I was asking myself an ambiguous question - which one is right, consuming your favorite products from only certified services, it could be watching a Netflix series exclusively through Netflix itself or any other streaming service where the series is available or consuming the same product through pirating, like watching the same Netflix series through a pirating website for free. Financially, I would choose to watch it through a random free website but ethically and morally I would choose not to pirate it and do it in a legal way, it’s simple right? Not exactly, because following this ethical rationale is not fully impossible especially if you live in Kazakhstan like me, personally I’m a Marvel fan and I would really like to watch the MCU movies and series in a legitimate way through Disney+, it wouldn’t be a problem if it wasn’t unavailable in my region and then you will have to pirate it because the legal way is not even supported where you live and this is where I realized the subject that I study at uni called Ethics & Aesthetics is vital and initially I didn’t think it was that important. You’re literally stuck between being legal and loyal to your favorite franchise but at the same time being forced to ignore the copyright and pirate it. If you are willing to pay for a product but the company doesn't give you a legitimate way to access it in your country, are you morally obligated to go without it?

I watched Coraline recently, and the Beldam's character sparked a curiosity regarding evil and necessity.

A reasonable conception of evil can be to have the option to consider a set of actions ranging from morally good, to morally questionable, to morally evil; but to willingly commit to an action that is morally evil, or to preserve a stricter sense of justice, an action other than morally good one.

How is it reasonable, you may ask? I would tell you that it is reasonable on the simple basis that the options can either cause the undue pleasure or suffering of other people. This should be self-explanatory.

The strongest form of this conception should differentiate the perception of necessity from the actual substance of necessity.

What I mean is that a scammer may have an option to live within their means or to achieve their idealised lifestyle through deception and theft. We would obviously say that they have committed an evil action.

Their internal psychology may abuse the moral weight of necessity by rationalising that they are swindling people to achieve their ideal lifestyle, thinking of various reasons (e.g. appealing to people in higher classes that may notice them for their actual authenticity rather than what they would later describe as their "unglamorous past" should they use the connections to their advantage, getting back at the rich who "scam the impoverished anyways"... you get the gist) to rationalise that committing to the otherwise action, which would be to live within their means, is intolerable.

For this reason, the identified differentiation (between the substance of necessity and perception of necessity) should tell apart whether they can reasonably survive by living within their means, from whether their internal psychology restricts them from surviving reasonably by living within their means.

Moving back to the mention of the Beldam, we could accuse her of being evil by harming vulnerable, undeserving children in her quest for harnessing child-like wonder. It may feel morally justified to pass this judgement.

But when we consider our conception for evil, how can we really qualify her actions as evil?

We learn, through the film, that she needs the souls of the children to sustain her world, and by extension, to sustain her existence. We can already postulate that she has existed beyond the timelines of humanity, granted that she lurks around for centuries before devouring another soul, but it stands that we don't really have a strong basis to determine whether or not she is immortal.

Perhaps a higher creature created her for the purpose of devouring the souls of errant children. Her purpose could be as relatively trivial as teaching children to appreciate their gloomy home, drab family, even in the face of glistening, fleeting niceties. It may be reasonable to infer, as we have already done, that she needs these souls to sustain her own existence as an extension of her world.

We could look to her predicament as we would to a lion that stalks its hapless prey to sustain its physical existence. Or to a fungi that establishes its lineage by inhabiting its host parasitically to the point that it literally saps its existence. As nature simply... taking its course.

The necessity appears to be objectively real when she cries out to Coraline that she will die without her (Coraline). For all we know, the apparent necessity could also be perceived by the psychology of the Beldam, that her failure to harness Coraline's soul creates an existential nightmare that is impossible for her to live through.

Should we, therefore still conclude that the Beldam is evil, or a victim of her circumstance, circumstance in this case being that she is the perpetual villain in the story of humanity in this fictionalised reality?

Modern people seem to treat 21st century morality as hegel's geist reaching the final synthesis, but without some events (let's say jesus is never born and the concept of "all men are equal in front of God" never arrives in the west) we would have had different "self evident" truths. When we criticize violence committed by christians, we are paradoxically using christian values, and we explicitly say "jesus would not approve the crusades". When we judge OT violence, we explicitly say that Jesus taught a completely different morality

I was recently driving in VA when I came up to a marked (with stripes and signs) crosswalk, where some cyclists were waiting to cross. I stopped to let them cross, and a car two cars rear-ended me. Police charged me with an infraction for impeding the highway. I was acquitted in court, much to the chagrin of the officer and another driver, who was also hit by the truck.

In my mind, while I was not required to stop, it was still an ethical move. While the police were writing out the charging document, about 1/2 dozen kids (with families) crossed at that location. While in VA, cyclists are meant to stop before crossing, waiting for traffic to clear, kids do unpredictable things. It seems in the interest of their lives, and relative vulnerability of pedestrians and cyclists generally, the most ethical move is to stop and give them time and space.

Assuming that is right, was I rightly charged? Was it more ethical to not stop, given there was car traffic behind me, of which I was aware? Does it matter how quickly I stopped, or how unaware I was of the distance of the traffic behind me? Does it matter the attitude and belief of everyone else at the scene, including the cyclists?

Thanks for checking in.

I cant find any argument supporting objective morality besides someone's own opinion that somethings wrong or majority belief which would make a lot of things people think are wrong right.

This just a philosophical question not my own opinion, I just like to hear what other people think about it.

See my point is that anything can be justified by the doer , because he did that only due to the circumstances like I would've been a criminal if I was born in place of a criminal and experienced everything that he had experienced, and the criminal would've been a good person if he was born in my stead, so what is good and bad and who decides that? I mean murder is wrong just because people think it's wrong but where does this come from what if there was a society where killing was considered normal then would murdering be wrong? See I'm not a bad guy or something I just wanted toh know different people's perspective pls don't hate me saying that I'm not a good person to think like this

Premise 1: Child sexual exploitation means knowingly using a child’s sexuality for someone else’s benefit.

Premise 2: Pornography platforms and producers often know—or should know—that children may access their content.

Premise 3: When they knowingly allow children to access it, they knowingly benefit from that exposure.

Conclusion: So platforms or producers that knowingly allow children to access their content exploit children’s sexuality for their own benefit and therefore it is child sexual exploitation.

Is it a morally right decision—for children to end one’s own life when one has been cursed from the very moment of birth?

\Originally posted in 2020*

It’s really just me talking shit

I mean it’s obviously not ok to eat a real person but what about if they’re French?

Suppose a voter supports a candidate for their domestic policies while opposing a military policy that foreseeably risks serious harm to civilians abroad. The alternative candidate would reduce that risk but has other policies the voter reasonably considers harmful.

Assume the voter understands both platforms, takes the likely harms seriously and has no viable candidate who avoids the tradeoff. This is a hypothetical about responsibility, not a claim about a particular election.

Voting bundles choices together, so supporting a candidate doesn't necessarily mean endorsing every proposal. Yet disapproving of one policy doesn't make it irrelevant to the moral assessment of the vote. A voter can reject a foreseeable consequence in intention while accepting its risk as part of the choice.

My starting position is that responsibility depends partly on the severity and likelihood of the harm, the alternatives available and the reasons for choosing as one does. Accepting a risk of grave harm for a minor personal benefit is harder to justify than accepting it to prevent a comparable or greater harm.

The strongest objection concerns individual influence. One ballot is extremely unlikely to decide a large election, and a voter who neither directs a policy nor decisively contributes to its adoption may be held responsible for more than they controlled.

That objection limits claims about causation, but an action can require justification even when it's unlikely to change the outcome by itself. The hard part is explaining what responsibility attaches to participation without treating every supporter as equally blameworthy for everything a government later does.

Knowledge matters too. A foreseeable policy announced during a campaign differs from an unexpected decision taken after the election, and a choice between genuinely constrained alternatives differs from one that ignores available evidence or dismisses the people likely to be harmed.

Blame for the original choice is also separate from obligations afterward. Even a justified vote might leave someone with reasons to oppose a harmful policy, support those affected or demand accountability from the candidate they helped elect.

Under what conditions does knowingly accepting a candidate's harmful policy as part of an electoral tradeoff become culpable participation, rather than a defensible choice among imperfect alternatives?

Every question I have is stupid, or at the very least stupidly asked. If someone can better ask the question for me better please feel free..
anyways;
So basically the question regards reparations..
The genesis of this thought was in regards to right media straight up lying and making completely new false claims for weeks on end. Then they make a single acknowledgment when they find out they are wrong, saying they are sorry and they’ll try to do better in the future.
But I was thinking, wouldn’t the real atonement be to make an equal allotted time to the real information as they did the false?
That is a media can of worms that is beyond me.
But it got me thinking of future reparations people in power and affluence might look like if done right/ appropriate. If enforced what would it look like? What redeeming thing could be gained?

First time posting to the sub. Please advice if it fits better elsewhere. Posted in full here, intentionally, original is a Substack two-piece.
https://extinctionati.substack.com/p/manjana-baby | https://extinctionati.substack.com/p/manjana-baby-ii

Due to long form and formatting issues, I find it best to ask first if this is the wrong room, and if it isn't, I will attempt a full post.

#ai #ethics #God #morality

full research project

Ethical Guardrails Beyond Computation: Why Advanced AI Requires External Moral Authority

Abstract

As artificial intelligence systems grow in capability, autonomy, and societal influence, existing AI ethics frameworks increasingly rely on technical constraints, procedural oversight, and internal governance mechanisms. This paper argues that such approaches are fundamentally insufficient once system capability exceeds meaningful human comprehension and control. At that threshold, ethics cannot be derived from within the system itself and must instead originate from an external moral authority capable of grounding accountability, dignity, and limits on power. Through a comparative systems analysis, this paper distinguishes capability from authority, demonstrates the structural failure of internalized AI ethics at scale, and examines revelatory ethics—specifically those found in the —as a model of invariant, human-centered moral constraint. The paper concludes that advanced AI governance requires ethical ceilings that technology cannot generate or enforce on its own.

1. Introduction

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence has reignited longstanding ethical questions concerning authority, responsibility, and moral decision-making. While contemporary AI ethics discourse emphasizes alignment, transparency, and accountability, these approaches assume that ethical governance can be encoded, enforced, or corrected internally through technical or procedural means.

This paper challenges that assumption.

It argues that once artificial systems operate beyond human interpretability or control, technical safeguards become insufficient, and ethical guidance must originate from outside the system itself. This is not a theological claim, but a systems-level one: no system can legitimately authorize or constrain its own power when it becomes functionally opaque to its creators.

2. Research Question and Methodology

Research Question

Can technical and procedural ethics sufficiently govern AI systems whose capabilities exceed human comprehension, or is an external moral authority required to bound their use?

Methodology

• Conceptual systems analysis
• Comparative ethics framework
• Cross-domain translation (technology, law, moral philosophy)
• Case-based reasoning

Out of Scope

• Proofs of metaphysical claims
• AI consciousness speculation
• Eschatological arguments

This paper focuses on governance, not belief.

3. Background: The Contemporary AI Ethics Paradigm

Modern AI ethics frameworks emphasize:

• alignment
• fairness
• robustness
• interpretability
• human-in-the-loop oversight

These frameworks assume:

1. Human oversight remains meaningful
2. Ethical values can be operationalized
3. Accountability can be preserved procedurally

However, these assumptions degrade as systems scale in complexity, autonomy, and speed.

4. The Capability–Control Gap

A central challenge in advanced AI systems is the capability–control gap:

System capability scales faster than human understanding, oversight, and moral deliberation.

Key contributing factors include:

• model opacity
• emergent behaviors
• automation bias
• delegation of decision-making
• diffusion of responsibility

As control erodes, ethical governance shifts from human judgment to procedural compliance.

5. Authority vs Capability (Core Conceptual Contribution)

Definitions

• Capability: what a system can do
• Authority: the legitimate right to decide, command, or justify outcomes

These are often conflated.

AI can increase capability dramatically.
AI cannot originate authority.

Authority requires:

1. legitimacy
2. accountability
3. moral standing

AI possesses none inherently.

Authority without accountability is not authority—it is concealment.

Any authority attributed to AI is delegated by humans and remains morally human-owned, even when obscured by systems language.

6. Why Internal AI Ethics Fail at the Edge

As systems become self-optimizing or self-modifying, internal ethical constraints face structural failure:

• constraints become optimization targets
• oversight becomes symbolic
• audits become post-hoc rationalizations
• responsibility dissolves into process

Ethics reduced to what is computable inevitably sacrifices what is human.

Invoking Occam’s Razor here is a misapplication: simplifying ethics to computational feasibility multiplies hidden assumptions rather than reducing them.

7. External Moral Authority as a Systems Requirement

When internal governance fails, ethical boundaries must originate outside the system.

Historical parallels:

• constitutional law restraining executive power
• medical ethics constraining medical capability
• laws of war limiting military force

In each case, power is bounded by norms it does not generate.

Advanced AI requires the same.

8. Revelation as Moral Guardrail (Case Study)

The provides an example of an ethical framework with properties uniquely suited to bounding power:

• moral invariance
• non-delegable human accountability
• prohibition of authority transfer
• inherent human dignity
• limits on power regardless of capability

Revelation does not automate decisions.
It preserves moral agency.

Its role is not to compete with technology but to constrain its use.

9. Comparative Framework

This contrast highlights why internal ethics struggle at scale.

10. Addressing Common Objections

“Religion is subjective”

All ethics are normative. Technical ethics are not neutral; they encode values implicitly.

“Pluralism makes external authority impossible”

Pluralism does not eliminate the need for limits—it intensifies it.

“Technology is neutral”

Tools inherit intent, framing, and consequence. Neutrality is a rhetorical illusion.

11. Implications for AI Governance

• AI must remain advisory, not authoritative
• moral responsibility cannot be automated
• ethical ceilings must be explicit and external
• governance must address authority, not just accuracy

12. Conclusion

As artificial systems grow in power, the defining question is no longer what they can do, but who is permitted to decide how they are used.

No system can answer that question about itself.

Once capability exceeds comprehension, ethical guardrails must come from a source outside the system—one that preserves accountability, human dignity, and moral restraint.

This is not an argument against technology, but against idolatry of capability.