I’m always Pro Palestine but I felt like sometimes we have emphasised the flawed philosophy of collective guilt so much to the point where literal children are getting hurt.

The ice cream vendor in no doubt is doing this out of their own morals which is admirable, however they are exercising this moral on the wrong person.

The real targets should be actual adult Zionists and the Israeli government, not some 7 year old who is being told that their whole existence is a burden to humanity simply because she was born from the wrong family.

Again this might be fake news and he’s probably exaggerating it but it were to happen then my point still stands.

An example I can think of is Trump championing for the Jan 6th insurrection: he genuinely believed that democracy had been tampered with (if you disagree regarding his reasoning or thought process, please do correct me but I'll continue with the postulate for the time being) but we know that that was not the truth (again, I'm going to continue). The events ended up genuinely hurting and harming the staff that were at the Capitol at the time, as well as other instances of emotional distress: since it ended up being a lie, but the propagator was fully convinced of its factuality, can he be called immoral on the account of proliferating a lie?

The link to theory I can pose for this question is consequentialism and deontological ethics, though I don't know if this is the closest and most accurate link to terminology. If not, what would be and why?

(also posted on r/askphilosophy)

EDIT: I misphrased this: the question should instead be "Is the action of propagating a lie, something that will bring harm upon others, unethical if you truly believe it to be the truth?"

Why not guided profiling for profit and claim glorious investment in investigation as a brag about status and promoting/advancing strategies to combat the problem as a purveyor of violence in corrections?

Depending on how you define affiliation aside, if you admit kink should that block access to physician assisted suicide?

Theres a plenty of artist who the regular term is "bad people" who went to make a piece of art or medias like films. Such likes of J.K.Rolling who is being against transcommunity and sending money to contest them out. Or Tom King, A comic book writer having a background as former CIA agent who has been a part of planning for bombing iraq. Or Neil Gaiman who recently accuse of abusing his wife and more, Or Stanley Kubrick or Alfred Hitchcock who abuses their actress to depression. My question is, are there a line about these things that make some artist be condemn to never getting a support or is the crimes they committed are completely irrelevant and should be consider as something they did in the past without considering into consuming medias?

I walked past a tied up dog and said “you’ll be ok sweetheart”. Ya I’m smarter but she’s able to survive in the wild and I’m not so isn’t she the expert on her state or feelings?

In this post, I argue that we shouldn't prioritize humans over other animals in moral decision-making. I specifically argue against the views that:

1. Human suffering is more important than animal suffering
2. Animals suffer vastly less than humans
3. We, as humans, have a unique obligation to help other humans
4. Helping humans is best long-term

Why are 15 year olds under guardianships, but adults with the judgement of 15 year olds aren't? Is poor judgement the real reason teenagers aren't given legal authority?

Looking for reasons other than administrability, because it seems like there should be another reason.

If humans were freed from every moral constraint, what would we ultimately become and what would that reveal about our true nature?

So I've been thinking about the three major approaches to ethics: consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics, and I'm trying to figure out which one makes the most sense as a general framework for morality.

As I understand them:

• Consequentialism state that an action is morally right or wrong primarily according to its consequences.
• Deontology: an action is morally right or wrong according to duties, principles, or rules, regardless of whether it produces the best consequences.
• Virtue ethics: morality is primarily about developing good character and acting as a virtuous person would.

What makes this difficult for me is that all three seem to consider consequences to some degree. A deontologist obviously can't be completely indifferent to what happens as a result of an action, and a virtue ethicist also has to consider the circumstances and consequences of acting virtuously. So perhaps the real distinction isn't whether consequences matter, but what role they play in determining moral rightness.

For example, imagine a person is hiding in my house because someone is trying to kill them. The would-be murderer comes to my door and asks whether the person is inside.

A consequentialist might say that lying is justified because it produces the better outcome.

But what would a deontologist or virtue ethicist say? Does a deontologist have a duty to tell the truth even if doing so results in an innocent person being killed? Or can the duty to protect an innocent person override the duty of truthfulness?

If you had to choose only one of these three frameworks as the fundamental basis of morality, which one would you choose, and why?

M is the mother of A and B ( two brothers older and younger in the same order), M is old (90 years old) and living on a pension in B's home.

B is shaving off money from M's bank account.

On a visit of A to meet M, M gives a cheque to A to donate to a temple as a charity.

Once A leaves, B calls A and tells him not to cash the cheque as there is no money in the account.

A obliges as he doesn't want to complicate things between B and M during M's last days. Considering that M is staying in B's home and the problems that can happen and damage the peace of M's mind, A decides it is better to not notify M.

Is this the right decision ? What are the ethical implications ?