#Moral Obligation

[snapewife-divorce-lawyer]

JACK OFF NOW!!!!!!!!

Get a friend to help!

[anxietyfrappuccino]

clarification: if i say "i do not want to," it means one of two things:

a) i will never do the thing you're asking of me, fuck you

b) i want to do the thing but my brain physically feels ill and i can't do it rn, i'm so sorry

the first is in relation to personal or moral asks.

ex. no sorry i don't drink, fuck you for asking. or, no i'm not going to pretend to be someone else for your amusement, fuck you i choose my authentic self.

the second is about tasks.

ex. i need to do my homework or clean my room but my brain is refusing to let me do that. i repeat, my brain is refusing to work on this task

p.s. on behalf of subject b. i seriously do in fact feel like there is something physically wrong with my brain at these times of task paralysis, executive dysfunction, etc. imagine the feeling of a piece of paper on your arm just resting there, or a jar filled with cotton. yeah, it feels like that up in my fucking head and i have no control over how long it lasts. yes, it is VERY overwhelming, and because why fucking not, it happens every single fucking day.

as for subject a. do not question me. i know who i fucking am.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Ethics of Giving

The ethics of giving explores the moral principles that govern charitable donations, philanthropy, and other acts of generosity. It involves questions about how much we ought to give, whom we should prioritize when giving, and what ethical responsibilities accompany our capacity to help others.

Key Themes in the Ethics of Giving:

Moral Obligation vs. Voluntariness:

Moral obligation addresses whether individuals are morally required to give to those in need, or whether giving is a voluntary act of kindness. Philosophers like Peter Singer argue that those with wealth have a moral duty to help the less fortunate, especially when it involves relatively small sacrifices for significant benefits.

The opposing view suggests that charity is voluntary, a supererogatory (beyond duty) action that individuals can choose to perform but are not ethically bound to do.

How Much to Give:

A significant ethical question is: how much should one give? Some argue for a proportional approach, suggesting that people should give based on their means, while others propose more radical positions, like giving to the point where additional giving would significantly reduce one’s own quality of life.

Peter Singer's famous "drowning child" analogy suggests that, just as you would be morally obligated to save a drowning child if it required minimal sacrifice, so too are you obligated to give as much as possible to help those in poverty or suffering, as long as it doesn’t cause you undue harm.

Effectiveness and Impact:

The effectiveness of giving is a central issue, particularly in movements like effective altruism, which argues that giving should be directed toward the most effective causes, where each dollar can have the greatest impact. This leads to the ethical question of whether it is morally wrong to give to causes that are less efficient or less impactful when better alternatives exist.

Should people focus on saving lives through global poverty initiatives, for instance, or is it equally moral to donate to causes that enhance the quality of life or support cultural endeavors?

Prioritizing Recipients:

The ethics of giving also addresses whom to prioritize in charitable efforts. Should we give to those closest to us (friends, family, local community), or should we prioritize the global poor, who might be in more urgent need? This raises questions of proximity vs. global responsibility.

Some argue for a moral cosmopolitanism, where all lives are equally valuable regardless of location, while others believe it is natural and acceptable to prioritize those closest to us.

Motivations for Giving:

Ethical concerns also focus on the motivation behind giving. Is it more virtuous to give anonymously, or does it matter if one seeks recognition for their charity? Altruism, at its core, is about giving for the sake of others, but self-interested giving (such as giving for social status or tax benefits) complicates this ideal.

Conditional vs. Unconditional Giving:

There is an ethical debate over whether giving should be conditional (requiring recipients to meet certain criteria, such as job training or rehabilitation) or unconditional (giving freely without stipulations). Conditional giving can be seen as paternalistic, while unconditional giving might be criticized for encouraging dependency.

The Role of Government and Systemic Change:

Some ethicists argue that while individual giving is important, it cannot replace systemic changes that address the root causes of poverty, inequality, and injustice. This raises questions about whether it is more ethical to donate to direct aid or to support efforts that seek to reform broader economic, social, and political systems.

Opportunity Cost:

The ethics of giving also considers the opportunity cost of donations—what could have been done with the resources had they not been given? For example, donating to a cause might divert funds from other areas like personal or familial needs, which could raise ethical concerns about balancing generosity with responsibility toward one's immediate obligations.

Ethical Theories on Giving:

Utilitarianism: From a utilitarian perspective, the ethical action is to maximize happiness and minimize suffering. Giving, therefore, should be directed to the most effective means of achieving the greatest good for the greatest number.

Deontology: Deontological ethics focuses on the duty to give rather than the consequences. Some argue that giving is a moral duty regardless of the outcome, based on the principle of helping others in need.

Virtue Ethics: According to virtue ethics, giving is a manifestation of virtues like generosity and compassion. The emphasis is on cultivating good character and acting from a place of moral virtue, rather than solely focusing on the consequences.

The ethics of giving is a multifaceted area of moral philosophy that deals with not only how and why we give but also to whom, how much, and with what motivation. It raises important questions about our responsibilities to others and challenges us to consider how best to balance personal well-being with the needs of those around us, particularly in a world marked by inequality and suffering.

[dein0nychus]

i have to be weird and strange on main i have to

[followtheleider]

I'm fighting the urge to create a gofundme for something obviously and completely bullshit and see how long I can get it to run. The only thing stopping me is if it did gain traction, what the fudge would I do with the money? My broke ass says pocket it but my moral background says if I spent any of it I would be no better than the pond scum where other scam artists reside. Thoughts?

[wisdomfish]

The existence of objective moral obligations requires a source or foundation.

Samples, Kenneth Richard. ‘Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions. p. 236

[soymimikyu]

I ducked up the last loaf of focaccia I made and felt morally obligated to fix it. I think I rushed and attempted to use a heated steal under the pan. It wasn’t great. I blame the oven. New oven :3.

I think I fixed all issues now. This was good but it tastes like I used the cheaper olive oil. Which I did — for science.

[burgundythebestcolor]

Passing on the fruit

[rish-you-were-here]

Happy pride

[snapewife-divorce-lawyer]

Give birth in the discord VC.

[getozzn]

i should proooooobably put my age and pronouns somewhere on my account huh

[amalgamgooze]

a box of electronic scrap

Once, in a post-pre-pandemic era not long ago, I became obsessed with electronics. It was likely the result of my success with fixing my 3DS, a stressful operation involving opening its casing and such.

(When I tried to fix the family's Wii, however, I didn't exactly have as much success...)

Looking into the internals of everything empowered me to start collecting electronic scrap. You know, for epic scrap-sourced electromagnet railguns and cool shit like that.

Unfortunately, none of my projects of that nature have come to fruition. Not even a magnet-powered instrument I conceptualized last summer ever saw the light of day.

That box of scrap holds what remains of a radio that was once so dear to summer gatherings at my grandma's house. The cousins would all gather to play Wiffle ball while most of the adults sat under the porch awning and listened to music or the game on that radio.

One of my bigger regrets is taking that radio apart so carelessly. Even though it was already broken by the time it'd come into my care, I kinda wish I hadn't snipped the ribbon cords just to get a better look at the internals.

Part of me feels like I had a moral obligation to fix that radio, since it's a remnant of dear memories of the past.

In its current state, the circuit boards are carelessly shoved back into the shell of the stereo, waiting to be renewed in some way, shape, or form.

But until I can get my hands on the right cable bundles and such, it'll have to remain as a box of scrap.

Here's to the hope that one day this radio might be renewed, to reinvigorate that grainy radio-sound that so lovingly hallmarked those memorable summer evenings of a more innocent era.

Cheers!

[immaculatasknight]

Moral courage

[l-in-c-future]

Book Reading: Justice: What is the Right Thing to Do by Michael J Sandel: Apologies and Reparations

In the chapter of dilemnas of loyalty, the author cited some thoughtful examples about whether current generation of governments 'should' or 'need' to apologise, atone and even compensate for the wrongs and errors of the governments in the past.

Aboriginals in Australia

John Howard, the former PM of Australia opposed an official apology for the stolen generation because he didn't believe that the current generation of Australians should formally apologise and accept responsibility for the deeds of earlier generation.

When I read this, I immediately think of the recent Voice Referrendum in Australia. The same political party-the Coalition Party as the current Opposition which John Howard belongs to was the key campaign led for the voice No side. They cited different reasons to justify why the CURRENT generation of Australians 'should' deny the constitutional rights to have their voices to be consulted by the Federal government for matters affecting them.

Whether people agreed to John Howard's reasons for refusal to have official apology (which the Labour Government under Kelvin Rudd issued without compensation in 2008), John Howard and his party, by denial of the equal rights of Aboriginals to have their voices clearly FULLY responsible for the deeds they did in CURRENT generation because they uphold and perpetuate colonial racial oppressive racial discrmination against the Aboriginals. This is especially the case in Northern Territory state where the Aboriginals have the worse economic and social deprival situations. They have much higher chance to be arrested, detained, prosecuted, and sentenced and died in custody than other ethnic groups.

Politicians refuse to acknowledge the past wrongs committed by previous governments because of ideologies they upheld.

At the same time, Coalition is also the party that refuses to acknowledge the survival and defence rights of the Palestinians in the current Israel-Palestinians ethnic wars. The former PM Scott Morrison had indicated that he opposed to any ceasefire arrangements because he agreed with Netanyahu authority that military bombings would not end until all 'Hammas terrorists' are eliminated.

Who are the "Hammas terrorists"? Majority of people killed and injured were known to be civilians. Many were children, women and elderly people. The targets of Israel authority's military attacks are far beyond Hammas military establishments. Most of the attacked areas are ordinary residential and commercial zones. Not even schools and hospitals were spared from the military operations. As long as the Israel authority DEEMED a place is used as hiding place or strongholds of Hammas, they bombed it. The extensive bombings did not restrict to Israel's own territories. Bombings extended to neighbouring countries if Israel deemed whatever place is the Hammas' hide out location.

Even without going to the modern history of Israel state, one can see the conflicting logic and rationale of John Howard, Scott Morrison and the Coalition's arguments about responsibility of current government to atone for the sins of their predecessors.

Why? In the case of Australia,

All governments were democratically elected since the white settlers arrived but until Australia officially dropped the white Australia policy and granted universal sufferage to all ethnics, ALL governments were elected by majority of white Australian citizens. The Aboriginals and all coloured peoples did not have a choice to vote. Accordingly, any wrongs committed by previous governments were the erraneous wrongs of white people's choices in the previous generations that only the white people main stream society can amend and reconcile by majority actions.

The Coalition had repeated the same wrong of the past when they acted as MAJOR opposition to prevent the historical wrongs by opposing the Voice Referrendum. It was a DELIBERATE political position they took to perpetuate the injustice of the past.

If they apply the SAME political rationale to the Palestinians situation, ON WHAT BASIS the current Palestinians who had ZERO relationship to do with the Jews' thousand years of exile sufferings and the Holocaust needed to atone for the sins of the Jews in the past written in the Bible? How could John Howard and the Coalition as part of the governments in the past 200 years that inflicted colonial oppression against the Aboriginals justified to excuse off from their parts of obligation in the past but denied the rights of the Palestinians to have their rights to survive in the lands where they had been living for several thousand years for NO wrongs that they had been contributed to the Jews' demise of their ancient kingdoms and the subsequent years of sufferings in exile?

Why should the Palestinians need to atone for no sin of their predecessors played in the historical trajectory of the Jews while paying for the sins of the Jews for their own demises in OT era for CURRENT GENERATIONS' lost of lands and lives?

Slavery in America

A similar argument was made by US debate over reparations for slavery. Henry Hyde, a Republican congressman, criticized the reparations on these grounds: "I never owned a slave. I never possessed anybody. I don't know that I should have to pay for somebnody who did (own slaves) generations before I was born."

Like the situations of the Coalition Party in Australia, GOP as part of USA establishment had slavery policies. Until the final victory of the civil war, America kidnapped and imported slaves all over the world but mainly from Africa. Slave trades were a key part of economic activities of America. The opposition of the reparation was an official declaration by GOP that they actually perpetuated the slavery.

Moreover, Ronald Regan's political and economic ideology of neo-liberalism created massive problems of modern slavery across many developing countries for provision of continous supply of cheap and forced labours in order to sustain ever increasing super profits made by American's global companies, and all other developed countries' large coporations. At the same time, these big companies also created new slaves within their own countries because the displaced blue collars workers became enslaved in vicious cycles ofunemployment and poverty when manufacturing and productions offshored.

In this context, Henry Hyde's argument couldn't stand because his political party's ideology and policies actually extended the slavery in current generation.

Despite the pushes and outcrys for addressing modern slavery in the supply chains, many American and Western big companies still reluctant to seriously address the injustice. Whether they promise to or pledge to do something, reality is nothing much is progressed. The constant need to increase profits only drive multinational companies and their governments to exploit new places where they can suppress labour costs and rights.

Hyde was wrong because he DID know too many people who owned modern slaves. His political party and governments in America DID AND DO oppress many peoples across the world in the modern world in current generation.

Whether they think they should or should not pay for the slavery of the past, they have a current obligation to address and pay fair for not having modern slavery in current world.

If the Hyde argument logic is applied to the Palestinians again, WHICH CURRENT Palestinian the Israel authority can trace to the demise of their ancient Jewish kingdoms in the OT era? Very hard to relate because the Jewish ancient kingdoms, among other kingdoms fell to the Assyrian and Babylon empires. Which current generation of Palestinian the Israel authority can trace to the ethnic genocide committed by Nazis and numerous genocides the Jews experienced in Europe in the past during the Middle Age? None. Why then the current generation of Palestinians need to lost majority of their lands they have been living for thousands of years and their equal rights to survive because the Jewish settlers want to establish their ethnic exclusive state? In any justice argument, you can round up the inconsistencies in the logic. How can one ethnic group's survival justified by slaughtering others?

If Australian and American governments have the rights to justify their claim of 'no responsibility and no sin' committed by previous generations, why should the CURRENT Palestinian authority need to apologise or atone for anything they did to fight for their own survival course for no sin that they owed to the Jews UNTIL the Jewish settlers used forces to take back what they believed they had.

When one side suddenly massively came from foreign lands to claim settlement by force, that was invasion in any sense, whether it was previous generations or current generations.

The defense side can't be accused as 'terrorists' for defending their survivals.

By acting inconsistency, the Coalition and the Republican Parties actually deny every ethnic tribe and every state have equal rights to survive and thrive in their own acenstry lands.

The refusal to acknowledge the past wrongs committed by previous generations of governments perpetuates the injustice and thereby escalating current crisis and conflicts because they denied the paths of reconciliation.

[solacebean]

He’s just so funny to me I’ll never get over it

[cybersaladunicorn987]

You fuck ass Israeli Colonizers are going to die anyway, Nazis in America don't fuckin like you lmao 😂