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. Please note that this manuscript may contain language some find unsettling. Furthermore, I did not write this from a position of moral superiority or to condemn others; indeed, even as I wrote it, I was uncertain of my own standing and whether I might be acting hypocritically—for after finishing the piece and stepping away from my desk, I continued to cook and eat, effectively remaining subject to the very judgment I was critiquing. This manuscript aims solely to share a perspective, not to attack or disparage anyone. I hope readers will engage with it respectfully.

I can't advise you to be patient, or to keep a gentle temper, as you read this manuscript, or rather these lines of self-questioning. Nor can I advise you to tear down every norm and every faith. Because when you truly touch it, the only thing you will feel is the dizziness of freedom, thick with uncertainty. And even I have no answer to the self-questioning I find in that dizziness.

But there is at least one thing I can advise:

“Always hold on to your ability to ask questions. Doubt and question yourself, even in the smallest ways. Doubt what you most want to believe. Doubt some part of your own actions. Because a moment will come when it will be the only thing that can stop you from becoming a second Eichmann.”

Sincerely, akaiha

This is mostly a vent to get this off my chest, however I'm open to discussion.

I don't think a person eating meat is any less moral than any other person. The act of eating meat is a natural part of life which humans happen to be part of. There are personal, cultural and religious reasons meat is something someone's needs or wants to eat, along with medical conditions.

I suffer from a hereditary iron count disorder (I don't remember the exact name) so I can't derive a healthy amount of iron from plant products. In other words I couldn't quit eating meat even if I wanted to.

Onto my main point, the average Joe who orders a steak at a restaurant isn't morally wrong for just wanting to eat a steak. There are moral implications for the killing if the cow and environmental impacts of the meat trade, but Joe has the freedom to make his own chooses and grapple with them himself and at the same time others are free to judge Joe for his choice.

The objective truth is that factory farms and slaughter houses are barbaric and absolutely immoral to support or take part in. If a person knowingly buys from a factory farm, untentionally or not, they should at least be aware of the implications and the fact they are doing something immoral for the sake of their personal enjoyment.

However, I don't believe that raising animals for the purpose of killing them is inherently immoral so long as the animals are given a high quality of life and a death with as little suffering as possible.

Personally I follow an omnivore diet, ill eat literally anything. But for the previously mentioned reasons I rely on meat for parts of my diet.

The classic antinatalism debate is getting tired… The "paradox" comes from a real problem: we can't ask the child beforehand. But that cuts both ways. "They didn't ask to be born" is just as true as "they didn't ask not to be born," so consent can't settle this.

Do we realise that, in principle, both pro-life and anti-life folk are making the same kind of assumption?

A pronatalist ASSUMES that bringing children into the world is worthwhile, whether for the continuation of humanity, the propagation of life, or the possibility of a meaningful existence.

The antinatalists, by contrast, appear to ASSUME that bringing someone into existence is inherently harmful because it exposes them to suffering they never consented to experience.

Both positions make ASSUMPTIONS about the value of existence. Neither can simply presume to know what another person would want before that person exists. That’s where the argument falters😂

The distinction is that the argument seems to prioritise the suffering that life can entail, while the opposing argument considers the possibility of happiness, fulfilment, relationships, and the desire to continue living.

And empirical evidence complicates the assumption that existence is generally unwanted. Most people continue to live, pursue goals, form relationships, and express a desire to remain alive. Suicide, by contrast, is a relatively uncommon outcome, even though suicidal thoughts and suffering are real and should never be dismissed.

That does not prove that everyone is glad to have been born, nor does it settle the philosophical question of whether creating life is ethically justified. But it does challenge the ASSUMPTION that non-existence is necessarily preferable to existence.

Ultimately, we’re treating the possibility of suffering as a reason humanity should cease to exist, while assuming that this outcome is preferable for humanity itself.

So… what justifies that assumption, particularly when the people whose existence we’re speaking about cannot be presumed to share the conclusion?

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23432226 Any feedback welcome
Just a night worker who his interested in this subject

[Quoting from here https://philarchive.org/rec/BRATCA-13.]

Abstract:

There is a simple but powerful argument against the human practice of raising and killing animals for food (RKF for short). It goes like this: 1. RKF is extremely bad for animals. 2. RKF is only trivially good for human beings Therefore, 3. RKF should be stopped. While many consider this argument decisive, not everyone is convinced. There have been four main lines of objection to it. In this paper, I provide new responses to these four objections.

Introduction:

There is a simple but powerful argument against the human practice of raising and killing animals for food (RKF for short). It goes like this:

1.RKF is extremely bad for animals. 2.RKF is only trivially good for human beings. So, 3.RKF should be stopped.

Call this The Case Against Meat. Many consider The Case Against Meat to be decisive. But not everyone is convinced by it. Four main objections have been proposed:

1. The first premise is false. RKF is not extremely bad for animals, or at least, given the possibility of free-range farming, it needn’t be. In fact, by giving animals an existence, RKF may even be in the best interests of these animals.

2. The second premise is false. RKF is far more than merely trivially good for human beings. This is because of the pleasures of eating meat and what these contribute to various social and cultural aspects of our lives.

3. Animal welfare is relatively unimportant. Even if both premises of the argument are true, animal welfare is nowhere near as valuable as human welfare. It simply doesn’t matter as much how they fare.

4. As individuals, we are powerless to change anything. Even if it would be best if RKF were to stop, none of us has any reason to abstain from eating meat. This is because our individual purchasing decisions have only a negligible effect on the demand for meat, and so none at all on RKF.

https://philpapers.org/archive/BRATCA-13.pdf

[that's all quoting from this article from a good applied ethcist, who writes very clearly. My secondary agenda is jsut to show you that philosophy and ethics can be more meaningful than... just this subreddit, you know?]

I’ve been doing a lot of self-reflection lately, and this is something I’ve been thinking about.

I believe someone can have a good heart and still have behaviors that hurt the people around them. Someone can genuinely care about others and still struggle with selfishness, insecurity, anger, addiction, or the need to feel understood.

Sometimes we don’t even realize how much our own unresolved issues affect the people we love until we’re forced to sit with ourselves and take an honest look in the mirror.

I’ve learned that having good intentions doesn’t automatically make our actions right. You can love somebody and still hurt them. You can mean well and still be the reason someone needs time to heal.

That’s a hard truth to accept because it’s easier to focus on what we meant to do than to acknowledge how our actions actually affected someone else.

But here’s where I struggle with this question.

Can people genuinely change, or do we just get better at hiding the parts of ourselves we don’t want others to see?

I want to believe people can change because I believe we’re capable of learning, growing, and becoming better than we were yesterday.

But I also think there’s a difference between saying you’ve changed and actually living differently.

Real change probably looks less like making promises and more like consistently making better choices, especially when nobody is watching. It’s taking accountability without making excuses. It’s respecting boundaries even when they hurt. It’s recognizing your patterns and doing the uncomfortable work to break them.

And maybe the hardest part is accepting that even if you genuinely change, the people you hurt aren’t obligated to give you another chance.

You can become a better person without getting back the relationship you lost.

I’m learning that growth can’t just be about proving to other people that you’re different. At some point, you have to want to change because you don’t want to keep living the same way.

I’m not asking because I think I have this figured out. I’m asking because I know what it’s like to look back at parts of your life and wish you had handled things differently.

So I want to hear other people’s perspectives:

1. Do you believe people can fundamentally change, or do their true colors eventually come back out?
2. What’s the difference between someone who has genuinely changed and someone who’s just saying what people want to hear?
3. Have you ever watched someone transform their life in a way you never thought possible?
4. Can you forgive someone for who they used to be while still deciding they no longer belong in your life?

I’m genuinely curious about this one. I think there’s a lot we can learn from hearing experiences that don’t necessarily match our own.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23432226 Any feedback welcome
Just a night worker who his interested in this subject

I think it is a stupid and mindless thing to ask. Obviously, if you do something it will change the outcome, so for each means there is a separate end. But asking the question "do ends justify means" suggest that any means possible all have a common end. That is why it is a stupid and mindless question, whoever asks such a question cannot understand ethics because they limit their own understanding with such a framework. Someone, please explain why it is asked and where it comes from.

Ethical life is often framed around rigid codes, yet reality itself operates through constant flux and balance. Across human experience, nature reveals that harmony is not found in static perfection, but in the continuous alignment between inner awareness and external action.

When noise is stripped away, underlying principles emerge: truth, empathy, and mutual respect are not artificial rules, but natural expressions of interconnected existence. Imperfection remains an inherent part of the human condition; true integrity lies in navigating this uncertainty with clarity and quiet restraint.

Beyond abstract theories, moral life reflects an ongoing process of balancing judgment with compassion, anchoring conduct in the shared dignity of all living beings !

Ik my own experiences as a young boy are obviously inadequate to draw conclusions from. But I read a Nietzche aphorism that was basically suggesting that there exists no completely pure act. Opposites are latent in each other at their base elements.
So every selfless act will contain varying deals of selfish intent, often hidden “save for the most keen observer.”
Anyway, I find that often when I do an objectively kind act, I’ll doubt my own motives.
For example reaching out to someone and having a conversation with them about their mental health and problems, making sure they’re okay.
But then I always find that part of me wants to be seen and recognised for what I’m doing, and that perhaps I’d be lying to myself if I was to say that it was an act of “pure” kindness, expecting nothing in return.

I’m at an odd state in my “philosophical development” where I’m really having trouble making judgements.

For example I can’t judge a person, even a pedophile. People hear pedophile and immediately call them a monster, zero hesitation.
Except I find that the action is monstrous, but is any human truly monstrous?
In the same way I can’t judge whether an act is good or bad, or the motives behind it.

Any help?

Can compassion and profit really coexist, or does turning "kindness into capital" change its moral character?

I ask this after reading: When Compassion Becomes Capital: The Economics of a Dead Mouse, a Jataka story (ancient fables), examining the uneasy relationship between Buddhist ethics, self-interest and entrepreneurship.

The article asks whether an ethical life and a successful business life are necessarily in conflict and what happens when an act of compassion becomes the starting point of a series of economic transactions.

Can someone be a good person if they only do good things for their own benefit?

To begin with, death does not bring the soul to an end.
Even when medical death has occurred, internal activity has not stopped; although it has been confirmed that the body loses some amount of weight, what is it that decreases?
While deep bodily activity has not yet stopped, is there anything other than the soul that is lost through death?

On the other hand, it is said that the human race was punished by God for eating the forbidden apple.
At the very least, the God of monotheism does not permit harm to life; it is a sin.
Then, how can one say that God would not impose a sin on the perpetrator after they have harmed life?

On the other hand, nowhere in American law does it state that ownership of life belongs to its user.
Nor does it state that such ownership belongs to anyone.
Since it is not recognized by law, it should not be difficult to understand that rights and freedoms concerning something not recognized by law are not recognized either.

Moreover, even if the person who chooses death has no family or relatives, the impact it has on those around them is still immeasurable. If they do have family or relatives, that impact will be even greater. It should not be difficult to understand that the negative impact caused by the act should also be avoided.

Furthermore, under legal recognition, a judgment made under intense oppression is treated separately from normal judgment and is not accepted.
Even if a person chooses suicide as a result of being afflicted by an illness, this can be clarified by examining the following point: “Knowing that a certain new drug would appear the next day and restore them to health, would they still want to die?”
It is the spirit of the law that a judgment can no longer be accepted when it can easily be presumed that the judgment would change once the oppression were removed.

In this way, from every possible perspective, suicide is equally an ethical violation and a choice that would lead to the beginning of immeasurable suffering. Why, then, is it mistakenly regarded as salvation?
Could someone please explain this to me?

Seen this before, applied to China in particular, and always spoken about in a negative connotation
But got me thinking - is this such a bad idea?

More and more it is looking likely AI/robotics will displace a vast amount of careers, possibly leading to a global unemployment crisis.

If a vast majority of people cannot be employed/earn a living, then should an alternative to the monetary system fill the void to ensure some kind of distribution so people don’t just starve or riot?

Questions-
How might a social credit score work?
How would it be enforced/score be tallied?
What would such a world be like? Everyone all the time being nice (or at least surface-level nice)?

Edit: Replies are generally assuming this would be some 1984 style big brother system, with disobedience to a political party leading to starvation/imprisonment. I had a more optimistic outlook in writing this.
Pretty much “good deeds” would replace currency, begging the question how would score be kept?
Does helping an old lady across the road 100 times earn a trip to Sweden? Curing cancer gets you a super yacht?

Say we have two rooms, know them as room A and B, and each contains a random living being, with each pairing containing differences you could become aware of. You are told by an informant that you must cause one of the beings to die by pushing a corresponding button.

You are able to see both living beings, but they can not see you, and you are unable to communicate with them. The informant is also able to answer any questions you have regarding each being with a 100% guarantee of being right, but can only do so by recalling past events , and is unable to provide judgement or thoughts of their own, simply just what each being has done. You are able to process and consider everything the informant tells you without difficulty.

Should this experiment be repeated infinitely,

Is there a decision making process you could follow to make the “correct” decision every time, if not, then what process would be most likely to produce the “best” result each time.

Additionally, how do you think a beyond human, non-biased being would approach the question, using pure objectivity to eliminate the subjectivity of what is right. 

How would your answer change if the informant were able to describe future events as well?

I noticed this in myself first, as my health declined, I became more and more aligned with, in my case, far left ideas, being more open to more radical options and all that.

Also worldwide struggles of rising fuel and living costs, as well as the stagnation of wages have many people desperate enough to vote for right and far right parties all over the globe.

The AFD in Germany for example had extreme growth over the last couple of years, and I do not need Germany to start WW3 as well.

Is it ehtieical to ever forcefully prescript in war?

How many unwilling lives is national security worth?

For this, I’m going to be blunt. I’m talking about the Russia x Ukraine War. As many of you will know, Ukraine has compulsory mobilisation laws for certain groups of citizens, including men within particular age ranges. My understanding is that men aged 25-60 may be affected, although please correct me if I have that wrong.

I have two main points, and I’ll try to keep this simple.

There are significant strategic reasons to prevent Ukraine from becoming a Russian-controlled state. Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty matter, and there are serious security implications for the wider region.

However, if a country’s citizens are unwilling to fight for its independence, how many unwilling people’s lives can reasonably be put at risk in the name of preserving that independence? At what point do we have to question the human cost of pursuing that political and strategic objective?

I want to clarify a few things before people misunderstand my position.

First, I despise Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and I place the overwhelming responsibility for the war and the resulting loss of life on Russia for initiating and continuing its aggression. Questioning Ukraine’s mobilisation policies does not mean excusing Russia or denying Ukraine’s right to defend itself.

Second, I recognise the counterargument that, if Russia were to face little or no resistance and succeeded in bringing Ukraine under its control, the resulting occupation could lead to further deaths, repression, and suffering. It is entirely possible that the long-term human cost of surrendering without resistance could exceed the cost of continuing to fight.

However, we cannot know that counterfactual with certainty. An unopposed invasion might lead to one set of outcomes, while continued resistance might lead to another. The uncertainty cuts both ways, and I don’t think the mere possibility of a worse outcome under occupation is sufficient, on its own, to settle the question.

Ultimately, my question is this: How much should a state be entitled to demand from its citizens in the name of national survival, particularly when some of those citizens do not wish to fight?

I understand that this is not a simple question. Ukraine is defending itself against an invasion, and its choices are constrained by the actions of the Russian state. But I think we should be able to acknowledge both Ukraine’s right to exist independently and the moral importance of individual lives, autonomy, and consent.

Where should we draw that line?

If you want to answer this outside of the Ukraine and Russian War - go ahead. I used this example of current events not to enforce my own view but to centre everyones argments around a conflict most of us know well by now to test our hypothetical dilemmas. Russia may also mandatory prescript, but I have used Ukraine as I feel it provides a more intressting angle in its defencive position.

I've been struggling with a philosophical question for a long time, and I'd genuinely like to hear serious perspectives on it, whether religious, philosophical, or atheistic.

Why are human beings born with such radically unequal capacities and possibilities?

Some people are born with Down syndrome, profound intellectual disabilities, severe congenital conditions, or other limitations that can significantly affect what they are able to understand, experience, and achieve. Others are born with extraordinary intellectual abilities, physical health, and opportunities for development. Deafness, blindenss, down syndrome, and other horrible things that occure during birth and during development. If this happend once in a billion to me it would still be unfair.

I can accept human evil as a responsibilitu of humans but struggle with severe disabilities present from birth or arising in early development. People who are denied possibilities through no fault of their own?

What troubles me is that some people may never possess the capacities necessary to pursue many of these goods, through no fault of their own. Their lives may still contain love, happiness, and meaningful experiences, but that doesn't automatically erase the limitations or opportunities they never had.

And the problem seems even more troubling when we consider how society treats vulnerable people. Throughout history, disabled people have sometimes been abandoned, excluded, or ridiculed. Even today, people share videos of disabled individuals for entertainment and mockery. Someone can be born with limitations they never chose and then face contempt because of those very limitations.

I'm not looking for the usual reassurance that disabled people can be happy, that everyone has different strengths, or that everything happens for a reason. Those statements may contain some truth, but they don't fully address the underlying questions.

I'm looking for a genuine reconciliation, if one exists. Are there arguments that address it directly, rather than simply explaining suffering in general?

I have been troubled by this problem since my childhood. Also, i should probably make it clear that i dont personally know or interact with anyone disabled in my day to day life. I am just curious about this problem. I feel like this is such a core philossophical problem that is not examined enough and undermines many phillosophies and faith.

This is also why the question troubles me so deeply on a personal and intellectual level. It seems to challenge the foundations of many philosophies that I otherwise find meaningful.

Thinkers such as Nietzsche place enormous emphasis on self-overcoming, the cultivation of one's capacities, the affirmation of life, and the possibility of becoming something greater than one currently is. Schopenhauer explores suffering, the will, and the possibility of compassion, while Jung examines the psyche, individuation, and the search for psychological wholeness. Many other philosophers, religious thinkers, and traditions likewise encourage us to cultivate reason, pursue truth, develop our character, or discover meaning through our experiences.

I find these ideas compelling, and I personally strive toward intellectual and spiritual development. I regard philosophy, music, literature, and the cultivation of the mind as some of the most valuable possibilities of human existence.

But I keep returning to a question that seems to undermine these ideals at their foundations: what do these philosophies mean for people who, through no fault of their own, lack the capacities required to pursue the forms of development they celebrate?

Self-overcoming presupposes something that can be overcome. Intellectual cultivation presupposes capacities that can be cultivated. Philosophical reflection presupposes some ability to reflect. Even the ability to search for meaning, interpret one's suffering, or consciously affirm life cannot be assumed to be equally available to everyone.

You can answer, by any perspective, religious or non religious. you want.

P.S. Im sorry if my post is too long and complicated, im also not native english speaker so there might be typos and unclear point in the text.

I've been struggling with a philosophical question for a long time, and I'd genuinely like to hear serious perspectives on it, whether religious, philosophical, or atheistic.

Why are human beings born with such radically unequal capacities and possibilities?

Some people are born with Down syndrome, profound intellectual disabilities, severe congenital conditions, or other limitations that can significantly affect what they are able to understand, experience, and achieve. Others are born with extraordinary intellectual abilities, physical health, and opportunities for development. Deafness, blindenss, down syndrome, and other horrible things that occure during birth and during development. If this happend once in a billion to me it would still be unfair.

I can accept human evil as a responsibilitu of humans but struggle with severe disabilities present from birth or arising in early development. People who are denied possibilities through no fault of their own?

What troubles me is that some people may never possess the capacities necessary to pursue many of these goods, through no fault of their own. Their lives may still contain love, happiness, and meaningful experiences, but that doesn't automatically erase the limitations or opportunities they never had.

And the problem seems even more troubling when we consider how society treats vulnerable people. Throughout history, disabled people have sometimes been abandoned, excluded, or ridiculed. Even today, people share videos of disabled individuals for entertainment and mockery. Someone can be born with limitations they never chose and then face contempt because of those very limitations.

I'm not looking for the usual reassurance that disabled people can be happy, that everyone has different strengths, or that everything happens for a reason. Those statements may contain some truth, but they don't fully address the underlying questions.

I'm looking for a genuine reconciliation, if one exists. Are there arguments that address it directly, rather than simply explaining suffering in general?

I have been troubled by this problem since my childhood. Also, i should probably make it clear that i dont personally know or interact with anyone disabled in my day to day life. I am just curious about this problem. I feel like this is such a core philossophical problem that is not examined enough and undermines many phillosophies and faith.

This is also why the question troubles me so deeply on a personal and intellectual level. It seems to challenge the foundations of many philosophies that I otherwise find meaningful.

Thinkers such as Nietzsche place enormous emphasis on self-overcoming, the cultivation of one's capacities, the affirmation of life, and the possibility of becoming something greater than one currently is. Schopenhauer explores suffering, the will, and the possibility of compassion, while Jung examines the psyche, individuation, and the search for psychological wholeness. Many other philosophers, religious thinkers, and traditions likewise encourage us to cultivate reason, pursue truth, develop our character, or discover meaning through our experiences.

I find these ideas compelling, and I personally strive toward intellectual and spiritual development. I regard philosophy, music, literature, and the cultivation of the mind as some of the most valuable possibilities of human existence.

But I keep returning to a question that seems to undermine these ideals at their foundations: what do these philosophies mean for people who, through no fault of their own, lack the capacities required to pursue the forms of development they celebrate?

Self-overcoming presupposes something that can be overcome. Intellectual cultivation presupposes capacities that can be cultivated. Philosophical reflection presupposes some ability to reflect. Even the ability to search for meaning, interpret one's suffering, or consciously affirm life cannot be assumed to be equally available to everyone.

You can answer, by any perspective, religious or non religious. you want.

P.S. Im sorry if my post is too long and complicated, im also not native english speaker so there might be typos and unclear point in the text.

If I close my eyes to the chaos and blood and war, should I be ashamed? Everyone else had bad childhoods, why do I get to look away? Why do I get to live while others die, why don't I fight to the death? why don't I lose my life for the cause? Why don't I lose my sanity and will to continue for it? I've heard a lot of moderates say, you can fight for good in other ways, and I hear that but isn't that just cowardice?

For context, I have BPD, ADHD, ASD, MDD and general anxiety disorder. If that bears any weight.

P.S. I am not suicidal and this isn't supposed to be political, and I don't think it is; it is about ethics. Is it ethical to exist in a world like ours?