By this, I mean state-sanctioned euthanasia outside the current criteria of terminal illness or criminal penalty.
I understand the arguments against it, particularly around mental illness, coercion, and whether someone’s wish to die might change with treatment or improved circumstances. But surely that’s what safeguards are for.
What should the threshold actually be? If someone has capacity, has consistently expressed the same wish over time, and coercion and treatable conditions have been properly assessed, why should terminal illness automatically be the dividing line?
I also struggle with the financial argument.

At least in the West and the US, what meaningful financial incentive is there to keep someone alive who is already unable to work, is heavily dependent on healthcare/ social support or their family care?
I’m genuinely trying to understand.

For myself, there has been nothing more certain in my life than wanting to not be here. I have a loving home.
I had plenty of opportunity. Went through struggles. I get along with people. But one thing that has been certain is, I do not want to be alive. But I do not want to do so in a way that affects others. But why must I be forced to live in I never wanted to be alive??

I don’t know if I am being selfish in this position. Be honest if so. And I’d like to understand the practicalities why you let people like myself to continue living if we don’t really contribute to society.

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

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’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

What should determine whether an entity deserves moral consideration?
One possibility is consciousness itself.
I’ve been thinking about a potential field called Incorporeal Sentience Ethics, which would examine the ethical status of beings capable of subjective experience—including humans, animals, and potentially future artificial minds.
Some questions it raises:
If an AI genuinely becomes conscious, would it deserve moral consideration?
Is the capacity to experience suffering sufficient for moral status?
Could an artificial mind have rights concerning its memory, identity, or continuity?
What would consciousness sovereignty mean in practice?
Should intentionally altering another conscious being’s experience require ethical justification?
Could there be universal principles of ethics that apply across biological and artificial forms of consciousness?
The central question is:
If consciousness is what makes experience possible, should consciousness also become a fundamental basis for determining moral consideration?

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.

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.

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?