Reverse image search yielded a bunch of tumblr blogs and nothing else so I don’t know the artist unfortunately. If anyone does I’ll add it to the post
I’m so tired of hearing that blinding headlights are perfectly fine because they’re legal and the car came like that
okay, Jared, but you’re still an asshole for having them and blinding me at the four way stop so I almost ran over somebody in the crosswalk because they were absolutely invisible due to the glare from your lowbeams even though they just walked right in front of you.
Imagine a world where because O negative is the universal blood donor, everyone in the world came to the conclusion that the most ethical thing to do is to make them donate blood as often as possible.
So we then decide that it must be protected. So we decide they must donate, must avoid dangerous professions, mustn’t be allowed to leave one country to live somewhere else, must marry other O negative blood having people and produce o-negative blood having children.
At what point when you curtail movement/freedom, can’t choose who you marry, whether you have children, what professions a person can have etc have you created a caste class is one step above slavery (it might even be slavery honestly because you’re also removing their bodily autonomy). This is turning a group of people into a commodity while firmly ignoring their humanity.
Ethics informs law. But ethics is flawed because people are flawed. People as a whole can be just as self serving as the individual and just as stupid (see mob mentality).
There are some people in this comments section who say some facinatingly horrible things because for some reason they assume that somehow a true democracy makes people less self serving and horrible. Despite all historical evidence to the contrary.
When I was in college, I had an ethics class where the class was presented with a conundrum, and here’s the gist of it:
A man was hired to write something. He was instructed that he had to make sure to put a copyright notice into the work. (This was the time when if you didn’t specifically put in a copyright, then it was automatically public domain.) For whatever reason, the man did all of the work, but did not add the copyright statement. Then, he quits the job, takes all of the work home with him and sells it. Were his actions ethical?
An overwhelming majority of the people in my class argued that his actions were ethical, to be paid to make a product and then take the product home with you and sell it yourself. So, at the time, I thought either that was some sort of psychology class experiment that I didn’t know I was part of, or people are far more unethical than I ever imagined.
Obviously, the main argument for their side was that it wasn’t wrong to take public domain material because it’s not illegal.
I realized the truth much later. The average person, even the average college student, doesn’t really think about things very much. They have never in their lives tried to think about whether something is ethical, and have spent their entire existence guided by emotions like a dog or something. So, asking them to think through a problem with only one step is about the maximum they’re capable of. So, because they are basically incapable of thinking, when given an ethical problem that is even slightly complicated, they can just default to “it’s legal,” and then they don’t have to think.
Damn, I would have argued it is ethical because corporations shouldn’t exist and workers “stealing” from them is actually just an appropriation of what was already rightfully theirs.
Yeah I got to say the more and more I think about it, the more I think it is ethical. Because if you want to use his work in perpetuity you should hire him for the amount of time you use it. Or work out some kind of long-term profit sharing. If it’s for a one-time use of their skills you shouldn’t get to own the copyright of it. So yeah I’m going to say completely ethical.
I argue that we should abolish copyright. However to be a bit more pragmatic, if we were to keep copyright, it should be for 10 years from publication. You can apply to have it extended another 10 years but with a fee attached to approve it per work. This means people can still have some control of the work for a decade after completion and if it is still worth while, they can get another decade. But after that, it is public domain.
The problem doesn’t mention that it’s a corporation. He could be stealing from a one person shop.
How the fuck is being paid to do something for someone and stealing it ethical, that’s some god damn fucking mental gymnastics
There’s not even a corporation in the question!
Who said anything about stealing it? The person who paid still received the writing. They just didn’t get a copyright too.
Oh I don’t believe capitalism is ethical. I think capitalist employment is a coercive relationship based on the threat of starvation and homelessness. I don’t believe in private property and therefore view commodities as belonging to those who produce them.
Imagine you are in precarious circumstances. You aren’t sure if you will have food or housing in the next month. Guy comes up to you, says he’ll pay you to design and produce x commodity for the exact hourly wage you need to get meet your immediate material needs. You produce x commodity and manage to live a little longer. He copyrights x commodity and sells it for immense profit. Zero labor on his part. Is this ethical or is it exploitation?
Property is theft
So in your system you can never do any paid work for someone else?
Yes, I’m glad you’re getting it.
“It’s legal” is a great example of ‘Thought-stoppers’. Little phrases that people use so that they do not have to do the mental work of thinking of the larger systemic issue. “They will think of something” is a great one when it comes to climate blow back and technological issues.
But all thought stoppers are like ignorance, ignorance is bliss but the consequences are dyer. So when people tend to go to reductionist thinking on complex issues, you tend to get a form of conformity that can be manipulated. Not consistently but enough to cause large power structures. Alas, for every complex issue there is a solution that is simple, easy and wrong.
Also called a thought-terminating cliché. I don’t really know how to confront these because they’re spoken by people who have already given up on the clearly arduous task of thinking about something for longer than the duration of a short-form video
I do genuinely think that short from content has done far more damage to society than even the more pessimistic people give it. It is the final form of ‘The medium is the message’, the medium is saying that everything should be brief and surface level at best.
Don’t get me wrong there is a skill to brevity, especially in writing. Some books could be a fifth the length and they would only benefit form that. But short form video ain’t it this. Peoples attention spans are simply gone, I do not know if they can ever be brought back.
I’d argue that trying to find and exploit loopholes in ethics is in itself unethical. “Do not <verb>” is not an invitation to find creative ways to <verb> without “technically” <verb>ing.
Welcome to the lesson taught by the entire Old Testament.
my political opinion? uh, being a good fucking person
Obviously our idea (which we of course share because we are good people) of a good person is objectively correct.
Let me put my lawyer hat on real quick. Hmm, it seems the answer to your important legal question is: it depends. That’ll be $500.
That’s right, OP, the law doesn’t define ethical behavior – this community’s rules do. Thank you for trying to find the artist; five ethics points have been credited to your account, which can be spent to pay down your sin points at any participating location.
Can I have some ethics points? I did some sinning that I’d like to pay down before I do some more sinning.
How many points does it take to escape this hell?
Your current amount +1. Always out of reach
Legal and moral have two definitions for a reason.
So many people, especially conservative alpha males, are the biggest beta subs to positions of authority. Back the blue, please Mr officer man, step all over me.
Don’t forget ethics. Legal is codified authority, moral is a social construct as defined by doctrine, ethics is what one holds dear internally beyond those two. Thus ethics differs between all people.
Conservatives in general have a hard on for authority. Its why cuckoldry and “the general way their hypocritical ass politics/religious beliefs are” are so common
This explains cuckoldry for me in a way that makes sense. I don’t know that I should be thanking you for this cursed knowledge, but still, thanks for that.
This is why, as much as I love seeing videos of shitty people having a shitty time, I always hated shows like COPS, because they often depended on the premise of “going against the police means you’re the shitty one that deserves a shitty time”. Assuming most people who like to watch even needed that bit and weren’t just looking for videos of someone having a bad time.
And shitty YouTube producers are keeping the tradition going, though on the bright side it makes the clickbaity video images and titles easier to ignore when I can hear the “smartass bootlicker narrator voice” before even clicking. Oddly enough, that narrator would often bug me even more than the police abusing their power.
Cyclists are no picnic either. Settle down with your portable supernova on your handlebars.
For the people thst practice law, it is not uncommon to have charges dropped even if the law was very clearly violated, because it just doesn’t feel.right to penalize them.
E.g., a battered spouse kills their partner or a parent is caught stealing baby formula in small amounts. Such cases regularly get thrown out
In the Confucian philosophy of Li, it is loosely translated to ‘right’ or ‘equity’. It is considered that those that enforce laws but are willing to bend them based on what seems right on ethical and virtuous means, those are people that have good Li. To know that while the laws are written in ink and stone, they do not have to be enforced in the same manner.
I recently started going to a course related to law at university. Its aimed at people not studying law, and the first thing it started with was clarifying that law is not morality.
This was quite interesting to me, since the course’s topic (laws about digitalization) has nothing to do with morality. So law != morality is obviously something the courses organisers thought to be a very important thing about law.
So I think the professionals are well aware of it, and anyone using law as a morality is either deliberately choosing it to ignore problems they’d have in a proper moral system, or not well educated on law.
Powerful people often make laws to serve themselves and it’s very important to hide that reality from the public.
Such lawful, much ethics, very wow
deleted by creator
If the nation is truly democratic, then yes, though a caveat is that sometimes new edge cases appear that force the laws to change.
You’d be a moron to think you’re more competent and more ethical than the collective will of the people.
Looks like we don’t need the Bill of Rights, or any other rights laid out in the law, then. It just interferes with pure democracy. Let’s go change the Constitution, boys! Those “rights” are interfering with our very ethical need to enslave people.
Ah yeah like that one time when the people they all voted to take away their own rights, yeah, we all remember that. /s
The closest thing to what you’re talking about was the rise of Nazi Germany, which, and this is true, was a fascism resulting of a flawed democracy.
American slaves came from outside America. Places like Africa. Africans don’t get to vote in America.
First of all, the USA is not a perfect ideal democracy. It’s actually really low on the index.
“Africans don’t get to vote in America.”
Fucking Tankies must hear the wildest propaganda and really believe it. Are you from North Korea, mate?
Reported you for blatant racism.
If you abuse the reporting feature one more time, you’re out of here.
Calling you a tankie is not racism. If you don’t know what racism is: look. it. up.
The comment they reported is blatantly racist. It doesn’t have anything to do with the commenter (quite disingenuously, imo) calling them a tankie. I struggle to understand how you interpreted this as abuse of the report feature.
You don’t think using a picture of the Obamas as an example of “Africans” voting in America is racist??? They aren’t Africans. They are Americans with African heritage, sometimes called African Americans, but never just “Africans.”
That’s the racism part, not the tankie part.
Edit: Not to mention the whole birther movement, which is inherently racist, and which anybody would strongly suspect is the reason he picked Obama instead of anybody else.
Okay mr “African’s don’t get to vote in America” lmfao
So vox populi is always more ethical than any individual according to your philosophy?
Take it a step further: an individual’s reality doesn’t even exist.
The world you see is a model built upon external stimuli but those stimuli are capable of being false or wrong, therefor the only viable method of observing the world outside of the self is via repeated experimentation and verification with peers. I place literally zero value on an individual’s account of anything.
But yes, to answer your question in plain English, I think the only way to achieve the highest amount of satisfaction for the most people while abstaining from harm for all people is via a perfect and equal democracy. Every other method to approach ethics will fail to promote widespread wellbeing while avoiding harm. In fact, if an individual is only concerned with themselves, due to a lack of social contract or other requirement, then they will demonstrably throughout history commit horrible crimes to enrich their own life.
In fact, if an individual is only concerned with themselves, due to a lack of social contract or other requirement, then they will demonstrably throughout history commit horrible crimes to enrich their own life.
Indeed, landlords are quite deplorable. I wonder what the people will do about them?
Mao ZeDong, Trump, Elon Musk, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-Un/Jong-Il/Il-Sung, Maduro, Bolsanaro, the Kochs, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, etc.
Half that list go to great lengths to prevent themselves from being offed on a daily if not hourly basis.
Mao’s regime has survived to today. Stalin died of heart disease.
I think you missed my point. It sounds like to me that you are arguing that “we the people” so to speak are supposed to be doing things to change society for the better by acting as a collective fire break, and people like Musk and Mao are examples of us not doing enough?
The person you responded to is making the point that people don’t rise up to correct certain problems in society (as an example of where the will of the people regardless of lip service is not carried out), and your answer is to provide a list of people who didn’t/haven’t died by the will of the people and who go out of their way (or did) to prevent the will of the people from being actualized.
I’m also inclined to think, after reading this entire comment thread that you might be barking of the wrong tree because both arguments have merit.
A lot of people at one time thought it was perfectly fine to own slaves. To perform public executions. To remove children from their parents to Catholicize and colonise them.
There are a lot of examples in history where most people have agreed to some truly horrific and entirely unethical stuff because it benefitted them personally regardless of the detriment to others, especially minorities.
On the other hand I do agree that change needs momentum and that needs people. No one person is an army, and no ethical change happens without that time and momentum made up of people.
Least coherent list in world history.
lmfao
Willfully ignoring so hard he forgets the context for which the implication stands upon.
No, the implication makes no sense. Mao ZeDong, while he certainly was against killing landlords, quite famously so, still did not prosecute those that did because he understood the pain caused by the existence of the capital class, he lived it after all. Same with Xi, though he’s softer. Maduro also quite famously also went against landlords and other sources of mass suffering. So did Stalin.
Trump is a landlord, Hitler loved the concept of landlords and privatized a large majority of socialist Weimar, the Kochs are rent seekers, Putin is a rent seeker, Bolsanaro, famously is a rent seeker and tried privatizing brazil…
Lumping these individuals together in any list that is not ‘Men who lived’ is as silly as any possible list that includes Eva Braun, Hillary Clinton, and Malala.
The “collective will of the people” is pretty sure that all our earthly thoughts and actions are being judged by a divine being. An idea being popular does not make it right.
A plurality isn’t a perfect democracy, though, is it? A perfect democracy dictates the earth is between 28% and 53% that, 14% managed by a large and expansive indian pantheon, and 32% assorted others. Nobody’s belief is above the rest, that’s what makes it an equal and perfect democracy.
Dog, you sound like you’d be supporting slaveholders in the 1800s because that’s what the majority decided was best. Between that and your Philosophy 101 reply to the other guy I can’t take you seriously.
Representative democracy, which is once again not a true perfect utopian democracy, banned slavery and the slavers attempted to secede from the union and make their own nations as a result, and then the representative democracy went to war in order to free the slaves.
Your ass sounds more like the secessionists, to me.
You’d be a moron to think you’re more competent and more ethical than the collective will of the people.
So you support the maoist executions of landlords right?
Mao was a dictator who killed everyone who opposed him, and millions who didn’t, a seed planted by the equally brutal and evil USSR. Nothing about China then or now is democratic in any way, shape, or form. Fuck off, Red Fascist.
You’ll be shocked to learn then that Mao’s complaint about the cultural revolution was that it gave far too much power to the people and led to excesses. Mao wasn’t directing every people’s tribunal to execute landlords, the people did that because they hated their oppressors and were given the authority to punish them. Mao considered them too radical in the end.
Red fascist revisionists at it again, you gonna flip flop again next week?
Listen I knew who you were and what position you would take before I ever said anything. Idk where you think I’m flip flopping though. I consider the cultural revolution a mistake and I’m not a huge fan of Mao’s policy towards the end of his life. I just think it’s funny how you support the people’s will until the people start killing their oppressors. Makes me think you only support popular consensus until it makes you personally uncomfortable and I think that’s lame.
I don’t even have to read your red fascist comment to know you’re a cuck simping for your big strong leaders.
Beautiful, it brings a tear to the eye.
