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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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?

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?

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?

I am donating my hair. I was growing it out for fun. I was thinking about cutting it when it was about 18 inches when a friend of mine got cancer. She kept all her hair, but now, I am still donating my hair because I no longer want to have it. I know I am doing a good thing, but I don't think I have the intention of a good person and am not a good person for doing so. I'm not bad either, im just neutral.

Is this a type of ethical dilemma, or is this feeling something that is normal?

Thanks!

For example I think eating meat and watching porn are probably immoral but I still do it, other than that I think I am not hypocritical in any other belief

i was debating this with my friend and he was talking about stereotypes of people in groups. While heinous stuff is happening to other people is it right to just stand there and watch by? I guess it depends on how much power you have to actually make a change but like. We hear horrible horrible stuff about American ice agents. And while I argued that the concept of ice is right but the execution is blatantly wrong. His argument was mostly gravitating on the economy and inflation that illegal immigrants course and like the experience of shooting a gun and getting a good pay.

So, found a gift card a few months ago in amongst rubbish at work (without going into too much detail, my work deals with people bringing in large amounts of rubbish). The people who brought it in collect bulk from multiple apartment buildings, so the chance of the card being theirs is basically 0, and there's no practical way for me to find the original owner.

It has a lot of money on it. I was able to verify using the retailer's online gift cards service that it's valid, untouched, and with over $1000 on it. I checked the t&c of the retailer, and they said that with proof of purchase, they can swap the balance over to a new card even if you lose the original. As far as I can tell there's no way to "load the balance" digitally with this retailer, you either choose a digital or physical card at purchase. It is also for a tech retailer, so luxury goods. If it was groceries or food or something I think I'd donate most or all of it, but tech is a bit more complicated to do that with I think.

Here's the approaches I considered with what to do next at the time:

1. Destroy the card. It isn't mine, if the owner has proof of purchase they can move the balance to a new card (you'd be pretty silly to lose the receipt on a $1000+ gift card purchase). If they don't, the money just goes to a giant corporation for nothing.
2. Take it into the store (the online portal says what store it was activated in) and tell them. In this case, the outcomes are more or less the same, except there's I think a good chance it will be taken and used by staff, or placed in a drawer never claimed for 5 years until a cleanout discovers it and it then gets used by staff. Gift card owner would need proof of purchase to claim it anyway, and if they have that they don't need the physical card
3. Take it to the police. Lol. I don't really wanna give the cops free money. There's no way they'd be able to find the owner even if they wanted to.
4. Hold onto the card myself for months and don't use it, to give the owner a really fair chance to transfer the balance themselves. If they really don't notice their $1000+ gift card missing for months and never bother to go get it transferred/cancelled, how important was this gift card to them after all?

I ended up deciding to do option 4, and I've held it unused for over 3 months. It's still valid and untouched.

I'm starting to think I probably should just use the card? I'd divide up the money between me and some friends, everyone gets to buy something they want/need. I might wait some more time, but how long?

How would you approach this situation? If I don't use the card, the outcomes are either the owner gets that money back, or the giant corporation gets away with free money. The longer time passes since the card was purchased, the more likely it's the latter.