​

En mundo de moda y marketing el o la modelo es muchas veces mas importante q alguna marca o similar, pero grosso modo o son personas versátiles, cambiantes, aptas o que caen muy bien, y no siempre belleza sea el canon o estilo ni buen cuerpo.

Q ocurre?

Por donde yo vivo y el nuevo aumento de población ni ni ha conseguido aumentar muchos más modelos remunerados incluso mejor q medicos en estos últimos años, innecesariamente, ya que muchos son sólo cuerpo y a ve es no belleza, ni personalidad, ni variedad, y lo peor, ni estudian ni trabajan sino es para lucirse o ser alabados y para colmo, humillan, critican, insultan, excluyen, maltratan a otras personas como si no pudiésemos estar guapos, tener buen cuerpo por no ser modelos!!! Y he visto mejores cuerpos en policias y médicos q no lo son... La cuestión, hasta q punto hay q aguantar esto? P q debemos ser humilladas por modelos y no poder entrar en x gimnasio, tener x tratamientos de belleza incontables q a ellos les hacrn gratis, no poder alimentarnos de x cosas mientras algunos son bulímicos y encima se quejan de todo en vez de ir al psiquiatra, psicólogo y limpiar y reeducar su cerebro?

No se entiende, pq si fuesen fontaneros, granjeros, de limpieza, aún, pero como mucho hacen videos porno y nos llaman gordos...

Q pensais?

Is it unethical to practice the use of ultrasound on patients who are unable to consent? Not for diagnosis, specifically for learning. For context, it is at a hospital with medical residents, and the ultrasound itself poses no risk of harm to the patient.

hello! i’m currently taking an ethics class and in my textbook, “The Fundamentals of Ethics” by Russ Shafer-Landau, the author asks a question regarding Rawls’ and Hobbes’ framework for figuring out what constitutes as a “moral rule,” and the author… just… doesn’t answer it… so, i was wondering if perhaps anyone could take a shot at it?

the question: Why should I live according to the rules set by some person who isn’t at all like the real me?

excerpt from the book (context):

“If the social contract theory is correct, then the moral rules are those that free, equal, and rational people would agree to live by. But what happens if such people disagree with one another? For instance, what if these idealized contractors can’t reach a deal about the conditions under which a nation should go to war, or about the kind of aid we owe to the very poor? What happens then?

Rawls solved this problem by making every contractor a clone of every other. Behind the veil of ignorance, all of your distinguishing features go away. No one is any different from anyone else. And so there is no reason to expect any disagreement.

But Hobbes and other contractarians won’t stand for this. They can’t see why I should follow the rules of someone who is so completely unlike me—a person who is not only absolutely rational but also stripped of all knowledge of his social status, his friendships and family situation, his desires, interests, and hopes. Hobbes and his followers insist that the moral rules are those that we, situated as we are, would rationally agree to, provided of course that others would agree to live by them as well.

It’s not easy to know how to solve this disagreement between contractarians. On the one hand, Rawls’s view is likely to be fairer, since any information that could prejudice our choices is kept from us as we select rules to live by. But Hobbes also has a point, in that we want to make it rational, if we can, for everyone to live by the moral rules. Why should I live according to the rules set by some person who isn’t at all like the real me?”

(located in “Part Two Normative Ethics: Doing the Right Thing,” Chapter 14.3 Disagreement among the Contractors)

edit: i sincerely apologize, i totally forgot to quote the text. the “context” section was directly pulled from the book—not my personal opinion. sorry, again.

Disclaimer : I don't think this post fit the sub. In fact I'm pretty sure that I'm in the wrong sub. But I didn't found better, pardon me.

I fucking hate AI. I hate it with my bones and soul, but I sometime need an agent.

So, I would like to know if there is an ai agent that is at least a little bit ethic while giving you reliable awnser.

Thanks, and best regards.

Morality is a beacon, not a destination. Integrity and accountability keep us on course, while reflection and correction turn experience into progress. For true progress is not about never being wrong, but having the courage to recognize it and the integrity to change.

How has religion shaped you as a person? do you think you would be the same person you are today if it wasn’t for religion? I grew up in a cult and after seeing the way people can dangerously blindly follow people who claim to be messengers of god it has put such a sour taste in my mouth for all religion, but I’d like to hear stories from people who believe it has made them better people. As I’ve always just felt a good person is a good person no matter their beliefs and that religious people can also be very bad people hiding behind a shield of religion.

I would like to ask, as the title says: from an ethical standpoint, what should we make of a single company or a group of companies casting a pronounced shadow over the lives of local residents and the market? Would you all develop your own inferences and arguments, substantiate each of them with the implementation of the following note and the resulting circumstances in mind, and then discuss them together?

Data center sites tend to be located where land prices are low. Why are they cheap? Because there are few buyers.
However, if the operators fulfill all of the extensive obligations below, that environment will already have high-speed data communications, a well-developed transportation network, a living environment to be proud of, public facilities, and symbolic heritage. The shadow they cast will transform the sense of fulfillment of the region and the people living there. Would such an excessive influence be an ethical violation?
___

Note:

What do you think of the proposal to determine the scale of the following obligations based on a rate (α) set in proportion to electricity consumption, and impose them on operators planning to operate data centers that consume electricity above a certain scale?

・To employ many people from districts near the data center’s operating site and have them engage in social-contribution work, based on the rate (α) above.

・To require assistance for welfare or educational institutions in districts surrounding the installation area, based on the same rate (α).

・To build and operate multiple facilities that serve as pillars of regional development, based on the same rate (α).

・To require the development and provision of transportation and information-communications infrastructure around the area where data centers are built and operated.

・To establish mixed-use developments in surrounding districts combining business, industrial, and commercial uses, including shops and places where people working nearby can have lunch or go for drinks after work, based on the same rate (α), and to continue attracting businesses so that the facilities remain occupied above a certain level

・Without basing it on the same rate (α), to bear the duty of continuously monitoring environmental pollution and deterioration over a wide area, including the energy environment and living environment, and reporting changes.

・If environmental pollution is confirmed, regardless of who caused it, to impose on data center operators the duty to take some measures, including approaching the actual polluter, and to achieve complete remediation
___

What kind of opinion would you offer on all of this? May I expect a reply?

Suppose you’re a Nazi who suddenly has an attack of morality and a psychological breakdown. You realize that the pathetic little evil deeds you were forced to perform against innocent people was based on lies. Everything you were ever taught was a lie. The people you are serving are pathetic evil creeps and liars.

Is it ethical to stab them in back, rat them out, or potentially kill them?

On one hand, it would be a betrayal of your oath. But on the other hand, they are a bunch of liars and murderers who betrayed you and made you destroy your soul and kill innocent people for their sick little games.

What is the solution to this ethical dilemma?

Title says it

Will agree for the sake of argument, it was not ethical to break into the home separate action. Their dog is going to bite you in the living living room after you broke in. Is it ethical to kick the dog?

I have always demonstrated to everyone, everywhere, on an equal basis that "unlimited freedom is not permitted."

By the way, thinking strictly about matters in this finite world of ours, would you set limits on freedom?

I've always wondered this. I feel like the dog doesn't deserve the punishment of not being trained, but I also wouldn't blame anyone for a single kick to get them away.

For this discussion, let’s assume that, three to five years from now, someone will emerge who will make a nuclear warhead attack on the U.S. mainland succeed. Please don’t depart from this premise.
Now,which choice would be ethically right and justified? Let’s discuss
Could you use your full powers of logical reasoning to make an estimate?

1. The present matters far more; the future isn’t even on my radar.
   
2. If anything, the present matters more, though I’m not giving up on the future.
   
3. As As time passes, the future too will eventually be ‘now’—the same ‘now’ as this one.
   
4. Things are hard now, but I want to value the future too.
   
5. The future matters far more. After all, who wants to suffer the effects of a nuclear attack in the first place?
   
6. I don’t want to choose.
   
7. I don’t give a damn. Don’t ask me that.

By the way, I’m in the camp that sees no difference between now and the future, because the future, too, becomes now as time passes

Well then, may I look forward to a reply from you?
Also, much like taking turns making moves in a board game such as chess or Reversi, wouldn’t it be nice if, from here on, we could both enjoy this give-and-take of conversation and thought in a noble, sincere, and gentlemanly spirit?

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, it doesn't include world changing.

Also when doing a bad act (like lying or individual murders) for the greater good end during normal times, not only you should choose the one with the highest success chance, checking if alternatives existed, determine whether time is running out for the exception, or think is this a very positive net outcome, you should think, what happens to society if I do this? So you gotta think what impact does this act will do to society.

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 act 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.

since humans cannot 100% accurately predict the future, a morality of an act is judged by its EXPECTED outcome and true intentions, if a person killed 1 stranger to save 5 stranger and that 1 stranger was actually a cancer cure doctor, you didn't commit a moral failure, because how could we have genuinely known that? his expected outcome and intention was good, the expected outcome was more lives saved, the true intention was saving more lives. I'm trying to protect people from random bad luck that is out of our control and we couldn't have known it. if a person knowingly saved that one cancer cure doctor and the doctor died the next day from a car crash, it was a tragedy, a bad luck, the expected outcome and intention was good. But even if the expected outcome was at 10% success chance, it is still justified if it was the method with the highest probability at the time along with if the intention was good.

I generally agree to respect rules like don't kill during normal times because it'll make a good outcome and a happier future in the long term.

Background: When the helicopter carrying American basketball player crashes, some rescue workers responding to the scene took pictures of his body and other victims of the crash. Afterwards, one responder was in a bar and apparently showed the pictures to a bartender. A patron of the bar observed this transaction and filed a complaint.

My (possible) ethical dilemma: I would never take photographs of the dead in that crash. I would not want to look at them on someone else’s phone because to me it would be wrong. But I don’t think I would have gotten involved if I learned someone had taken photos and was showing them. And that bothers me now that I wouldn’t have done anything.

My initial reaction would likely be to find it distasteful but take no further action thinking it is none of my business. And that feels like an ethical failure in hindsight.

Your insights?

In a situation where you HAD to pick between these two:

the person who made your life hell but is the innocent/right person in this scenario vs the person who helped you and changed your life but is the wrong person/culprit in this scenario

- who would you pick to side with?

I have talked about this a few times with a friend and would like to hear some thoughts. She thinks it’s not inherently wrong to take something from someone without asking/letting them know, because nobody really owns anything and we’re too materialistic.

I don’t disagree with the nobody truly owning anything, but I do not agree that taking something from them just because of that is okay. I just don’t really know how to explain myself further with that and it’s irritating.

This issue is very interesting to me and I would really love to hear other people’s more thought out and better articulated opinions on this.

On one hand, think millions of lives you could save.

On the other hand, giving cancer to a kid is a messed up thing to be doing.

What’s the solution?