I'm not much for long stories, so please ask any questions that are relevant and I will do.my.best to answer them.

My partner (Bran) loaned some money in a roundabout manner. An old friend(Tim)'s mother reached out to ask if Bran could loan her some.money to help Tim move, the mother agreed to pay back the money in 2 weeks. Bran made the loan. Tim's mom paid back 1/4 of the loan), then Bran had to start bugging her to get money. Over about 3 months she paid back about 3/4 of the total money, then she had a heart attack. The last payment was three months ago. Since this happened my hours have been cut and Bran has lost their job. We really need that last quarter of the loan to make ends meet. Is it unethical for Bran, us, to pursue the money?

So, over the years I have held a few jobs and thus met copius amounts of people. Some have died \[that's life i get it\]. What has me in a bit of a tizzy, is when someone who is reasonably well like by most people dies and everyone is upset (understandably) and sings their praises. The problem is - objectively - these people weren't all that great to begin with, but because co-workers worked with them, all is forgiven? I'll give you two examples of people I've worked with and why \[i feel\] they were objectively not so great. You folks can tell me if I'm waaay off or not.

1st person, bit of an alcoholic. Was deputy fire chief \[volunteer\] for a semi rural community. It was at the point where this individual had the breathalizer/interlock device installed on thier vehicle for having been caught for multiple DUIs. Used their position/connections with polive to help get out of/lessen some of the DUI convictions. If it were anyone else, most of my - then - coworkers would be calling for that person's head.

2nd person, had a bit of \[an alleged\] cocaine problem. Was known to be a little bit openly racist, to the point where they were driving around a predominantly black neighbourhood shouting the 'N' word. Again, if it were anyone else, they would have been screaming from the rooftops as to how terrible this individual was (there's more, but this is the worst of it).

A few caveats, I recognize addiction \[drug/alcohol/etc\] is a disease and I am not condemning them for that; obviously thier families mourn them and I don't blame them for that. I am simply confudled as to why \[objectively\] these people were celebrated when if it were anyone else they didn't work with, they would probably be happy they were gone.

Thanks for listening.

Intelligence makes you understand and realize more of what's going on around you. You either recognize and think about things in your day to day life and you either ignore the questions of "what ifs" and the constant realization of mortality, or you go and numb and want to do braindead,whether that be drugs or alcohol. The reason that people get an addiction to drugs us cause it feels good and if you've felt pain and anguish from the curse of intelligence then the blank and empty from drugs and alcohol feels better than if you werent intelligent. Drugs feel better because of the lower base line happiness. So that influx of happiness from the drugs feels better and you crave the drugs for the calm.

For a good few months now I’ve been seeing some debates pop up online about the ethics of certain horror and/slasher premisses. I got interested about what you guys would think of it here.

There’s the big debate about the morality of finding entertainment in something gorey violent and the question of how that effects how a person reacts with the real world. I think it’s normal to have dark thoughts and it’s okay to explore them in a safe manner such as an art. But there is the question of when does it go too far? Or can it go too far? Is it possible for a fully fictional movie to get so dark, gross, and gorey that it deserves to be censored? Is someone immoral for watching those movies? At what point does a movie go from just a slasher or horror film to “torture porn”?

The other debate is about the sexualization of violence, mainly against women, and that’s the one I think is the most interesting. The main basis of this argument points out the fact that women are mainly the ones being killed or brutalized in films. The most brutal kills in movies are virtually almost always done to a woman or a teen girl. When men are killed on screen it happens within just a minute. When it comes to main characters it’s almost always a woman or a teen girl. The last girl standing is the main trope of the slasher genre. Many people excuse this by saying that audiences sympathize and care more about women than men on average, which I do see and agree with, but there’s also the fact that these women or girls are also very often half naked or actually naked when they’re killed. Some of these scenes are very obviously meant to be sexualized to an extent. I may be a hypocrite since I do enjoy many slashers with these types of scenes, but I do agree that it is a little odd that so much of the horror genre is just brutalizing sexualized women. Should the genre move away from this? Maybe the answer is making it equal by creating more female leads and longer male kill scenes (only half joking).

How do you guys feel on all of this?

Using the prisoners dilemma in game theory the "tit for tat" strategy wins greater over time. Are there instances in science where we can derive ethics for decision making? I'm looking for philosophers/papers/lectures/video discussing this theme. Staying away from theological discussions of objective morality and only including reasoned science based philosophical arguments.

I’m in the early stages of designing my own possible doll line and I’m creating my characters. I was considering doing a character for different regions; Asia, Africa, Pacific Islanders, Europeans, etc.

My dilemma comes up with later steps of design. I was intending, for example, my Asian character;
She could have different cultures represented with different looks. For example, one release could represent china, then another Taiwan (id like to avoid mixing cultures to avoid misrepresentation)

Would this be an ethical way to do this, or would this make the character ethically ambiguous in a negative way?

Any thoughts would really help.

Like a math book with moral theorems and such.

If you do something good for someone else, mostly because it's benefits yourself, is that a bad thing to do? As an example, you work with someone who's addicted to drugs and it is ruining their life. You don't like this person, you think they're genuinely a piece of shit. But it makes your life easier and better to help them get off drugs. Making their life better is certain good and a factor in this equation, but you are doing this mostly for your own gain. Is it a morally bad thing to help them for personal benefit? My friends are of the belief that yes it is bad because "your intentions are selfish, therefore it is bad"