#ethical frameworks

[santong]

Will Artificial Intelligence Replace Most Jobs

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become a ubiquitous term, woven into the fabric of our daily lives. From the moment we wake up to a smart alarm on an AI-powered phone to the personalized recommendations on our favorite streaming service, AI’s influence is undeniable. But perhaps the most significant question surrounding AI is its impact on the future of work. Will AI replace most jobs, leaving a…

[billa-billa007]

Social Justice and Divine Justice | Exploring the Differences | Woke up

social justice and divine justice are distinct concepts with different focuses. Social justice deals with the pursuit of fairness and equality in human societies, addressing societal issues and inequalities. Divine justice, on the other hand, is a theological concept concerned with how a higher power administers justice, often in the context of religious beliefs and moral order. While they are separate ideas, they may intersect in discussions about morality and ethics in society, as some individuals and groups may view their pursuit of social justice as aligning with their understanding of divine principles or moral duty.

[thedupshadove]

Okay concept. Bruce Wayne becomes the target of the Leverage crew...only thanks to his Nebulous Contacts, he's heard of these people, and recognizes what's happening halfway through the con.

Since being targeted by the Leverage crew means that you're the asshole, his response is to pull them aside and be like "Please tell me how I've been the asshole and how I can fix it."

I'm not sure yet whether the inciting wrong against the client-of-the-week is something he's being wrongly blamed for, something his subordinates did without his knowledge, something he let happen through passive carelessness, or something he genuinely did on purpose (and might take some convincing to even see as wrong) but I think any of those options have potential.

[qiu-yan]

i'll write a more in-depth post later, but imo one of the reasons for the level of disagreement in this fandom is that many of us readers can see what mxtx is trying to imply about ethics through her work and simply do not agree with her base premise. like i think that there are some conclusions about the various characters in mdzs that mxtx wants you as the reader to draw. you can kind of tell even if you don't agree with those conclusions. more importantly, though, you can also tell exactly what kind of moral philosophy mxtx (consciously or unconsciously) favors, and what she treats as the granularity of morality, so to speak. the most commonly-held positions in the fandom are those mxtx intends for the reader to reach using her own beliefs about ethics as fundamental axioms.

the problem, then, is when the reader does not agree with mxtx's unspoken axioms of morality. if you come into mdzs with a moral framework different enough from what mxtx has (consciously or unconsciously) used to write mdzs, then of course you're going to come to different conclusions regarding the characters or even the object lessons of the story.

or rather, in simpler terms: the rammies, mxtx....the rammies....

[perdvivly]

I have a lot of earned distrust towards rationalist and rationalist-adjacent communities at doing what I feel is the bare minimum community cultivation.

And on the one hand I think that the intent behind this lack of explicit management is really laudable. I think extending charity to more people (even people who have had a history of poor prior conduct) is good. But on the other hand, I want to be a part of more spaces that are not actively hostile to compassionate and considerate discourse, and it turns out you cannot get those spaces in unwalled gardens.

I appreciate an unwillingness to go along with mob consensus and condemn people at the drop of a hat based on vibes. But the overcorrection for that looks a lot like tacit endorsement of genuine harms. And that’s not okay either.

[dogsliampaynedoesntinstagram]

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on something I've been trying to think through since Maya's book came out, which is, what do I as a fan need to see from Liam before I feel comfortable being a fan of his again? It's ethically important for me personally to give space for Liam (like anyone who harms others) to grow, change, make amends for his behavior, and heal, and so I don't want to take a position that because of the things he's done, he's forever persona non grata and I can't ever support him or his career ever again. But I also would need to see some kind of accountability from him for the harms he's caused, some effort for repair and amends to be made on Maya's terms, and change. But none of that will come from the criminal justice system (even if Liam were to be subject to it, which he won't). While I think it's possible (and likely preferable) for Liam to do this kind of rehabilitative work in private, Liam has historically been an unreliable narrator of his own healing, and I don't want to put the expectation on Maya to publicly speak for her abuser about his rehabilitation even if he has made genuine amends to her privately in a way she feels satisfied with.

Obviously, this is all deeply theoretical because from what Maya has said, we know that even still Liam is harassing and harming her, and nowhere near repair. And so for the immediate term it's clear we need to continue believing Maya and centering her and supporting her. I just am trying to think through a long-term framework for this (and for artists who behave unethically more generally) and having a hard time with the weird position we're in as fans, not really participants but kind of stakeholders but really.

I really appreciate you sharing your thoughts and coming to me with this question. I am coming at this from quite a different angle, but I want to start by saying that I really appreciate the way you're approaching the world.

I think you make the most important point yourself in this anon. You will never have enough information to know whether Liam is making amends to Maya or changing. There is nothing you can see or hear that would mean that you could have any kind of confidence

On one level that's always true, there's always a lot that we don't know. I think it's wise if you know someone has chased their partner with an axe, to always assume there may be ways that they are treating their partner that you don't know about - however well you know them. But if the person is a stranger - then that level of uncertainty rises significantly. No matter what you've seen - you just don't have any information to go with.

Recently I got an anon saying I thought Liam was sober - because the last time he'd given an interview he had said he was sober. It's really important to remember that 1D members don't stay statically in the last state they told us about.

At the moment we can be fairly sure that nothing has changed about the way Liam treats women. There may be a point where we have reason to think he's tried to change. But that's the most we'll ever get - we'll never know that he has.

I think here it's worth doing a thought experiment. Think of a public figure you know of, who has been violent and has made some kind of public amends (I thought of Vic Tamati, who is involved in anti violence prevention in New Zealand. He talks openly about what he did, the amends he's made, he works prevention, his family talks openly as well. It is probably telling that I can't give you an example who is known more widely). Then ask is what you know about them enough to know that they're not being violent now? We have no way of knowing.

So the question becomes - what does it mean that we can't know?

I think it's useful at this point to come back to your first question. The first part makes sense to me: 'It's ethically important for me personally to give space for Liam (like anyone who harms others) to grow, change, make amends for his behavior, and heal, and so I don't want to take a position that because of the things he's done, he's forever persona non grata'. I understand this as an ethical framework. It is important to allow space for people to change.

But you don't stop there - you then move to supporting him and his career. To me there's a huge gulf between acknowledging that people can change and actively supporting them and their career. It almost sounds like you think there's a connection between your ethical framework and the possibility of there being a path back to being a fan.

It's your ethical framework, but to me this seems like a mismatch of concepts. There's a huge difference between an ethical framework that allows for the possibility of change and an ethical framework that says that you have to know that there's at least a possibility that someone who has done harm could again become one of your favourite people - someone you have an extraordinary level of regard for.

To bring those two ideas together. I don't think there can be an ethical imperative to allow for a path for someone who has done harm to return to a place of extraordinary regard, given that you'll never know if they have made amends or even if they're still doing harm. I think you will not be able to answer the question of what Liam means to you when you are attempting to put it in that ethical framework.

My suggestion is that instead - you reconsider how you think about fandom. You suggest that fans are in a weird position, but I don't think we are. I think we are observing other people's life and art, for our own reasons (hopefully pleasure, but often complicated), and sometimes that involves purchasing something from the artist. It's only if we deny that reality that things seem weird.

Framing fandom as support - something that you do for the artist, rather than something you do for yourself - creates this confusion.

I could be wrong, but I think the fundamental question here is about you and not Liam. I think your actual question is 'I still feel a lot about Liam and I'd like to be able to be a fan at his at the moment - but I don't feel comfortable.'

If you accept that fandom is something that you do for your pleasure - then I think it becomes easier to answer this question. You can trust yourself to make this judgement.

One year I made a New Year's resolution that I wasn't going to see a movie directed by someone who signed the petition opposing the arrest of Polanski, unless I really wanted to. And I meant it - it did matter to me - that people dismissed rape as 'a case of morals'. But I wasn't going to pursue purity and cut myself off from joy, art and experience. If I really wanted to go to a movie I would.

I'm sure you'll develop your own framework. But I think it's probably worth considering only engaging with Liam's work in a way that economically benefits him if you really want to. I will still listen to 1D. If I was going to do another deep dive into music videos from 1D members (one of my favourite things), I might watch a video of his again. But I'm only going to do those things that are meaningful and important to me. Because ultimately my fandom is about me and bringing me joy.

[antigonewinchester]

stumbled on a thread about LOTR the other day of someone asking why couldn't Boromir have taken the Ring and its power & saved his people--and the thread writer argued (if I'm remembering right) that the Ring isn't metaphorical of power in general but power that makes you violate your principles, and that kind of power, in LOTR's moral framework, always leads to evil.

which was on my mind thinking of demonic power w/in SPN (at least in Kripke's era), its associations w/ revenge and its relationship to evil. in S1, it's clear to see why Sam makes the right narrative choice in 1x22 in not killing John -- he would've been getting revenge on the demon who killed his mother & tore apart his family by... killing his father and once again tearing apart the family he has left. getting revenge for your family by killing your family doesn't square.

then of course there's S4 and demon blood and that imo the Ring is a good metaphorical way of understanding why and how the narrative frames it. I know some ppl argue against the show's framing, why is demon blood "evil," isn't Sam using it to save people, save the world, etc. I'm not gonna convince anybody at this point, but look at it like the Ring: you can't use the Ring to save the world, even with the best of intentions. it's a power that will eventually warp you to break your principles & values, and that's what makes it evil.

[ossidae-passeridae]

22 >:3

Question from here

22. Why the actual fuck did Obi-Wan let Vader live on that unnamed moon and does that make him just as culpable for his atrocities?

The short answer to this (other than 'Vader has plot armour' which, duh), is that Obi-Wan lets him live because he finally let go of his attachment to Anakin.

It's the culmination of his story throughout the series, the final Release from the weight he'd yoked around himself for a whole fucking decade. As a Jedi, why would he kill an unarmed (disarmed) man who can barely breathe?

Even during the war, Obi-Wan captured Separatist leaders whenever possible, he didn't kill unless given no other option. That's the Jedi way. As an individual, you don't decide that people deserve to die.

We obviously know, outside the GFFA universe as we are, that Anakin does go on to commit further atrocities, but Obi-Wan doesn't have that certainty. And killing on the basis of "I think he might—" is how you wind up killing innocent people, actually. There's a reason the death penalty has been abolished in so much of the world.

Does letting Vader live make Obi-Wan culpable for his atrocities? No. No more than the bacta technician is culpable because he didn't poison Vader's bacta, no more than any of us are culpable for the violence or damage done by people we used to know, once, a decade and a lifetime ago.

(All opinions expressed above are solely those of pass e. ridae and do not express the views or opinions of any affiliates or associates, passerine or otherwise)

[thebloodlinestopswithme]

Some of you antinatalists act or are so bigoted, hostile and otherwise noxious. And it makes it difficult to be part of the community, to identify especially openly as antinatalist, and to have conversations with the general public because of overwhelmingly negative associations, observations, and interactions with our community (especially online).

Some of you act or are so awful and out of pocket that this is what people have come to think antinatalism means, as opposed to what it is -- a philosophy and ethical framework, which is nothing like the above mentioned. I don't know how to call this out other than what I'm saying here.

Like it or not, because of how much stigma, negative notions, reception and perceptions our behaviors, expression and how we essentially show up as antinatalists is being judged heavily and monolithically by the general public.

And if we want any hope of being able to exist as antinatalists, having actual discussions about it including outside our community, and any interesting growth or progress with this philosophy and framework, be it culturally (including art, more bodies of work, forming our own culture, etc) or socially (including spaces, connection, acceptance, destigmatization, etc) we need to get it together.

We also cannot accept or tolerate those engaging and or spreading in hateful ideology, hate speech, harassment, mistreatment of people,.

If we don't, then can we really say it's not understandable the way so many people judge, shun and are hostile towards our community and philosophy when this is what and who we allow?

Come on, let's address this. So many of us deserve better, not just from the public and society at large, but for our own community.

[loverboyfae]

is there any version of the jekyll and hyde story that's good? lemme know

[yakool-foolio]

*coughs up a vague ditty about Lieu since I ended up writing about them for an exercise in my creative writing class*

[xbuster]

Wait, Fate/Zero has gotten good again.

[evil-jennifer-hamilton-wb]

My horribly illogical and in no way recommended personal ethical framework:

Kinda deontology in that lying is bad in all situations except for when lying would directly harm somebody who isn't me (or if the lying is beneficial for causing and maintaining a relapse for the eating disorder. It's not ethical for an addiction or any other self destructive behavior. Like I said it's very illogical)

I am allowed to refuse answering, or give partial information, but I still need to avoid actions that would be a lie if people knew the whole truth (like how I don't give my age but I wouldn't lie about it. When I was a minor I would not go into an 18+ space because that would be a lie, but I still wasn't making my age public).

If I lie, terrible consequences will befall me, even if a lie is mutually beneficial for all parties. I didn't know what these consequences are but it's a fate worse than death in my mind. I don't believe in hell, it's not a Christian fate worse than death.

For any non lying situation I trend utilitarian maximization of "happiness" ie. Well-being of all parties involved in the situation sans myself, in which maximization of my personal well-being is generally unethical (stipulations apply). In situations where increasing my personal well-being does not affect others or has a positive affect on other's well-being, it's an ethical act. Benefiting my well-being through direct sanctioned healthcare interactions (prescribed treatments) is ethical.

For non lying situations the terrible consequences are more long term, and I can act unethically, but I'll feel terrible about it constantly, and I'll know that eventually there will be consequences.

This is the framework from which I approach all situations. 0/10 I don't recommend it.

[sbnkalny]

Rigatoni comes with water and that's packed into things.

I also experienced the sweet bliss that comes with merely a trick of the light?

[cosmereplay]

Well, I lasted less than a month of locking my ao3 fics to registered users. It didn't have any impact at all on the problem of data scraping, and having little to no interactions on ao3 has been impacting my motivation to write.

I really want to write, I enjoy writing on its own, but I gotta say it's a real boost when other people are reading and enjoying my works.

So, I've unlocked them to the public again. You can check out my Stormlight fanfic here (beware the broad range of ratings and topics!).

Instead, I'll use this opportunity to tell those who live in the States that a law firm called Clarkson is preparing a class action lawsuit against OpenAI over their data scraping practices. You can check out the law firm's website here, and join and voice how you've been affected.

[freddieandersen]

i love being a jew for many reasons. one of the top ones at the moment is that rosh hashanah is getting me out of a Saturday shift after a 44-hour workweek (50 for many of my coworkers)