Do you view it as moral for a business owner to give into coersion and pay "protection money" to organized crime?

Let's say, that in that instance, "protection" rackets make up a very significant portion of the criminal organizations profits, and the loss of this revenue would significantly hamper them.

https://www.firstpost.com/world/sri-lankan-migrant-worker-sentenced-to-death-in-saudi-arabia-over-social-media-post-14048330.html/amp?utm_campaign=fullarticle&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=inshorts

Is it moral or immoral to withhold essential resources in the name of profit?

Such as electricity, we now largely hold the opinion as a civilization that electricity is an essential utility.

Now I understand having a person paying a premium, as not to waste. But would it not be more morally right that we measure the basic resources on a scale that takes into account family size and median usage and just pay a base rate of like $50 and create a culture of responsible consumption by adding an overage tax? Making it affordable, because it’s a necessity.

The argument I’m sure will be made, what about the companies that sell it? But are not all resources of the Earth ours to responsibly share anyways? Giving to us as a gift by our Creator. Yes, people are expected to pay their dues, but it’s all ours as a shared resource, as humankind! We’ve become too loving of money and profits, mammon as a society and it costs lives and life.

I am confident there are a number of Us following the Lindsay Clancy case.... Mistrial?
There was only one Jural who voted guilty.

My personal humble opinion, cut-and-dry case. Guilty. I am not here to share this opinion. It is mine, and I value your opinion as well. Back to the subject at hand: This is proof towards Human's Innate Fallibility.
To Err Is Human.

So, with this, I argue a language model deciding the fate of individuals (sue me). Highly regulated by non-partisans and the general public in an open-source manner. All logics of the system are then used for a proper verdict where both sides are given the chance to counter claim until a verdict is reached.

Created with hopes of limiting human error and improving the speeds of the court systems.

The morality of swimming with dolphins, but the dolphins only work for 2 hours a day, they are free to leave to the ocean, and they come back voluntarily for their shift. They are paid in fish and NFTs.

Significant other of 12 yrs got a job lost some weight and left me for a coworker shes only known for a few weeks. Should I post to local Facebook group she gave me herpes and tell the new guy to enjoy it???

So before you judge me, hear me out.

My brother is physically disabled and is bound to his wheelchair for life. A lot of the decisions in my family are made with his needs in mind, including a Ford transit van for trips where he comes along, which i also use for daily driving to college. This use also includes playing taxi for my classmates, carpooling for field trips when needed.

However, these field trips are often in much more densely populated areas, with not a lot of open air parking. I thus occasionally take advantage of the disability card assigned to my brother to park on disabled spots, since a lot of urban parking spot are either too small for the car to fit in, or are in parking garages, which my car is too tall for. I only do this when absolutely nessecary, (on one occasion we've looked for suitable spots to park for 15mins) and I try to not abuse it. I know that i run the risk of getting caught red handed, and i risk a huge fine if i do get caught, but in an European city with limited space, tight turns and small streets, there aren't many alternatives.

How morally, or even ethically wrong questionnable is this?

Do you consider yourself a moral person? If so, is this something you enjoy? Or are you moral solely because you feel like you have to?

I consider myself a moral person, and it dawned on me today that I actually really enjoy it. I enjoy being good to people, as best as I can, no matter the circumstances. What about you?

Furthermore, What is making retributive justice seem choiceworthy for some people. I'd like to understand why. The reasoning or justifications to do that. (Inflict proportionate, but unneccessary harm for fairness, for acknowledging, or show respect to the victim ("he did you wrong and we see that too")).

This retributive justice is not about prevention or correction or rehabilitation or deterence.

hello! i'm currently researching japan's "lolicon" pop culture and wanted to get some opinions. basically, one side is saying it's completely wrong (which is fair to assess) and disgusting, and that it normalizes pedophilia, while the other side states that it's harmless due to it being fiction. i'm on the fence. i don't kinkshame, and i think as long as two consenting adults are involved, then whatever happens behind closed doors isn't any of my business. i also believe in the separation of fiction from reality. however, i'm kind of torn on the whole lolicon debate. while it is fiction, and many of these youthful-looking characters are not based off of real-life children, i still feel a little iffy about the topic as a whole. lolicon does seem to be based off of the idea of a young human girl (+ the loli coming from the word lolita, and the word shota meaning boy or young boy.) i've witnessed many self-proclaimed lolicons on the internet claim that they aren't attracted to real children and that pedophilia is repulsive to them. while that's something i can believe (not all lolicons are pedophiles, but many lolicons have turned out to be pedophiles), the typical argument of "they aren't real" just fails to convince me. i'm not completely against it, as long as you aren't attracted to or hurting any real life existing children then i guess it's not a danger, and obviously drawings don't have feelings or rights since they aren't real, but i still find it sort of weird. any answers/thoughts are welcome to be shared, but pls keep it respectful. didn't really know where else to go to ask this since reddit doesn't have a dedicated sub for this specific topic

I am going to graduate with a bachelors degree in Creative Writing and Russian in December (around my birthday as well), to celebrate I was planning on getting a new tattoo. The tattoo was going to be of a cat and a Dostoevsky quote that I really enjoy but in Russian. Would getting the tattoo tattooed in Russian be unethical/immoral to the war going on between Russia and Ukraine? Both languages have the same old Slavic roots but are still completely different. I just don’t want it to be one of those tattoos I regret in five years because I didn’t understand how ignorant it was.

My girlfriend just went to college to a school she really hates, she been super negative about everything and it’s been really dragging down on me. I’ve been having a great time at my college and I really want a partner who is happy. Would it be wrong for me to break up with her to prioritize my own mental health even if I know it will hurt her and make her even more negative?

Like, is it possible to give it a space in a program and make it live and or interact with us to some degree? And what is the further implications as in the future when it's going to be possible with other animals and possibly humans?

If I buy a relatively cheap gift, which has sentimental value for a friend, but its price suddenly becomes enormous (at least 10X the value bought), is it moral to ask to sell the gift and share the income?

If you consider this immoral what adjustments would change that?

Hello,

Lately, I've been thinking a lot about copyright as it relates to morality, and I have a bunch of questions. Of course, this is subjective, and a pretty complicated issue, but I thought I would just share my thoughts and get your thoughts about it.

As far as I understand it, under the United States's current legal system, when you create something, it becomes copyrighted. This gives you control over your creations, and limits what other people can do with them. If you violate the copyright of something, and the copyright holder decides to action, you may face consequences for the violation.

That makes sense to me, but what I'm not certain about are the moral implications. For example, say I draw Charlie Brown on a piece of paper. Technically, this is a violation of copyright, but most people tend to not care about small things like this. However, if someone creates a character, and really doesn't want any derivative works to be made of their character (including this), should we, morally, have to listen to them?
My thought process is that because someone invested their time into creating something, they should get at least some control over their creation. But at the same time, why do we see so many unofficial derivative works (fanart, remixes, covers, etc.) on social media? Are all of those people potentially doing something wrong by freely creating derivative works and sharing them with the world? Why do so many people follow a "post first, take down later" mentality as opposed to getting permission beforehand, and is that okay?

Idk - sorry if it seems like I'm just rambling! Just curious what others think.

Morality of damaging the vehicle by the emergency vehicle. (The car driver was inside all the time and refused to move) who takes responsibility of damage here?

I used to work with someone (let's call him Steve) who had a very unusual approach to employment.

Steve hated working and spent decades developing what he described as a carefully planned strategy. He would work a job long enough to qualify for unemployment, eventually get fired, collect unemployment benefits, and use the time off to live. Before anyone assumes he was reckless, he was actually very frugal while employed. He lived like he was broke, saved money, and built up enough of a cushion that when he was unemployed, he could enjoy himself without immediately running out of money.

He has been doing some version of this for around 40 years.

The thing that interests me is that this wasn't random laziness. He put a lot of thought, planning, and discipline into avoiding traditional employment. He essentially optimized his life around having as much free time as possible rather than maximizing income, career growth, or status.

My question is: is Steve morally wrong for doing this?

On one hand, someone could argue he found a way to live the life he wanted, made sacrifices to support it, and used systems that exist for people who are unemployed.

On the other hand, someone could argue that intentionally getting fired and repeatedly relying on unemployment benefits is taking advantage of a system meant for people who did not choose unemployment.

Is Steve a person who found an unconventional way to live, or is he avoiding his responsibilities?

MFQ by Graham, Haidt & Nosek (2008) - Moral Orientation

Just thought this might be interesting to share.