Say we have two rooms, know them as room A and B, and each contains a random living being, with each pairing containing differences you could become aware of. You are told by an informant that you must cause one of the beings to die by pushing a corresponding button.

You are able to see both living beings, but they can not see you, and you are unable to communicate with them. The informant is also able to answer any questions you have regarding each being with a 100% guarantee of being right, but can only do so by recalling past events , and is unable to provide judgement or thoughts of their own, simply just what each being has done. You are able to process and consider everything the informant tells you without difficulty.

Should this experiment be repeated infinitely,

Is there a decision making process you could follow to make the “correct” decision every time, if not, then what process would be most likely to produce the “best” result each time.

Additionally, how do you think a beyond human, non-biased being would approach the question, using pure objectivity to eliminate the subjectivity of what is right. 

How would your answer change if the informant were able to describe future events as well?

If I close my eyes to the chaos and blood and war, should I be ashamed? Everyone else had bad childhoods, why do I get to look away? Why do I get to live while others die, why don't I fight to the death? why don't I lose my life for the cause? Why don't I lose my sanity and will to continue for it? I've heard a lot of moderates say, you can fight for good in other ways, and I hear that but isn't that just cowardice?

For context, I have BPD, ADHD, ASD, MDD and general anxiety disorder. If that bears any weight.

P.S. I am not suicidal and this isn't supposed to be political, and I don't think it is; it is about ethics. Is it ethical to exist in a world like ours?

Is it ehtieical to ever forcefully prescript in war?

How many unwilling lives is national security worth?

For this, I’m going to be blunt. I’m talking about the Russia x Ukraine War. As many of you will know, Ukraine has compulsory mobilisation laws for certain groups of citizens, including men within particular age ranges. My understanding is that men aged 25-60 may be affected, although please correct me if I have that wrong.

I have two main points, and I’ll try to keep this simple.

There are significant strategic reasons to prevent Ukraine from becoming a Russian-controlled state. Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty matter, and there are serious security implications for the wider region.

However, if a country’s citizens are unwilling to fight for its independence, how many unwilling people’s lives can reasonably be put at risk in the name of preserving that independence? At what point do we have to question the human cost of pursuing that political and strategic objective?

I want to clarify a few things before people misunderstand my position.

First, I despise Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and I place the overwhelming responsibility for the war and the resulting loss of life on Russia for initiating and continuing its aggression. Questioning Ukraine’s mobilisation policies does not mean excusing Russia or denying Ukraine’s right to defend itself.

Second, I recognise the counterargument that, if Russia were to face little or no resistance and succeeded in bringing Ukraine under its control, the resulting occupation could lead to further deaths, repression, and suffering. It is entirely possible that the long-term human cost of surrendering without resistance could exceed the cost of continuing to fight.

However, we cannot know that counterfactual with certainty. An unopposed invasion might lead to one set of outcomes, while continued resistance might lead to another. The uncertainty cuts both ways, and I don’t think the mere possibility of a worse outcome under occupation is sufficient, on its own, to settle the question.

Ultimately, my question is this: How much should a state be entitled to demand from its citizens in the name of national survival, particularly when some of those citizens do not wish to fight?

I understand that this is not a simple question. Ukraine is defending itself against an invasion, and its choices are constrained by the actions of the Russian state. But I think we should be able to acknowledge both Ukraine’s right to exist independently and the moral importance of individual lives, autonomy, and consent.

Where should we draw that line?

If you want to answer this outside of the Ukraine and Russian War - go ahead. I used this example of current events not to enforce my own view but to centre everyones argments around a conflict most of us know well by now to test our hypothetical dilemmas. Russia may also mandatory prescript, but I have used Ukraine as I feel it provides a more intressting angle in its defencive position.

I've been struggling with a philosophical question for a long time, and I'd genuinely like to hear serious perspectives on it, whether religious, philosophical, or atheistic.

Why are human beings born with such radically unequal capacities and possibilities?

Some people are born with Down syndrome, profound intellectual disabilities, severe congenital conditions, or other limitations that can significantly affect what they are able to understand, experience, and achieve. Others are born with extraordinary intellectual abilities, physical health, and opportunities for development. Deafness, blindenss, down syndrome, and other horrible things that occure during birth and during development. If this happend once in a billion to me it would still be unfair.

I can accept human evil as a responsibilitu of humans but struggle with severe disabilities present from birth or arising in early development. People who are denied possibilities through no fault of their own?

What troubles me is that some people may never possess the capacities necessary to pursue many of these goods, through no fault of their own. Their lives may still contain love, happiness, and meaningful experiences, but that doesn't automatically erase the limitations or opportunities they never had.

And the problem seems even more troubling when we consider how society treats vulnerable people. Throughout history, disabled people have sometimes been abandoned, excluded, or ridiculed. Even today, people share videos of disabled individuals for entertainment and mockery. Someone can be born with limitations they never chose and then face contempt because of those very limitations.

I'm not looking for the usual reassurance that disabled people can be happy, that everyone has different strengths, or that everything happens for a reason. Those statements may contain some truth, but they don't fully address the underlying questions.

I'm looking for a genuine reconciliation, if one exists. Are there arguments that address it directly, rather than simply explaining suffering in general?

I have been troubled by this problem since my childhood. Also, i should probably make it clear that i dont personally know or interact with anyone disabled in my day to day life. I am just curious about this problem. I feel like this is such a core philossophical problem that is not examined enough and undermines many phillosophies and faith.

This is also why the question troubles me so deeply on a personal and intellectual level. It seems to challenge the foundations of many philosophies that I otherwise find meaningful.

Thinkers such as Nietzsche place enormous emphasis on self-overcoming, the cultivation of one's capacities, the affirmation of life, and the possibility of becoming something greater than one currently is. Schopenhauer explores suffering, the will, and the possibility of compassion, while Jung examines the psyche, individuation, and the search for psychological wholeness. Many other philosophers, religious thinkers, and traditions likewise encourage us to cultivate reason, pursue truth, develop our character, or discover meaning through our experiences.

I find these ideas compelling, and I personally strive toward intellectual and spiritual development. I regard philosophy, music, literature, and the cultivation of the mind as some of the most valuable possibilities of human existence.

But I keep returning to a question that seems to undermine these ideals at their foundations: what do these philosophies mean for people who, through no fault of their own, lack the capacities required to pursue the forms of development they celebrate?

Self-overcoming presupposes something that can be overcome. Intellectual cultivation presupposes capacities that can be cultivated. Philosophical reflection presupposes some ability to reflect. Even the ability to search for meaning, interpret one's suffering, or consciously affirm life cannot be assumed to be equally available to everyone.

You can answer, by any perspective, religious or non religious. you want.

P.S. Im sorry if my post is too long and complicated, im also not native english speaker so there might be typos and unclear point in the text.

I've been struggling with a philosophical question for a long time, and I'd genuinely like to hear serious perspectives on it, whether religious, philosophical, or atheistic.

Why are human beings born with such radically unequal capacities and possibilities?

Some people are born with Down syndrome, profound intellectual disabilities, severe congenital conditions, or other limitations that can significantly affect what they are able to understand, experience, and achieve. Others are born with extraordinary intellectual abilities, physical health, and opportunities for development. Deafness, blindenss, down syndrome, and other horrible things that occure during birth and during development. If this happend once in a billion to me it would still be unfair.

I can accept human evil as a responsibilitu of humans but struggle with severe disabilities present from birth or arising in early development. People who are denied possibilities through no fault of their own?

What troubles me is that some people may never possess the capacities necessary to pursue many of these goods, through no fault of their own. Their lives may still contain love, happiness, and meaningful experiences, but that doesn't automatically erase the limitations or opportunities they never had.

And the problem seems even more troubling when we consider how society treats vulnerable people. Throughout history, disabled people have sometimes been abandoned, excluded, or ridiculed. Even today, people share videos of disabled individuals for entertainment and mockery. Someone can be born with limitations they never chose and then face contempt because of those very limitations.

I'm not looking for the usual reassurance that disabled people can be happy, that everyone has different strengths, or that everything happens for a reason. Those statements may contain some truth, but they don't fully address the underlying questions.

I'm looking for a genuine reconciliation, if one exists. Are there arguments that address it directly, rather than simply explaining suffering in general?

I have been troubled by this problem since my childhood. Also, i should probably make it clear that i dont personally know or interact with anyone disabled in my day to day life. I am just curious about this problem. I feel like this is such a core philossophical problem that is not examined enough and undermines many phillosophies and faith.

This is also why the question troubles me so deeply on a personal and intellectual level. It seems to challenge the foundations of many philosophies that I otherwise find meaningful.

Thinkers such as Nietzsche place enormous emphasis on self-overcoming, the cultivation of one's capacities, the affirmation of life, and the possibility of becoming something greater than one currently is. Schopenhauer explores suffering, the will, and the possibility of compassion, while Jung examines the psyche, individuation, and the search for psychological wholeness. Many other philosophers, religious thinkers, and traditions likewise encourage us to cultivate reason, pursue truth, develop our character, or discover meaning through our experiences.

I find these ideas compelling, and I personally strive toward intellectual and spiritual development. I regard philosophy, music, literature, and the cultivation of the mind as some of the most valuable possibilities of human existence.

But I keep returning to a question that seems to undermine these ideals at their foundations: what do these philosophies mean for people who, through no fault of their own, lack the capacities required to pursue the forms of development they celebrate?

Self-overcoming presupposes something that can be overcome. Intellectual cultivation presupposes capacities that can be cultivated. Philosophical reflection presupposes some ability to reflect. Even the ability to search for meaning, interpret one's suffering, or consciously affirm life cannot be assumed to be equally available to everyone.

You can answer, by any perspective, religious or non religious. you want.

P.S. Im sorry if my post is too long and complicated, im also not native english speaker so there might be typos and unclear point in the text.

​

Human moral intuitions have histories. Evolution may help explain the development of capacities for cooperation, empathy, reciprocity, and punishment, while social institutions and cultural learning influence which actions people regard as permissible or wrong.

But a distinction is necessary: explaining why people hold a belief is not the same as establishing whether that belief is true. The causal origin of a mathematical belief, for example, would not by itself settle the validity of a mathematical proof.

Nevertheless, evolutionary explanations may raise a more specific epistemological problem if the processes responsible for producing our moral judgments were not sensitive to moral truth, but instead selected dispositions because of their effects on survival or reproduction.

A moral realist might respond that evolutionary origins do not prevent moral knowledge, that moral truths can be discovered through reasoning, or that evolution produced capacities that can now track moral reasons. A moral anti-realist might argue that our intuitions do not provide the kind of independent justification realism requires.

What conditions would an evolutionary explanation have to satisfy before it genuinely undermined moral knowledge, rather than merely explaining its psychological origins?

Hey all

Just writing with some original theories – this might be a lot to process, but we might’ve found logical proof of God, through theories of time and metaphysical goodness - I’m a PhD student with a Masters in Applied Ethics and a Bachelors in Philosophy, been working on this theory for a couple of months now - please take a couple minutes to read

tldr; goodness is universal, with a metaphysical source - potentially proof of a metaphysical god

Recently been putting together an original theory that goodness (in the moral, ethical, qualitative, and general intuitive sense) might be metaphysical in some way - how else could we each possess our distinct and innate sense of inner goodness? How can goodness occur in abstract forms like ideas and values - and where does goodness come from?

The theory is only focused on abstract phenomena, but metaphysical goodness occurs in countless physical forms as well - for example in art, music, technology and nature.

Here’s the first part of the theory - on metaphysical goodness, with a metaphysical source:

bíron’s theory - pt 1

1. goodness occurs in a range of ways - moral, ethical, intuitive and qualitative - people can recognise the goodness inherent in countless forms and phenomena

2. people are inherently good - with a distinct and innate sense of inner goodness, and their potential to feel and experience love; goodness is universal

3. goodness isn’t limited to morality or ethical concepts, but tends to occur intrinsically within a very broad range of forms:

- the occurrence of goodness with human origins, including music and the visual arts - as well as the act of starting a family - confirms that people can sometimes create new goodness

- the occurrence of goodness in nature, including our fellow living beings and the natural environment, confirms that goodness isn’t limited to human-made phenomena

- the occurrence of goodness in abstract forms - including ideas, concepts and values - confirms metaphysical goodness

4. and so goodness is an intrinsic metaphysical quality, occurring within both physical and abstract phenomena - and doesn’t have human origins

5. goodness exists, and must have a source - but as an intrinsic property, goodness cannot create itself, and it isn’t possible for physical beings to create metaphysical phenomena

6. and so the origins of goodness must also be metaphysical, with the only conclusion being:

7. there is a metaphysical source, or creator of goodness - potentially a metaphysical god.

The theory is valid and philosophically sound, and this all makes sense logically - goodness is metaphysical, and so must have a metaphysical source - potentially a metaphysical god.

With metaphysical goodness occurring on a universal level, and with logical proof of God, thought it’d be worth exploring some examples of metaphysical goodness in our world religions and belief systems, potentially enabling us to develop a universal understanding of abstract goodness together - with a perspective that remains somewhat consistent with atheistic, religious, traditional, philosophical and cross-cultural beliefs and understandings.

So here are some of the best examples of abstract goodness in our major religions and belief systems, with opportunities for additional research, comments and collaboration - hopefully we can develop a universal understanding of abstract goodness together.

Abrahamic religions (each with various denominations and/or cultural understandings)

Christianity, Catholicism, Orthodox, Protestant, and other faith-based traditions

- Appreciating God and communing with God through regular prayer, with reverence and gratitude, in accordance with one’s distinct sense of inner goodness and moral duty

- Metaphysical goodness expressed through the following set of values: humility, mercy, care, forgiveness, self-control, peace, love, and respect for all, including one’s neighbour - ideally in the broadest sense

- Love for one’s neighbour can refer to all people, including strangers - wishing them well with empathy and compassion - with genuine care for their health and wellbeing

- Self-control and self-mastery - learning to restrain one’s negative traits, instead deciding to live in accordance with one’s inner goodness and values

- Encourages the pursuit of peace - ‘blessed are the peacemakers’

- Emphasis on forgiveness, empathy, and compassion for all - especially those in need

- The notion that people may be tested by God throughout their lives, sometimes through situations - striving to be as good as possible, staying true to one’s inner goodness. People may be rewarded for good thoughts and deeds; possibly through metaphysical karma.

Islam (including Sunni Islam and Shia Islam, and many more cultural traditions)

- Appreciating and communing with God, Allah - communing with Allah through regular prayer, with love, respect, moral duty and gratitude

- Metaphysical goodness expressed through the following set of values: honesty, forgiveness, self-control, knowledge-seeking, stewardship over nature, kindness and respect for all, acceptance and moderation

- Charity, mercy and care for the poor, with genuine care for people’s wellbeing, especially those in need - including strangers, or one’s neighbours

- Emphasises character development and the cultivation of moral virtues including patience, gratitude, self-control, sincerity, forgiveness, and reframing negative emotions - with each moral trait contributing to a person’s good character; their distinct and innate morality; one’s sense of inner goodness

- Similarly to Christianity, includes warnings about pride and arrogance, encouraging moderation and balance over excess, and avoiding seeing oneself as superior - recognising our inherent equality

-Respect for all people, regardless of their faith, background or cultural beliefs; recognising and appreciating the inner goodness inherent in all; seeing the goodness in everything.

Judaism

-  Appreciating and communing with God through regular prayer, with gratitude and humility, with people often prioritising both personal and collective needs

- Metaphysical goodness expressed through the following set of values: personal integrity, humility, compassion, peace, justice through charity, moral improvement and the importance of learning, including through personal development

- Compassion and respect for all (expressed through care for the stranger, one’s neighbour) - protecting the poor and the vulnerable, including supporting those in need

- Emphasises treating people kindly and respectfully in everyday life, encouraging an ethical and somewhat impartial perspective

- Encourages discussion and conversation - in pursuit of peace and justice (including justice through charity) - learning through debate and recognising the goodness inherent in diversity of perspectives

- Important principles in relation to environmentalism and stewardship - fostering a sense of ethical duty, with care for the natural world.

On a related note, I’ve recently been informed that the Abrahamic religions (including Islam, Judaism and Christianity) each recognise a shared lineage of prophets, including Jesus and Ibrahim, and they share a lot of similar values and principles too. Empathy and respect for all, love for the neighbour and care for the stranger are all very compatible, encouraging religious openness and supporting diversity of beliefs and values. We can always agree to disagree.

I’ve noticed that followers of the Abrahamic religions usually tend to value and recognise what they each share in common - belief in God, and shared values and principles of moral and spiritual development - rather than arbitrary divisions or differences in understandings. Compassion, empathy and respect are emphasised across each of the Abrahamic religions - and most importantly, they each share a belief in a single creator God, or Allah.

There are also countless spiritual traditions across the East - here is a brief overview of some metaphysical goodness within the major belief systems of Hinduism and Buddhism:

Hinduism

- Important principle of non-violence - minimising harm towards living beings, and avoiding unnecessary suffering - including through the adoption of vegetarian (and in some cases, plant-based diets)

- Metaphysical goodness expressed through the following set of values: truthfulness and sincerity, compassion, empathy, gratitude, self-knowledge, openness, selflessness and altruism

- Similarly to other religions, emphasises principles of compassion, equality and appreciation of life in all its forms, including non-human animals; our fellow earthlings.

- Encouraging people to look beyond their self-interest to consider opportunities to help others, with ethical bettering over time through personal and spiritual development

- Many valuable principles and concepts, including dharma - the notion of living righteously, in accordance with one’s morality and distinct sense of inner goodness, with an element of moral duty - recognising our responsibilities towards our families and societies

- Concept of reincarnation - the idea that our souls may move through various cycles, possibly going on to live further lives in time, as part of our ongoing spiritual development

- Very important concept of karma - the notion that the goodness of one’s thoughts, deeds, words and actions may bring about goodness in return, whereas negative and unethical thoughts and behaviours may be karmically discouraged.

Buddhism

- Philosophies and beliefs include the Four Noble Truths, the Buddha’s theory on suffering - when suffering is just a result of desire, can we learn to achieve a peaceful mindset - avoiding our personal suffering, transcending our desires and going on to achieve nirvana? Can we learn to let go of our egos?

- Metaphysical goodness expressed through the following set of values: mindfulness, simplicity, spiritual development, inner quiet, reducing ego, and the spiritual benefits of meditation

- Like other Eastern religions and belief systems, encourages compassion toward all sentient beings - cultivating and encouraging benevolence through peaceful loving-kindness

- The Noble Eightfold Path sets out valuable guidance on cultivating an appropriate mindset for happiness and greater states of enlightenment, putting forth a range of important principles (and practical approaches) to improve one’s perspective, through ongoing practice and mindfulness

-The concept of ‘emptiness’ - recognition of impermanence and interdependence, where life moves forward in a state of flux, never fixed and always changing, while remaining interconnected

- Zen Buddhism teaches that presence, simplicity (absence of excess), and ego reduction may nurture spiritual development, as well as maintaining a beginner’s mind

- Valuable spiritual practices including mindfulness and meditation - quieting the conscious mind, appreciating the inherent goodness of inner peace and harmony.

Ancient, contemporary and applied ethics (or an atheistic perspective)

- Moral philosophy of virtue ethics - people can cultivate virtues, values and moral traits through character development, with an ethical, altruistic outlook

- Concept of eudaimonia, or simply ‘joy of life’ - the idea that developing certain virtues can lead to better mindsets, possibly through positive karma - in addition to living more happily, people can experience inner peace and sometimes even transcendence

- Concepts of pacifism - always striving for peace, non-violence and harmony, at every level - finding peaceful approaches to conflict resolution and simply agreeing to disagree when necessary - most (if not all) people are already pacifists, and peace is always preferable.

- Broader concept of ‘actual pacifism’ - actual pacifists extend their compassion to all living beings, with respect for life in all its forms; a peaceful and harmonious way of living, avoiding animal products and rejecting exploitation

- The notion that power should be seen, approached and conceptualised as a platform for good and only good (rather than merely self-interest, or power for its own sake) - especially through representative democracy

- Economic principles relating to equality, meritocracy and wealth redistribution, with universal access to basic needs like healthcare, dental and education, and improving social services, instead of the military-industrial complex (love not war, that’s all I can say) -

with appropriate taxes for major corporations, especially multi-nationals (30% of large corporations in Australia actually don’t pay income tax in any given year - this shouldn’t be legally possible?)  

- The importance of sustainable and renewable energy, and making the transition to electric (rather than fossil fuel-powered) transportation - are electric vehicles subsidised?

- Developments in human rights (including social justice initiatives) to ensure equality - and equality of opportunity - for all, including those with disability

- Concept of ‘cultural symbiosis’ - the active practice of cross-cultural learnings (including through anthropology) to recognise opportunities for personal development and cultural progress, through symbiotic relations of goodness - openly seeking learnings from other cultures, always with respect and humility, while striving for peace and harmony. 

This post has been an example of practical cultural symbiosis - this could also occur at an international level - for example, at the UN General Assembly.

Thanks so much for reading! Now sharing something very important, theory pt 2 -

This has been a (relatively brief) overview of abstract goodness occurring metaphysically in our world religions and belief systems, expressed through principles, concepts and values on a universal level. There’s a lot of goodness around the world, with many complementary concepts and values - there’s a chance they might all fit together somehow, as expressions of metaphysical goodness.

And here’s something else that I’ve been putting together recently, please approach this with an open mind; this may be further proof of a metaphysical god, found through deductive logic - very significant finding

bíron’s theory - pt 2

1. Goodness and time are both metaphysical, and so they must have a metaphysical source, as physical beings cannot create metaphysical phenomena
2. As metaphysical phenomena, goodness and time can only be perceived through some degree of physicality - being metaphysical, they’d be imperceptible otherwise
3. Given that some degree of physicality is necessary to experience metaphysical phenomena like goodness (and time, through perceptible changes in space) - and with a necessarily metaphysical source, we can reasonably conclude:
4. A metaphysical god has been responsible for the origins of the known universe - making physical matter itself, creating goodness and time by extension
5. This remains the only explanation for the origins of these metaphysical phenomena, as they can only have a metaphysical source, and their existence necessitates physicality.

This might (understandably) take some time to sink in - basically saying that as metaphysical phenomena, goodness and time must have a metaphysical source - but their existence is reliant on physicality, as we cannot directly perceive any metaphysical phenomena (if we could, they wouldn’t be metaphysical; they’d be directly physically perceptible, as physical phenomena).

And so in order for these metaphysical phenomena to exist at all - and to be expressed and experienced through physicality - then the known universe (including physical matter) must necessarily have metaphysical origins: through this theory, deductive logic has proven that there is a metaphysical source of the space-time continuum; a metaphysical god.

I think we should probably celebrate! Please share this with your family and friends, with a link to this page so they can read the full theory :)

Proof of God has been found in Australia!

Metaphysical goodness occurs on a universal level, in our world religions, cultures and beliefs systems, and the principles and philosophies of our major world religions are very complementary from an ethical perspective. We all have a lot to learn from each other at this very exciting time - peacefully, calmly and respectfully.

To be honest I’ve noticed some stigma towards people of religious faith in recent times - hopefully we can remain respectful of peoples’ beliefs and understandings as we move forward together, recognising a diversity of goodness, and the goodness of diversity - especially the diversity of universal goodness. We can always agree to disagree when we need to - and focus on what unites us: our shared humanity, and our metaphysical goodness.

There is definitely a lot of truth, beauty and wisdom in each of the major world religions, expressed through metaphysical goodness; each Abrahamic religion believes in a single, creator God, and they only differ in understandings; it’s possible that God exists beyond our comprehension, in ways we couldn’t begin to understand or conceptualise as physical beings.

Personal, spiritual and ethical development

If anyone’s feeling anxious or concerned about this proof of a metaphysical god, hope you can remember that it’s never too late to make positive changes through personal and spiritual development - we can always broaden our values with time, making better decisions, to live in accordance with our principles, values and inner goodness - and we may notice positive karma too. 

With this conclusive proof of a metaphysical god, there’s definitely the possibility of an intelligent and omnipresent God who may be present and aware of our current situation globally - if a miracle were to occur tomorrow, this wouldn’t necessarily be proof of any existing religion or belief system - we should always remain open-minded and respectful of people’s beliefs

And moderators - probably don’t even need to ask, but could we please ensure that this page remains a positive, safe and respectful space, where only positive contributions are approved? 

Thank you again for reading - really look forward to reading your comments!

Should mention that I’m only posting this to the r/ethics reddit page - please feel free to share a link to this page so that more pepole can read the full theory – may have found proof of God!

If you’d like to say a quick thank you for sharing this theory on metaphysical goodness - and actual proof of God, found through deductive logic - then here are my current bank details: Acct: 258822; BSB: 032-119 - thank you so much in advance :)

Alternatively here’s a gofundme link: https://www.gofundme.com/f/thank-you-for-the-theory-qs2g7?cp_src=d

At least 15 - 20% of contributions will go to high-impact international causes, in the spirit of effective altruism - we may save a lot of lives together!

bíron [bier-on, with a short syllabic emphasis on ‘bier’ - similar rhythm to ‘herald’]

first drafted 29 June, mum’s birthday - please remember the date!

peace, love and harmony

15/10

Wurundjeri Country

Recognising the Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung peoples of the Kulin Nations as the Traditional Custodians of this land. Paying my respects to Elders past and present.

I noticed this in myself first, as my health declined, I became more and more aligned with, in my case, far left ideas, being more open to more radical options and all that.

Also worldwide struggles of rising fuel and living costs, as well as the stagnation of wages have many people desperate enough to vote for right and far right parties all over the globe.

The AFD in Germany for example had extreme growth over the last couple of years, and I do not need Germany to start WW3 as well.

Needless to mention, against those who prepare with the intent to cause harm, one inevitably, unavoidably, and must also prepare; if countermeasures are omitted, it will eventually become impossible to resist, which in reality results in giving the opponent the power over our life and death. In other words, ignoring or making light of this is equivalent to choosing enslavement.
Some media reports state that Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark, currently visiting Japan, also stated the following in a TV interview:
"We recognize that hackers are also using AI (SI) which is available to everyone, and we strive to prevent them from using these tools through new security methods and the like."
Of course, the speed of SI is something that leaves no room to stand against manually; therefore, phrased differently, refusing server facilities would mean handing over the power of life and death, which implies that this is an option leading to the enslavement of the citizenry and thus results in the conclusion that it is illogical.
https://news.yahoo.co.jp/pickup/6598729
https://newsdig.tbs.co.jp/articles/-/3010032

On the other hand, while maintaining beneficial SI requires a massive number of data centers, I can also understand the feeling of wanting to reject attracting data centers because their benefits are hard to perceive.
The fact that foolish selectors themselves tempt more strongly, like the sweet talk of the devil, is probably something almost everyone can intuitively understand.

Therefore, for operators planning to operate data centers involving a power consumption of a certain scale or more, how about determining their scale based on a rate (α) established in proportion to the amount of power used, and imposing the following as obligations?
- Based on the aforementioned rate (α), to employ and engage a large number of personnel for socially contributing occupational duties from the districts neighboring the data center operation.
- Based on the same aforementioned rate (α), to mandate assistance toward welfare or educational facilities in the areas surrounding the installation region.
- Based on the same aforementioned rate (α), to construct and operate multiple facilities that serve as the cornerstone of regional promotion.
- To mandate the maintenance and provision of transportation and information-communication infrastructure around the data center construction and operation area.
- Based on the same aforementioned rate (α), to lay out business and industrial parks in the surrounding districts and continue attracting them so that the facilities continue to be filled above a certain level.
- Without being based on the same aforementioned rate (α), to bear the obligation to constantly monitor environmental pollution and deterioration over a wide range—including the energy environment and living environment—and report changes.
- In the event that environmental pollution is confirmed, regardless of the polluter, to impose an obligation on the data center operator to take some sort of measure, including approaching the actual polluter, to achieve complete improvement.

What kind of opinion will you show regarding the above? Can I expect a reply?

Global Society’s Ethical Duty to the Masses During a negative AI event:

Ethical Interpretation: 

The global society holds an unconditional moral duty to all human life, requiring sacrifice and equitable distribution of burdens until the mass suffering is stopped.

The duty of global society is a universal moral imperative to proactively organize aid and resource distribution based on need, ensuring the survival of all human life while striving for maximal equity.

Global society bears the moral responsibility to prevent mass suffering, demanding equitable distribution decided by a unified pursuit of maximum human survival.

Definitions:

During a global crisis, the concept of a "global society" would refer to the inter-connectedness of human survival and well-being but on a global scale. This perspective is a bit different from the traditional view that a state's only responsibility is to its own citizens, arguing instead for a "global co-responsibility" as you're now looking at populations worldwide. This could include international organizations, national Ggvernments, civil society and NGOs. 

Note: That in a hypothetical scenario like an AI-related total collapse however, the concept of a "global society" would become an existential thing where the responsibility to protect the masses would shift from managing a crisis to ensuring the survival of the whole of humanity. 

From the public Internet even if I stand to gain politicaly from it?

We often view ethics as a set of rigid, unyielding boundaries designed to keep chaos at bay. Yet life rarely conforms to static rules; reality is fluid, unpredictable, and filled with moral ambiguity.

True ethical living isn't about enforcing control over an imperfect world. It starts with cultivating a quiet, unwavering core within ourselves—one grounded in empathy, honesty, and balance. When we navigate life’s frictions with clarity rather than judgment, our principles evolve from cold doctrines into a living, breathing guide.

Real integrity comes when we stop fighting change and start aligning our actions with pure intent.

We live in a world driven by constant change, where many of us struggle between the desire for ideal perfection and the chaotic reality around us. Over time, I’ve learned that true ethical living isn't about controlling every outcome or demanding flawless order.

Instead, it begins with an inner anchor—a quiet commitment to compassion, truth, and balance. When we accept human imperfection while continuously striving for goodness, we align ourselves with the deeper rhythms of life.

Real peace comes when we stop resisting life's friction and start responding with understanding, integrity, and self-awareness.

How do you maintain your moral compass when everything around you feels uncertain?

Do u think its justifiable and "valid" for a moral role to kill people either for good or bad?

Ps : do not take this personally as it isnt directed towards any religion or politicians or whatsoever

If someone does something good only because they fear punishment or want a reward, are they genuinely a good person???

Suppose a state undertakes a military operation for a defensible security purpose. It anticipates that disrupted trade will make food or energy more expensive in other countries, putting some people’s access to basic necessities at risk. Those people are outside the fighting and have no say in the decision. The harm is foreseeable, though its scale is uncertain.

The question is whether a justified military objective also creates obligations toward them.

My starting position is that imposing a foreseeable risk to basic needs creates a duty to consider feasible ways of reducing it. That duty doesn’t vanish because the harm travels through markets instead of a direct attack. Choosing an action with known risks requires some account of why exposing others to them is permissible.

Foreseeability alone can’t settle who owes what, though. Several actors may contribute to the disruption, and responsibility can depend on their causal contribution, their alternatives and their ability to prevent or repair the harm. A government defending its population against aggression doesn’t necessarily bear the same responsibility as the aggressor, even when its defensive action also has consequences abroad.

Responsibility for causing harm is also different from a duty to help. A wealthy state may have strong obligations to assist vulnerable people even when its contribution to their hardship is small, and an actor substantially responsible for the harm may lack the resources to repair it. The two grounds overlap without being identical.

The strongest objection is that governments have special duties to their own citizens, and requiring them to prevent every foreseeable economic consequence abroad could make effective defense impossible. That has force. But it leaves room for duties that are demanding without being unlimited: considering less harmful alternatives, protecting access to essential goods where feasible and contributing to relief.

So my question is whether assistance here is best understood as compensation owed by those responsible, aid owed by those able to help, or both, and what principle should divide that obligation among the states involved.