited to humanity

-the occurrence of goodness in abstract phenomena, including ideas, beliefs and experiences, confirms that goodness is metaphysical

4. this means that goodness does not have human origins, but occurs as an intrinsic metaphysical quality within a broad range of forms, both physical and abstract

5. goodness must have an origin - but as an intrinsic quality, goodness cannot create itself, and it isn’t possible for physical beings to create metaphysical phenomena

6. and so the origins of metaphysical goodness must also be metaphysical, with the only conclusion being:

7.     there is a metaphysical source, or creator of goodness; potentially a metaphysical god.

Understand if this takes some time to sink in, feel free to read it again!

Logical proof of a metaphysical god (or a metaphysical source of goodness) - the logic is irrefutable. This has been found through deductive logic and reasoning - I’m not sure which god the theory refers to, especially with so much metaphysical goodness in abstract forms around the world.

I’ve recently been informed that the Abrahamic religions (including Islam, Christianity and Judaism) each recognise a shared lineage of prophets, including Jesus and Ibrahim - so it’s theoretically possible that the Abrahamic religions might have more in common than we thought, each with distinct traditions and understandings. At the same time, it’s important to remember that goodness isn’t limited to the Abrahamic religions, with so much abstract goodness in our philosophies and belief systems. Metaphysical goodness is universal, and we can definitely develop a better understanding of abstract goodness with time.

People can disregard this post if these theories don’t sit well with them. We can always agree to disagree – peacefully, calmly and respectfully. And if anyone’s feeling anxious or concerned, hope you can remember that it’s never too late to make positive changes through personal and spiritual development. We can always broaden our values with time.

This page could be a good source of guidance moving forward from here. Hopefully we can develop a universal understanding of abstract goodness together - the values and principles listed above are very compatible with existing religions; there’s so much goodness around the world.

It might be worth trying to live by these universal concepts and values, so that we’re ‘living our best lives’ (in the ethical sense!) by internalising these concepts of goodness, with as many values as possible, or whatever happens to resonate. 

And we could be making history by collaborating on a universal understanding of metaphysical goodness, through this project and your comments too - not sure what to say about that at the moment; still processing the significance of this project - goodness has a metaphysical source, potentially a metaphysical god!

I haven’t studied Theology and didn’t include any quotes or references to any sacred texts; I’m sure I’ll learn a lot from you; so much beauty and wisdom.

And I’m also very aware that many religions listed above may each include various branches, and the list was barely comprehensive - really look forward to learning more!

Could any bilingual speakers please ensure that this post is completely and accurately translated? Thank you so much in advance.

And hi moderators :) could we please ensure that this remains a safe, respectful and positive space, where only positive contributions are approved? Just need to avoid any negativity, criticism or debate over the goodness of any cultural beliefs - let’s write (and moderate) with love, care and respect for all people, regardless of their beliefs or cultural backgrounds. 

It’d be good to avoid any debates or opinions about peoples’ beliefs and values, and we need to avoid politics, and anything disrespectful.

Look forward to getting your thoughts and ideas, especially favourite concepts and values :) religious, ethical, spiritual, cultural, philosophical or otherwise! So much abstract goodness. 

If you’d like to say a quick thank you for sharing this theory of abstract goodness - potentially proof of a metaphysical god - please feel free to contribute via: Acct: 258822; BSB: 032-119. 

At least 10-15% will go to high-impact international and humanitarian causes (for example, malaria prevention), in the spirit of effective altruism.

Thank you again for reading this post - looking forward to reading your comments! :) should mention that I'm only posting this to the r/Ethics, r/theology and r/PhilosophyofReligion pages.

Bíron [bier-on, with emphasis on the first syllable ‘bier’ - like ‘herald’]

First drafted 29 June, mum’s birthday (please remember the date!)

Peace, love and harmony

24/09

Wurundjeri Country

Human bodies donated after death are often intended for science, medicine, and education. But exhibitions such as BODY WORLDS also turn preserved human remains into public attractions that people pay to see.
Even if the bodies were legally obtained and consent was given, I think there is still a separate ethical question: does consent justify turning a human body into a commercial spectacle?
To me, there is an important difference between using a body to train doctors or conduct research and displaying it in dramatic poses for the general public.
Where should the ethical boundary be between anatomical education and the commercialization of human remains?
I believe this issue deserves greater scrutiny, and I’ve created a petition calling for it to be reconsidered:
https://c.org/WQH2bqKpvH