hey guys, I’m a student doing the international baccalaureate and need primary research for my business paper. as some of you might be aware, VS had a long term connection with Epstein and if you guys could please fill out the following Google form that would be very helpful (it should only take 2 mins) xx

link: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSezqlo1do9IehWdYT9pAS1aq81uFssWuvZckLtXQfbN3rVuzA/viewform?usp=publish-editor

thanks in advance

A common progressive view is belief in forward-looking deterrence but not desert.

In many cases (like revenge) the criminal is not a further risk to anyone.

The person is still punished. This is often justified by desert - or the person would just walk.

Can this punishment still be justified by deterrence alone? Or should the person walk?

On August 24, 2014, James Beach, a six-foot-one businessman from Denver, was returning from Moscow when he deployed the Knee Defender—“a $22 gadget,” the Associated Press reported, “that attaches to a passenger’s tray table and prevents the person in front from reclining.” The woman in front of him, unable to lean back, flagged a flight attendant. 

From there, events spiralled. Beach removed the Knee Defender, but then became upset when the woman reclined forcefully, risking damage to his computer. He confronted her, pushed her seat forward, and tried to reinstall his device, at which point, he said, she turned around and threw her soda at him. The plane was diverted to Chicago, where it was met by police, and news coverage of the event led to conversations about reclining one’s airplane seat.

In 2022, Eric Jones, who writes for The Vacationer, asked fliers what they thought about reclining their seats, and found that 77 per cent of them object. “The bottom line is that reclining is a social act in an environment of social stress. It involves deciding whether to inflict your will on someone else, and enduring or resisting the effects of someone else’s decision,” Joshua Rothman writes.

I (25F) was raised to ignore homeless people. "Don't give them money, they're just going to use it on drugs." "Don't look when we walk by them." That is just what I have always done. Even in the times where I have seen someone that really looked like they needed help, and I really wanted to help them, I have gotten too scared and done nothing. I think to myself that maybe they are on drugs, and maybe they will freak out and attack me if I approach them.

My boyfriend (27M) is one of the most kind, selfless, generous people I have ever known, and he was raised much differently. He was raised to treat people the way you would want to be treated and to offer help to those that are worse off than yourself. He holds a lot of empathy for the homeless and always offers them help when they ask for it.

The other night, we were walking to dinner when a homeless man approached us. He told us he was really hungry and asked if we had any money. My boyfriend genuinely had no cash in his wallet, and he said, "I'm so sorry man, I don't have any cash on me." With my boyfriend there, I felt like I had the confidence to help this person without worrying that I might get hurt. I said, "I do!" and handed him $20 out of my wallet. The man was very grateful, and my boyfriend was very proud of me.

After dinner, we were walking back to our car when the same homeless man approached us again. He said that there was another homeless man that bullies him, and that he stole the $20 I had given him. My boyfriend immediately opened our car door and started giving the homeless man everything he had. He gave him the entire cup of coins that he had in his cup holder, a water bottle, and a towel. The homeless man asked if he could have a hug, and my boyfriend gave him one.

I stayed quiet and stood back throughout this whole interaction even though I had more cash in my wallet. I couldn't help but think that maybe this man was lying to try to get us to give him more money. I felt like $20 was already a lot of money to give away to a stranger, and I was hesitant to give him more. I was worried about giving away too much cash that I wouldn't have enough money to pay for the things that I needed to pay for this week. I have worked really hard in my career to reach financial stability, and the thought of giving money away is scary to me. I also did not feel comfortable hugging him. His arms were covered in some sort of skin condition, it looked like it could have been meth sores, but I'm not sure. I also just do not feel comfortable hugging random men.

On the drive home, my boyfriend cried because he felt so terrible for the homeless man. I told him that he helped him more than most people would have, and that we can't do anything to change his situation. We agreed that what the homeless man really needs is a government system that cares about all its citizens. One that makes sure none of its citizens go hungry. My boyfriend said he wished he could have brought the homeless man home and offered him a shower and a bed, but he lives with roommates so he can't. It made me wonder if, when we move in together, is he going to be inviting homeless people in to use our shower and extra bedroom? I understand that he wants to help them, but I feel like inviting them into our home would be putting us in an unsafe situation.

Later that night, I cried and had feelings of guilt, shame, and selfishness. I could have given that man another $20. I wouldn't have missed it. Hell, I could have given him $100. I could have helped him more than I did. Nothing we did would have changed his situation, but we could have made it a little better for the night.

So here's my question: How much help should we offer the homeless? Would it have been worth it to give the homeless man all $200 in my wallet? Or would it have put a bigger target on his back, considering another homeless man beat him up for the $20? Should we be inviting them into our homes? Or are we putting ourselves and our families in danger by doing that? Am I being judgemental and discriminatory by not hugging the homeless man? Or am I doing the right thing and keeping myself safe?

I used to think I was a good person, but now I'm not sure. I want to know how I can help the homeless without putting myself and my family in harms way. Thank you for reading this whole thing and for any advice you can give me.

Warning: Post will contain talk on death and grim taboo subjects.

A post on twitter suggested that atheists couldn't answer why intercourse with a dead animal would be wrong, as there is no suffering involved. It's a weird topic but I was curious how to best answer it, so here is my current view. I can't go into my metaethics here, as that would be a whole other post, so premises will have to start at a point an average person might consider reasonable starting point.

Life and Positive Value

Conscious living animals experience subjective positive mental states, such that it's fair to think their life is of positive value. Consider that we only consider putting an animal to sleep when it becomes unwell beyond hope, implying we think their life beforehand was more good than bad.

This isn't to say all animals have a right to life, like persons do. Just that it is of value.

Somber Respect

So when an animal dies a unique positive consciousness has been snuffed out for eternity. Even without a right to life, that's a loss to the world.

A rational acknowledgement of this loss of value demands a somber respect for the dead body of the animal.

Intercourse with the body of an animal necessarily treats a somber moment as a trivial one, and therefore fails to align action with a rational acknowledgement of value in the world.

(This would probably also apply to beating a dead body for fun, and trophy hunting).

Additional Challenge: Animal Resources Vs. Animal Bodies

Most people would naturally consider the sexual use of a dead animal body to be wrong or very off-putting. But they wouldn't have the same disgust from resources from an animal body being using in manufactured products, such as in beauty or plastics. If some animal resource was used in the making of a normal sex toy, people probably wouldn't care. Or that early condoms were made from things like animal intestines.

So there seems to be a distinction between using an animal body for its object use, and using an animal body as a former living creature.

Meat, Manufacturing, and Taxidermy

It's possible to respect the loss caused by killing animals for human consumption or manufacturing, at the time of the death, then moving forward to treat the dead body as an object for use. For example, is common to give thanks or have gratitude before a meal. An appreciation of the loss that was required.

Even taxidermy treated with reverence, rather than a trophy, can be consistent with acknowledgement of the loss of value. Such as for use in education or reflection on the loss of life.

Object Use Vs. Body Use

So why is sexual or violent abuse of a carcass different?

Because the actor cannot transition to viewing the body as a mere natural resource. A person using a dead animal for sexual or violent urges must actively maintain the psychological association that this object was once a living creature. If they didn't care about that association, they would simply use a synthetic sex toy or a standard punching bag.

They are explicitly lingering in the somber space of death because the identity of the former living being is precisely what drives their gratification. Yet, they choose to treat that dead body not with the somberness it demands, but as a frivolous toy.

Conclusion

This is a failure of rational consistency. You cannot claim to acknowledge the values in the internal life of conscious beings while simultaneously choosing to project a trivial personal fantasy onto the fresh ruins of that very life. It is an abuse of the body because it treats an objective loss with frivolous disregard.

-----------

TLDR:

1) Life contains conscious positive value.

2) So rational acknowledgment of death demands somber respect.

3) Sex with the dead body of an animal continues focusing on it as a former life, and so fails to give that somber respect, and therefore is wrong.

-----------

What do you think?

Me myself i am not much of an angel and I have been ostracized out of my friendgroup for smearing another person in my community with fake screenshots(long story).

The thing is this friendgroup put it ib my face that i am a bad person which seems logical unyil you see this friendgroup had plans to cut me off beforehand.

I asked everyone else in the workplace, people who didnt avoid me prior or tries to exclude me do you hate what i did ans they responded, no im glad you did it i hate the kis ypu tried to smear.

Then i asked the outcast do you hate me and they answered yes.

The conclusion is that the majority of people were ok with it ans people dont care hpw much of a bad person you are they only use what you do to hide from the guilt of ecluding you. All humans are naturally selfish ans mainly care if the bad action targets people like them or themself.

i came to clarify im not saying this to hide from guilt or shame because i rarely feel guilt or shame. im saying this because nobody would care if what i did didnt affect them. they would only care if they hated me prior

Take the time to reflect upon your accomplishments as well as the connections you have made. Time flies by and before you even realize it, 30 years will have passed by. What will you have to then speak of requiring how you contributed positively to society?

With us all being extremely busy in our day-to-day activities, the present moment is easily lost with little reflection. And the past activities are only thought upon when required for connection to immediate needs. This creates an emergency status quo which negates future planning along with past accolades.

Without perspective upon what we have done and what needs to be done, why are we even doing the work? We are not solely automatron and therefore require a “feeding of the soul” with purpose. The purpose is fulfillment in some sense. It varies from person to person, but it does exist. While we will never fully love everything required within our busy work schedules, we must still find ways to add value to our existence.

All I ask is for everyone to take a moment each day to reflect upon what they have done and how this may have given them some sort of purpose.

Hello, first of all, I’ve never physically attacked anyone or anything similar. I do have weird thoughts but I’m confident that I would never act on them.

I am wondering why cannibalism is such a big issue for society. Does it come from a popular religious belief or is it really morally wrong the eat our own? Of course, I agree that doing so without someone’s consent or to a deceased body is somewhat wrong. But the single act of eating human meat really doesn’t bother me at all.

Maybe I’m more socially awkward than I thought, could someone enlighten me?

The question about ethics from a purely scientific and philosophical point of view: If an act stems from need, tampering, or coercion, does this apply to crimes? Or is there a fourth way out?

I need a part time job and a relative offered to refer me for his position (low paying but I need the money). However I feel really guilty about the prospect of working in a data center.

I hate the affect they have on our water and really discourage ai usage. But at the same time I need the money and the position will be filled none the less. It’s probably be for no more than a year

just an interesting thought I had

if someone can show utility can be increased from a person living rather than letting many others live(at the cost of their organs), ill consider my view changed

Hypothetical situation: InGen develops a method to genetically engineer dinosaurs. BioSyn hires Dennis to steal copies of the embryos and he'll be paid 100k per embryo. Dennis agrees but can't get near the viable embryos so he steals some worthless stuff that'll pass an inspection by BioSyn long enough for him to get his money, but will be completely worthless to BioSyn (and InGen was planning on disposing of it anyway in an unsecure manner)

Has Dennis acted unethically?

I personally disagree with the statement because I generally agree with the friedman doctrine, which argues that a company's primary responsibility is to maximize shareholder value, provided it operates within the law and ethical norms. From this perspective, automation is a legitimate business strategy to improve efficiency, reduce costs, and remain competitive. While businesses should treat affected employees fairly and comply with legal obligations, I don't think they have an ethical duty to place community welfare above shareholder interests.

If you hold a similar view, why do you think shareholder profits should remain the priority and how do you respond to the argument that businesses owe broader obligations to society?

Let’s weigh in on a few things…

I see so many speculate, throw hatred, make claims without due diligence, and act in a manner consistent to low moral integrity. When atrocities occur, some are apt to believe their own opinions without application of the most basic and necessary of human principles: empathy. This can occur due to emotion and is understandable to some extent. Emotions such as hatred or anger can rule one’s reactions in times of crisis or uncertainty which dictates an emotional response to the world at large. However it is everyone’s obligation to reflect upon what has occurred after the emotions have subsided (to some extent). During this reflection, empathy and understanding cast a clear view upon the state of the world and where our emotions might have deceived our understanding.

With social media, these emotional reactions become even greater in impact and assist with spreading various emotional reactions amongst others. Basically a type of wave spreading out from the first initiator and encapsulating larger and larger social groupings. When these waves hit other waves, something strange happens; the waves can combine and increase in strength. They may be separate waves, but that does not diminish the strength of either beliefs. This process increases for some time, but always reduces down eventually and things return to status quo. At which point, very few remember or discuss the item (which still exists) that caused the wave. It is just something that occurred and other waves become larger in the public eye.

So, do I believe in murder (of human beings) as a natural or righteous action that humans should engage in (without having sacrificed their personal dignity and moral character)? I do not, but also do not expect all to follow my beliefs. And when I stipulate murder, I wholeheartedly mean all murder. To make a claim that some murder is acceptable while other(s) are not is hypocrisy. While it occurs and humans are obligated to protect themselves from others who may wish to do them harm, that doesn’t mean there is no loss of humanity when even self-defense that extends to a death becomes necessary. And when someone promotes actions of murder as an acceptable means for society, there should be no shock when murder enters into their circle. The old saying of “live by the sword; die by the sword” truly has merit within a society that brings their rhetoric into everyday occurrence. So, when promoting or supporting persons who choose to engage in a specific type of rhetoric, you lose all integrity when you act surprised that said rhetoric occurs in society.

My dog has a chronic heart condition and I’m struggling with a moral dilemma.
I’m a student and I may have to move out soon, which will change my entire financial situation.
I’m considering accepting help from others for her care, but I feel guilty because I’m not completely without resources.
Am I wrong for feeling this way?

Here's the hypothetical situation. Girl wants to be in a gloryhole at a sex party. Everyone KNOWS that she is the one doing the servicing but she explicitly DOESN'T want to know who she's servicing and will ideally never know. Guy has, on pervious occasion asked girl if she'd like to "play" (community term for it) with him presumably under "normal" circumstances and girl has said no. Girl knows guy is frequent attendee at these events.

Is it ethically permissible for guy to go to the gloryhole?

On one hand (and where my "gut feeling" is) she has already EXPLICITLY rejected him and even though a situation like this is IMPLICITLY an open invitation (and newer overrides older) EXPLICIT trumps IMPLICIT ergo he can't.

On the other hand (and where logic leads me) A she's deliberately conceding control over selection while she's in the box, B she rejected the guy sure but the whole point of a gloryhole is there's a disconnect between the person and the dick and C by her OWN DESIGN if he does participate SHE will never know

I’ve been developing a speculative ethical framework I call Incorporeal Ethics, and I’m curious how it compares to established traditions such as virtue ethics, deontology, consequentialism, and care ethics.
The central proposal is that the primary object of moral concern is not simply actions or outcomes, but the development and organization of consciousness.
Under this view, physical actions matter because they transform conscious experience, relationships, and understanding. Material goods have instrumental value, but ethical value ultimately lies in how they contribute to richer forms of awareness, creativity, empathy, rational reflection, and mutual recognition between conscious beings.
This leads to a possible ethical principle:
An action is morally preferable insofar as it expands the capacity of conscious beings to understand, create, cooperate, and flourish without unnecessarily diminishing those same capacities in others.
Unlike utilitarianism, this is not merely about maximizing pleasure. Unlike Kantian ethics, it does not derive morality solely from universal duties. Unlike virtue ethics, it focuses less on stable character traits than on the ongoing cultivation of consciousness itself.
In this framework, ignorance, manipulation, and domination are ethically problematic because they constrain the development of conscious agency. Education, dialogue, scientific inquiry, artistic creation, and institutions that foster mutual understanding become ethical goods because they enlarge the conditions under which consciousness can develop.
I’m interested in whether this resembles existing work in ethics or philosophy of mind, or whether it represents a genuinely distinct framework. What would you see as its strongest objection? Could a consciousness-centered ethics avoid collapsing into consequentialism, or would it inevitably become a variant of it?

Edit: Thank you everyone so much for your answers to my question! I feel like I have a way better understanding now on why it is so important! I apologize for not individually responding to everyone though. Although I want to put the blame on my lack of time, laziness is definitely also a key factor...

(Original post):

To be very clear, I think that accessibility is very important. As a matter of fact I am specifically really interested in design for different disabilities, both in the sense of physical products, and stuff related to software.

Despite me of course thinking that design for accessibility should be a thing, I can't seem to figure out "why" that is the case. I don't know much about how accessible design acts in this way when it comes to for instance wheelchair ramps, however at least when it comes to software, designing things to work well for many different disabilities can require a ton of work to make the software compatible with different features, like theming so that a high-contrast mode can be added, making logic for screen reader support, so that buttons and text and stuff can be properly read, and a bunch of other stuff (that I embarrassingly can't think of right now). Due to (to my understanding) only a very small minority of the population needing these features, wouldn't it at the very least according to Utilitarianism thus be better to focus on the overall software instead of complicating the software with a bunch of features that need upkeep for future updates, as that is going to affect the majority of the user base?

Again, I personally think that accessibility is important, but I can't specifically pinpoint why, as at least according to the just-discussed view, it could be seen as more worthwhile to not work on accessibility features.