r/Ethics

Look I’m pro death penalty for the most serious crimes especially those involving death of others. I don’t think people who have ended the lives of others should be allowed to live, its unfair to the family and the person who they killed. Anyways this isn’t an argument for/against death penalty but instead a discussion about death penalty for polluters. Industries that pollute literally kill thousands and reduce the quality of life for thousands more. These chemicals cause lung cancer or climate change and natural disasters and other stuff, that will lead to mass murder. Should we use the death penalty for executives who pollute endlessly?

I'm struggling with a conflict of my personal values and ethics when it comes to choosing a school for my young kids.

I believe strongly in supporting public education for all children. I also believe it is my ethical obligation to do the best I can for my own children.

We live in an area where the public schools are very under-resourced, and (in my opinion) they do not provide a high-quality education for general education students(*). We can afford to send the kids to a private school that I believe would overcome a lot of the public school's limitations. We can also afford to move to a district with better-resourced public schools.

What are the ethical considerations here? What are my obligations?

(*) I recognize that test scores do not tell the full story about the schools. This question is orthogonal to the ethical question posed. Please assume that I have done my due diligence and concluded that the quality of instruction at our local public school is sub-standard. I'd be happy to explain how I reached that conclusion separately.

Something I've been struggling with for a long time. this is not a hypothetical scenario, it happened more time than one can count. One of the most notable examples is Northern Ireland, where England drove out native population and then sponsored English settlers to settle. A few centuries later descendents of those English settlers voted to remain in the UK while the rest of Ireland left.

Basically if a nation uses such actions as genocide, ethnic cleansing, mass displacement of population or anything similar, and then settles this newly depopulated land with it's own people. Let's say those people remain there for several generations then, is it ethically wrong for them to consider that land theirs at that point, including being allowed to decide which country that land should belong to?

On the one hand, everyone who participated in that original attrocity is probably dead, and their descendents have been born and raised on that land.

On the other hand it introduces a pretty huge loophole where you get to keep what you take, no matter what means you used, as long as you can hold on to it long enough.

I usually don't feel guilty for things such as stealing or lying rumors etc. But I would never hurt my own dog or there was a time where I wa s laughing at a little kid and felt dread when they looked crushed. But for a lot of people and animals I don't feel guilt. I really want to know of that's something wrong or needed to consider

I know that for prisoners to even be considered for parole, for instance, that there are some surface-level behavioural checks which could be considered as some form of psychological assessment; and I feel like it is mostly to determine whether they are fit to go back into the society. And often, it overlooks the cognitive habits that reinforce their mentality, and as such their criminal behaviours. It is little wonder, therefore, that a good number of prisoners still find it difficult to rehabilitate into the rapidly evolving outside world with their frozen-in-time outlook of it.

So I am just wondering: What if this assessment was restructured to look into cognitive habits whose origins we can help them arrive at so that they understand how they should change their mentality, and by extension their lives once they are rehabilitated into the society? And more importantly, how can we enable them to put the evolving world into perspective as they go out there?

Moral realism and moral subjectivity both arise naturally from the goals-methods model of morality (Perry, 2026).  In this model, moral principles are methods of achieving mutual fitness.  As such, they are goals in themselves, with sub-methods of achieving these goals.  

 

Moral realism

If I have moral goal GM, then it is true that I (morally) should do action X (that promotes GM).  The moral goal is mutual thriving, surviving and/or reproducing.  

 

Moral subjectivity

Moral principles come equipped with normative pressure, since each is a method of achieving mutual fitness, and there is evolved normative pressure to achieve fitness (thriving, surviving, reproducing).  

The moral agent can only act upon this normative pressure if they endorse the particular method, or domain of methods, for achieving mutual fitness.  I.e., if I do not think a principle is legitimate then I will reject it as illegitimate.  

In practice, the domain this applies to is patriarchy.  The goal of patriarchy is reproduction, which is mutual, but on men’s terms, at women’s expense, which is not compatible with fairness, equality, women’s autonomy, etc.  

 

Reasons why I might not endorse patriarchy:  

• It violates women’s autonomy, fairness, equality, etc.

 

 

Reasons why I might endorse patriarchy (as a man):  

• I don’t care about women’s rights.
• I get what I want (reproduction on my terms).
• My family endorsed patriarchy.  
• My culture endorses patriarchy.  
• I don’t know the biological reasons for patriarchy.
• I’ve never really thought about it.  
• I don’t know any different strategies for achieving the same ends (e.g., mate retention through attractiveness).

 

 

Reference

Perry, Simon (2026) – “Understanding morality and ethics”; https://orangebud.co.uk/web_book_2.html

Vegans,

Say there are 3 markets.

(1) a dominant market which relies on factory farming

(2) a medium but significant market, which relies on meat that mostly treats animals ethically until their slaughter

(3) fully plant based market, small but loyal consumer base

Now grant the following:

#3 is unlikely to grow beyond it’s loyal base.

#2 can grow if enough consumers from #1 transfer over.

Should vegans prioritize buying from #2 over #3?

A murderer is unanimously found guilty and sentenced to death by hanging by three judges. Each of the judges posts an opinion explaining their reasoning behind the verdict.

Judge 1 desires to inflict the harshest sentence possible to discourage future criminals. He chose death by hanging because he believes it to be the harshest sentence permitted by constitution.

Judge 2 believes that an inflicted damage invokes a just desert of equal proportion. He chooses death because it is the most equivalent punishment, and hanging as it is the cheapest method of execution available.

Judge 3 notes that precedent from similar cases indicates death by hanging as the appropriate punishment, and public opinion largely leans towards the defendant’s death.

How would you rank the judges? Or are they all equal to each other because they delivered the same verdict?

July 4, 2026                                                                                                                       

The Hard Question

 Is it ever morally acceptable for an individual to illegally take the life of another person? Let’s suppose you could go back in time and were in Germany immediately before Hitler began killing millions of Jews. If you could do it without getting caught, would you take his life to save the lives of millions of Jews?

If there is a modern-day tyrant who is not being held accountable by his own government for breaking the law (he is above the law because he controls the legal system) and is illegally causing the deaths of many innocent people, is it morally justified for vigilante justice to fill the role vacated by his government and take out the tyrant?

i was watching house md clips on youtube, and came across the one where dr. chase kisses a 9-year old girl with cancer (?) who, from their expert medical opinion, was likely to die. i wondered about it and a tangential hypothetical thought i had of, what if chase brought it up to the parents, etc. and the child redirects the request to her father?

i guess i'm just wondering what ethical angles to look at it from, both pro- and anti-kiss, and also both from the perspective of being given that request as 1.) the temporary healthcare professional dr. chase, and 2.) the permanent father. cause i feel like there's a distinction to be dug at there, ethics-wise

Let me give an example. Let's say your code is "never lie". Do you think this is a healthy approach? There can be some situations where you can protect someone (your best friend for example) with lying. Or people you're dealing with (who expecting answer from you) can also be complete liars, no word they are saying is true. Are you obligated to not break this rule for them?

Is it common to have strict list rules to live, or is it too rigid? Is living accordance to more general rule, let's say golden rule, more healthy?

I know I asked a lot of questions. I know a lot of people don't care about such things. For them it's not important as long as they are getting what they want. For example, cheating in an exam. They would defend themselves with saying: it's a victimless crime, everyone is doing it anyway, why do you care there are worse things. I don't think I would be comfortable with myself thinking like this and I hope my sense of morality does not change with time (whole becoming what you hate story).

Lets say someone had a partner who was prone to mania/psychosis, two conditions that impair consent capacity. Would it be ethical for their partner to have sex with them under these conditions, assuming prior consent was given while mentally stable that it's ok to do it while psychotic/manic?

It is often easier for society to point at an enemy, a scapegoat, or a single figure of fault than to confront the problems that sit plainly in front of us. Blame offers relief, it simplifies complex issues into a story of fault, shifting responsibility away from collective action. Fixing problems, however, demands effort, accountability, and uncomfortable change.

This pattern reveals a preference for the comfort of blame over the challenge of repair, even when solutions are within reach. But the deeper question remains: instead of searching for someone to blame, could society begin by asking what small, practical steps can we take together to start fixing what is right in front of us?

A man discovered a serial killer who had murdered 50 people. He shot the killer then immediately took his own life. How would utilitarian and deontological ethics evaluate this act?

Does the number of victims change the moral evaluation? What if the killer had only murdered one person? What about 2000?

The US Vs Them thing.

The divide when science strongly suggests there is no divide, and supports a more - The damaged vs the more damaged view and a lack of choice in the matter of what one us?

The psychopath doesn't choose to be a psychopath any more than an empath chooses to be an empath.

"Evil" = Hatred in the name of goodness?

It's frustrating to see people who dont contribute anything to society while benefiting from public infrastructure and resources. But at the same time, we generally agree that human rights are inalienable and that every person has an inherent right to live. How do reconcile this paradox? Is human value tied to what we contribute, or do we have a right to exist purely by virtue of being human? Im curious to hear how people view this conflict.

It's a question i have been wondering, for this hypothetical, let's say that the kidnapper has seen the addicted person go to rehab, jail, etc but nothing has worked and they won't make it to 30 if something doesn't change.

Yes, context matters.

>Wow so if context matters then there's no such thing as morally right or wrong?

Don't jump to that conclusion. Instead try to see what the deeper principle is that's true across contexts.

E.g.

>Is being stabbed with a knife ever good?

>>Yes, I was stabbed into better health by a surgeon. I even paid a few thousand for them to do it.

The deeper principle might be "don't harm someone's welfare."

>But what someone thinks is "their welfare" could be subjective, so I guess thinking seriously about morals and ethics is fake.

The principle to follow is that someone has the ability to decide for themselves what is good or bad for them. This is from medical ethics especially. I think it's correct to say it's the principle behind why consent matters.

Applied ethics is cool, you can read some. Finding someone has published on a topic you thought only you cared about is extraordinarily nice.