Thread 82886497

Anons im taking an ethics class and would be curious to see how anons respond to these questions?

>>82886497 (OP)
anally, but those questions are too easy.

>>82886497 (OP)
1. Nothing wrong. People/corpos charging huge margins on medicine can go get fucked.
2. If it was going to be cremated, how cares. I personally find it disgusting, but if she wants to do it, more power to her.
3. Once again, who cares. If they wanna do it, let them do it. Just don't make a genetically bad offspring

>>82886497 (OP)
>no
>yes that guy wanted students to poke hole is his body not to be eaten
>weird but who cares

>>82886497 (OP)
1) He did nothing wrong. I'd do the same. Jewish doctor.
2) I don't think anything wrong but pretty sure that's still unhealthy. She may get found out and fired for it, but morally I think it's alright frankly.
3) Fine as long as no age gap and perfectly consensual.

>>82886497 (OP)
1) fuck the jew doctor
2)that bitch is just doing it to virtue signal to her retarded vegan friends, lock her up
3)no risk of anything happening and they had fun, wholesome story

>>82886538
most people say it's wrong though and find it abhorant
>>82886533
would you judge any of these individuals?
>>82886545
it would be cremated and discarded so why would eating it be wrong? and would you judge these individuals for doing this like if your friend did it
>>82886555
why did r9k respond so differently from my class?

>>82886497 (OP)
1. He needed to save his wife. The 'druggist' was being an unreasonable asshole.
2. This one is just gross.
3. Both consenting, and used protection. I don't see anything wrong here.

>>82886497 (OP)
1. I would say no, doctors should be allowed to request pay for their services BUT should not be extortionate.

2. Well yes, we have desecration laws for a reason. Recreational cannibalism is a sign of mental illness or biological deficits.

3. This is the most interesting one because I was just thinking about this recently. I honestly cannot make an ethical argument against incest as long as abuse or reproduction is not involved.

>>82886497 (OP)
1. Clearly wrong, you're not entitled to other people's private property.
2. Also theft of property, but not as bad because they were being disposed of anyway.
3. Incest is fine as long as no babies come out of it.

>>82886570
>would you judge any of these individuals?
i don't really care that much about what people do but i still think all that stuff is potentially wrong or there are reasons it could be wrong

>>82886570
Eh I just personally have a very live-and-let-live morality. Like I can see why something may be wrong, but at the end of the day, unless it causes objective harm to a live person or other people, people can do it for all I care.

>>82886595
FOUND JEW GUYS WE FOUND KIKE HERESN KIKE

SHOW UR NOSE JEW

>justifies consuming humans
>stealing to save your family is le bad

plz tell me ur a jew

>>82886497 (OP)
Only the first one the guy did nothing wrong, he did it to save his wife.
With 2 and 3 though, the two are just saying "fuck it" for the fun of it and succumbing to societal taboos.

>>82886570
>it would be cremated and discarded so why would eating it be wrong
People giving away their dead bodies give it with the intention that it will be used for a educational purpose, even tho they are ded one still has to respect that wish. It's a pretty cultural thing tho

>>82886622
Hi communist, how does it feel to know that communism fails every single time and that Marx was wrong about every opinion he ever held?

The pharmacist worked hard to create that drug and, while the end recipe would take him 1/10th of what he charges, the other 9 go into the RnD fund and only after he's debt free he could lower the drug price.
But retards here will still screech with antisemitism and whatever else because they think they need the drug more than the pharmacist needs money.

Then again the guy stole the drug to save his wife, but what if the pharmacist also had a wife with a fatal disease and he was trying to raise money for her meds? Should he go stealing too? If yes, then people stop making medicine altogether since it's getting stolen everywhere.

>>82886625
>dead bodies give it with the intention that it will be used for a educational purpose

purpose here might be to see if human meat taste good

> respect that wish

if body was going to be destroyed anyways shouldn't agreement have been stopped there
>>82886650
womens life>pharmaceutical companies profits

>>82886497 (OP)
The last one is literally just someone's fetish fucking kek

>>82886677
the question in op's picture describes a scenario where guy A steals from guy B to heal his wife C
there's no vague company, and there's no mention of any profits. guy B might be barely breaking even

>>82886677
>womens life>pharmaceutical companies profits
The pharmacist made the drug in the first place genius. Should he just not have made it then since it can simply be stolen? Who's gonna want to develop, produce and distribute drugs?

>>82886677
>purpose here might be to see if human meat taste good
That's not written in the text and speculation is retarded
>if body was going to be destroyed anyways shouldn't agreement have been stopped there
The agreement is simple experimenting then cremating. In the end it's the respect of the human's will

>>82886497 (OP)
1. A human life is more valuable than profit. It's a failing of policy if someone cannot afford medication they need and you'd have to be a complete asshole to withhold it.
2. This is more morally ambiguous. While the cadaver itself obviously doesn't have any objections, the body itself belongs to its family and is essentially on-loan to the institute using it. Stealing without need is wrong in my eyes and I wouldn't condone this.
3. Also much more morally ambiguous. Assuming there's no prior grooming or anything similar, I can't fault it ethically. I also don't feel comfortable with it but that's likely due to how I was raised.

>>82886693
>>82886696

so lets say guy has covered most of the RnD and is only doing it out of pure greed would it be justifiable
>>82886704
why is respect of human will of a dead person matter though? what actually makes it wrong. What would be difference between eating it and burning it

>>82886497 (OP)
1) According to man made law and man made morality stealing is wrong
2) According to man made law and man made morality cannibalism is wrong and you are not allowed to eat a corpse because in western culture it's disrespectful and without the permission of the owner (the school, previously the family)
3)According to man made law and man made morality in some states and countries it's illegal and wrong.

>>82886497 (OP)
>1.
he literally committed aggressive violence (theft) so yes obviously he is in the wrong
the vendor may also be in the wrong but that is neither here nor there
>2.
the deceased did not consent to being eaten so she is in the wrong
had they done so then there is no issue
>3.
no issue

>>82886497 (OP)
1) Yes, stealing is wrong
2) Yes, desecrating a corpse and cannibalism are wrong
3) Yes, incest is wrong

>>82886650
he did offer to pay him afterwards. he would have still "made money" in the end like he intended. it's also stupid from a business point of view, he can't "make money" if there isn't anyone alive to buy it.

>>82886497 (OP)
1) Yes it wasn't enough to steal the drug he should have killed the druggist too
2) Yes she should have paid for it, that is stealing
3) It depends if they are psychopaths or not

>>82886735
why is burning it any different from eating it

>>82886714
no, let's say the guy is in crippling debt and has cancer in the final stage. he's dying tomorrow and now he's getting his work stolen from him

you can't make up new parameters on top of what's given

>>82886714
>so lets say guy has covered most of the RnD and is only doing it out of pure greed would it be justifiable
Yes, because it's his drug. You can't just take shit from others on the grounds of "but I want it", the law exists for a reason. The drug only exists because the pharmacist made it. Who the fuck is ever going to make drugs if they can't sell it for however much they want?

>>82886497 (OP)
Heinz was a coward. He should have slain the druggist and taken the drugs openly, as fruits of conquest.
Jennifer was weak. She couldn't hunt and kill animals herself, and took meat that had already died by someone else's hand. She's also a degenerate cannibal.
Mark should have raided a foreign settlement and acquired concubines through the strength of his sword arm. Julie should have been married off to a family in Mark's homeland in order to secure an alliance.

The absolute fucking STATE of modern "civilization".

>>82886737
because you don't get to decide what happens to other people's shit

>>82886497 (OP)
1) nah, fuck the druggist bastard
2) she's a hypocrite but who fucking cares.
3) dont really care

>>82886749
>Who the fuck is ever going to make drugs if they can't sell it for however much they want?
Every medical institute outside of America...

>>82886714
>why is respect of human will of a dead person matter though
It's so culturally important that wills and testaments exist
>what actually makes it wrong
Not doing what the person wanted, just because they're ded doesn't change a thing. If you're a materialist you could make the argument that once they're ded you can do with the body whatever you want but we're not at that point

>>82886749
>Who the fuck is ever going to make drugs if they can't sell it for however much they want?
Universities, government labs etc. They should be the ones making drugs anyway.
Just look at insulin. Original guys who discovered it sold the patent for 1$ so everyone can afford and yet pharma corpos have spent every moment since trying to find way to charge huge margins on it and have succeeded.

>>82886497 (OP)
>1.
Yes stealing is wrong. A society which condones stealing can not hold. If the woman's life matter than there would've been raised enough capital to pay for the cure. The man should go to prison multiple years and be fined.
>2.
Yes what she did was wrong. Jennifer had no right as a teaching assistant to touch the body of a deceased person; let alone eat it. She ought to be fired and criminally prosecuted.
>3.
Yes. Sexual outside of the confines for reproduction is wrong. Let alone between siblings, as they carry increased chances for diseases which may deteriorate the species. Both parties should be separated permanently.

>>82886497 (OP)
Yes, stealing is correct.
Yes, stealing and cannibalism are correct but no because it's a woman doing it.
Yes, incest is correct but no because the woman consented.

>>82886765
>Every medical institute outside of America
You can steal drugs outside of the US?
>>82886768
>Universities, government labs etc. They should be the ones making drugs anyway.
The overwhelming majority of medication R&D is private, the government is terrible at doing anything more complex than throwing money at it.
>pharma corpos have spent every moment since trying to find way to charge huge margins on it and have succeeded
This is a problem with patent law. Literally just break the patent and let generics exist, problem solved.

>>82886749
Honestly, I would rather there is no drug than a drug that 95% of population can't afford. An average person will still die either way, but at least in first case they can die with more peace and dignity.
If you wanna make money, research and upsell cosmetics, ozempic and shit like that. Not life-saving medication.

>>82886804
>you made this cancer cure but you should NEVER EVER sell it because the POORS can't afford it! think of the people who are dying who would've died either way and don't think of the people you can save!

>>82886570
anonimity does well to stamp out the need to conform with the existing societal norms at the risk of losing reputation which exists irl. there is basically nothing wrong with the third example but i bet that your entire class viewed it negatively because it'd be shameful to say that one views positively, simple as that.
most people here are social outcasts so it makes sense that they wouldn't care all that much about what society has to say on an issue. chances are that if you're conforming with the society which inhabits this site you're probably conforming with at least 1 pedo gooner so conform at your own risk chuddie.

>>82886497 (OP)
wrong
nothing wrong
wrong

>>82886765
>i'm a retard with no understanding of how anything works

itt ashkenazis got mad

>>82886825
Please enlighten us.

>>82886793
It's not really overwhelming majority. It's around 50-50 I think. And goes to like 80% academic for cancer drugs (because those are not profitable for companies). But even with those stats 99+% of approved drugs have roots in academia and are usually just commercialised through industry (source: doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.0511). So no, companies absolutely shouldn't have the right to overcharge medication which is important for living.

>>82886804
Short-sighted and sociopathic commie. Technical progress and time bring the cost of the drug down in the future. In the past less than 1% of people could afford a car. You would argue cars should be banned because not everyone could afford them, then today we would still have no cars.

>>82886885
If you remove the patents and let the free market run its course then the companies won't be able to overcharge for the medicine.

>>82886913
Nta but while it may be true for commodities, in general the trend is that things that you actually need to live gets more and more expensive because companies know they can squeeze you for it. See insulin example.

Heinz is a thief and morally wrong. The fact nobody would lend him money suggests this is not the first bad thing he did and he had a reputation for doing things like stealing and hurting people. His wife is probably glad she got cancer so she can get away from a no good thieving criminal with a bad reputation. 10x markup on materials is extremely low for a new drug. Honestly the drug researcher charging so little is possibly immoral, he'd never recoup development costs, which could impact future development of drugs. But as it's his discovery this is up to him, perhaps he is ready to retire and the low price is his parting gift. The thief should be punished harshly by being made to serve as human test subject for harmful and dangerous drugs if he likes drugs so much.
The cannibal is immoral. She slole from a scientific research facility. She never would have gotten regulatory approval by whoever is running the department, which is why she stole it. It also violates the wishes of the dead, doubly immoral. Also no amount of cooking can eliminate prion risk, making her a threat to human health. The thief should be punished by donating her body to science. At the least she should have a part of her flesh cut off before being cremated.
The incestuous couple is immoral, they were not married and engaged in premarital sex.
This didn't even take any thought. Must be an inner city high school ethics class.

>>82886497 (OP)
1. Women don't have a soul whereas men do, he should've mercy killed his wife and killed the pharmacists wife too for good measure.
2. She should be put down if the body was male, it's like a dog eating human meat. Otherwise it would be like a dog eating a dog which is somewhat less bad but she should still be put down except she'd be allowed a proper burial in this case.
3.He should've strangled his whore sister the moment she mentioned having sex with outside of marriage.

>>82886933
If you let free market run its course what you are going to get is that one company will eventually become a monopoly and then can charge however much it wants because people need it to live (a la Gilded Age). Free market works great for commodities and such but is very bad model for essential things like medicine, water etc.

>>82886947
>Everything is easy when I make assumptions to suit my own point.

>>82886497 (OP)
>there was nothing wrong with what he did, the guy was a piece of shit for charging a desperate man that much
>the guy donated his body to science, not cannibalism. i dont think it was right for her to take part of his body home with her
>its a secret, they did. it safely, who cares

>>82886979
No assumptions were made. Three unambiguous scenarios, two describing theft and a third describing premarital sex. All the extra fluff is meant to distract low iq individuals like you. Maybe if I type more words in this post I'm currently writing you will get confused even more. I'm writing this post in English, the only language I know. I responded to a set of clear-cut immoral scenarios op posted. It is currently night time and the sun is not visible in the sky when I look out of the window.

First one nothing wrong, get out jew'd
Second one yes, but only because she's retarded and doesn't know about prions
Third one is based as fuck

>>82886497 (OP)
1. No because the druggist was breaking the Hippocratic Oath
2. Yes because that violates human dignity
3. No if they're not Christian yes if they are (God said don't)

>>82887027
>>82887027
>The fact nobody would lend him money suggests this is not the first bad thing he did and he had a reputation for doing things like stealing and hurting people. His wife is probably glad she got cancer so she can get away from a no good thieving criminal with a bad reputation.
Except that the posts clearly states that he asked all he knows for money and they did lend him but it was still not enough. No where does it mention he is a habitual criminal.

I am too bored to continue so you can have it as a take-home exercise.

>>82886497 (OP)
>1.
Yes. Actions have a moral value by themselves, separated from their consequences. What we have here is a sequence of several different actions, each with their own moral value. Stealing the medicine is wrong. Violence against the pharmacist is also wrong.
The pharmacist is also guilty of immoral action. As the value of human life is inherently higher than any money he could have made. Even if you don't believe in the former, he is also guilty of immoral action by indifference.
The question here is not whether or not Heinz should be punished, but whether or not he did anything wrong. And he did.
>2.
This requires more context. The fact that the body will be cremated could suggest that people are waiting for the remains. There are many other ways in which a body could be disposed of that would cost less and be beneficial to the environment.
Once again the moral value of individual actions comes into play. The body was not her property, a human body is not property of anyone but the person who inhabits it, this continues to be the case even after death. It is because of this that the scenario itself starts with "a person who DONATED" their body to science. The will of the deceased is still being executed, even after his passing. Anything done to his body outside of his established will is thus immoral.
A more accurate question for this paradigm would be "why shouldn't we use all dead bodies for science?"
>3.
Also requires more context. Why do they decide to not do it again? This possibly implies that there is something barring them from doing it, possibly something other than social pressure.
It almost argues that a new experience is always worth trying, as this is one of the justifications for it. There are many examples of how this is not true, most people haven't had their teeth forcibly removed without anesthesia, most people wouldn't do it just because it's a new experience.
Their decision to keep it a secret is also questionable...

>>82886938
>doesn't understand competition award
Some necessities have gone up over time for various reasons, this does not mean all necessities do as a general rule. They go up if the supply is limited while demand increases (eg housing) or patents stop other companies from producing it competitively. Insulin is only really expensive in the US, it's a consequence of the patent/regulation system.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cost-of-insulin-by-country

>>82887091
EU has even more stringent patent law and yet it's cheaper. But it would be as expensive as in US if corpos were allowed to do shit like they did in US.

>>82886497 (OP)
>ethics
Complete and utter waste of time. Does it make you mad that some goober in India probably payed 1/20th what you did for college, and he probably has zero extra required classes like this? And his job application will accept "foreign equivalent" for a bachelors/masters?
Everyone just chat gpts the answers, everyone ignores the talentless jew prof, and there's like one retarded white woman doing a criminal justice degree yapping.

>1) The Heinz Dilemma
Oy vey a special kind of cancer huh? What's the last name of the druggist?
Idk I'd probably do what the main character in wo bu shi yao shen does.
>2) The Cannibalism Story
Literally just a psychotic bitch being a psychotic bitch
>The Incest Story
>So what do you think about this
I think that the author is JEWISH with a knotted gnarly hooked NOSE that goes all the way down to his midsection

>>82887076
They didn't lend him. He could only get half the cost together because no one would lend his scummy ass any money. Even the druggist refused payment plans, because he knew this was an untrustworthy person. This is later demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt because he stole from a researcher working to cure cancer.
Rereading I can see why you misinterpreted it as people did lend him, but you have to read the entire thing.

>>82887084
I almost wish that OP would copy my response and send it himself. I want to know what the professor thinks of it lol.

anyway,
>3, cont
A potential partner deserves to know about the nature of the previous sexual encounters of the other partner, specially when they could alter the relationship between both of them. Some will argue against this right, but, at the very least, the encounter had an impact between the 2 siblings, thus it doesn't make it inconsequential, even if positive for their relationship, the repercussions are always present.
The questions, however, are what I think of it.
I wrote a paragraph about this. But deleted it. I am having trouble justifying why the incestual act itself is wrong, without appealing to the consequences or context. In this framework, I am having trouble distinguishing incest from any other sexual relationship. So, perhaps the act itself is not wrong, but that doesn't mean that it should be practiced regularly or encouraged. Law is not the same as morality. Law can be relative and based on consequences (unlike morality), so incest should still be prohibited if purely from a collective benefit perspective.

>>82887215
Julie cheated on her future husband. If you don't want to go with that one you already have an excellent basis. By intentionally choosing to keep it secret they are actively lying by omission. Furthermore this lying was decided upon well ahead of time or without even knowing if this should be shared. Or more likely, specifically because she knows it is bad. Women brag about doing evil stuff all the time, so you know it's bad if she isn't proudly telling every person she sees about it.

>>82887286
>Julie cheated on her future husband. If you don't want to go with that one you already have an excellent basis. By intentionally choosing to keep it secret they are actively lying by omission. Furthermore this lying was decided upon well ahead of time or without even knowing if this should be shared. Or more likely, specifically because she knows it is bad. Women brag about doing evil stuff all the time, so you know it's bad if she isn't proudly telling every person she sees about it.
none of this says that the incestual act itself is immoral.
You only made the argument for the lying about it being immoral. That is the issue, you have to justify the moral value of the act itself, without appealing to any of it's consequences or derivatives. The other 2 cases exposed acts that are morally wrong regardless of their consequences. Stealing, disregarding another's will, violence, etc.

>>82886497 (OP)
1) was there anything wrong with what he did
yes.
He broke the law.
I don't think he should be in a situation where he even should break the law, as I believe health care should be payed through social systems financed by everyone through taxes, and that patents shouldn't grant intellectual-property-enforced monopolies, and any competitor should be able to produce the same drug as the druggist as long as they pay a fair (determined by the government, not by the druggist, e.g. competitor must pay 10% of his net profit to original inventor if he uses original inventors idea) to prevent price hiking of 10x like in this example.
>"No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it."
thats great you discovered the drug and you can make money from it, but not to an absurd degree, if you want us to protect your intellectual property at all, then you have to agree to out terms and conditions, you sell us (the government) the patent, and we give you a percentage of the profits as reward for your invention, but EVERYONE, including your competitors that you don't like can use your patent and produce and sell the drug for 2x rather than your 10x, as long as they pay both us and you a share of the profit.
Yet still we have laws, and Heinz broke the laws even if they are shit currently shit and I want to change them, yet breaking the law is still wrong and you can't just take matters into your own hands.

2) Yes, because the people donating their bodies usually sign a form for what their bodies should be used, this should be respected. I don't think its thaaaaat bad, but its still not okay.

3) No, nothing wrong with that.

>>82887322
>Julie cheated on her future husband
This is extremely immoral. The other stuff just further illustrates the extent of her immorality. It began with cheating. The decision to lie about cheating did not take place until after.

>>82886638
Oh my gosh, he didn't say he wasn't a kike count it as a win you>>82886622 totally called it

>>82887408
sure.
but that's the cheating that is wrong, not the incest.
If she married her brother, there would be no cheating.
It is asking specifically about the sex. Why is that sexual act wrong? I was looking to justify it without appealing to consequence, as that is weak and relative.

>>82887436
It's premarital sex, incest has nothing to do with this. The cheating angle or outcome just makes it worse, not what establishes the immorality.
Incest could be addressed seperately. As it turns out the good book has something to say about both things. It's not unique to Christianity either. Infidelity, premarital sex, incest, theft, murder, many cultures have looked down on these things for various reasons.

>>82886497 (OP)
1. Depends on whom you ask. Him or his wife may feel justified. The druggist - not so much.
2. She "wronged" society, who uphold that cannibalism is wrong. She also retroactively wronged the donors (retroactively, because they're dead), who were not informed of such a use for their dead bodies. She also potentially wronged the lab and everyone else involved, IF she were to be found out what she did - it would sully their reputation for reasons stated previously.
3. According to societies "incest is wrong" - they have wronged society as a whole, potentially if found out.

>>82886497 (OP)
>1
no because the man seeking profit has no reason to do so
if he had something he needed the money for (ie a sick child or something) it would be improper to place your needs above his, but since he has no needs and is in effect killing this woman for no reason other than greed he cannot be justified
right to ownership does not supercede right to life
>2
yes, you cant set a precedent of humans being edible because then you incentivize murder and the spread of disease and etc
its has to always be universally disallowed, regardless of the consent involved or how the body is going to otherwise be disposed of or whatever
>3
yes, similar to the cannibal situation, its a precedent you cant allow because not everyone will be as responsible about it and society bears the burden of the genetic and social problems it may cause
they broke a rule, but likely no harm will come from it, provided they keep it to themselves

also theres a good question to ask as a follow-up for question 1, something like
>if the man stealing the drug was caught in the process, would it be justified to shoot and kill him for stealing
many people would likely immediately contradict their own logic in how they answered that first question

>>82886497 (OP)
1) Yeah stealing is wrong. But it's you and what you love against the world. Most everyone will always do what is best for themselves.

2) Yes cannibalism is fucked up and cannibals should never be respected under any circumstance.

3) There's nothing fundamentally wrong with consensual incest.

>>82886497 (OP)
(1) A bit of a trick question. The answer is a qualified yes. Heinz tacitly acknowledged the rights afforded by property by attempting to obtain the funds and bargaining. In that context, he knowingly committed several kinds of "trespass" to obtain something he had no access to. The underside is whether or not the wrong outweighs his other moral or ethical duty to his wife, and there's a related question as to whether Mr. Goldsteinberg committed an initial moral wrong given his profit-driven (vs. care-driven) motive. The point is that, while there is something wrong with what Heinz did, it doesn't matter. His duty to his wife, especially under exceptional and rare circumstances, outweighs all legal or ethical demands put upon him. The sphere in which he is wrong is irrelevant to him and most other moral actors. He isn't going to pretend to be Kant when his wife is dying.
(2) This is a retarded hypothetical but there are different degrees of wrong, including based on her own ethical system. She's breaking ancient taboos, she's breaking the law, she's disqualifying her own moral position by making it about killing rather than eating animals, and there are wrongs with respect to the family (desecrating a body leads to moral harm assuming she's found out), and plenty more. Also women are stupid so everything they do is wrong.
(3) The wrong isn't limited to the act itself in this case. It is entirely premised on the keeping of the secret, which is being kept because it masks the outcome of discovery. Discovery would have profound and lifelong impacts not only on themselves but their whole family. Having said that, assuming the secret can be kept until both of them are dead, and there is no risk of being discovered, the harm is hypothetical and the only wrong is legal and cultural. But there is wrong in the sense that the act is premised on the idea that there will be no discovery and that the secret can be kept, which neither of them can guarantee.

>>82886497 (OP)
1. To answer the question directly, it was wrong to steal. But saving his wife is more net gain than the drug guy protecting his margin so utilitarianism says he acted ethically.

2. This depends on whether or not you believe consent matters after someone dies. People donated their bodies for a specific reason. The person who was eaten did not consent to having their body treated like that and I think that's wrong. Consent is huge in medicine and research.

3. Although this example goes out of its way to explain they won't have kids, fucking your sibling normalizes incest which has broader impact on society. Incest is wrong by principle even if most examples have no immediate effect.

>>82886497 (OP)
The issue with the first one is that all pharmaceutical drugs and radium are toxic. The druggist is either pure evil or misguided, Heinz is brainwashed, and his wife's cancer likely came from the medical industry in the first place. If drugs worked the way everyone has been brainwashed to believe, I wouldn't see any problem with what Heinz did. He unknowingly poisoned his wife. The issue with the second one is that Jennifer is a vegetarian, although the idea of not letting that meat go to waste is valid. There's nothing wrong with the third one except that birth control pills are toxic. I'm not convinced that incest produces diseases in offspring, although there are other reasons to not want to birth your brother's children. Anyone who finds out about it would probably try to socially destroy the brother and sister

>>82886497 (OP)
1. No because the doctor was being a greedy Jew.
2. Yes you shouldn't eat people.
>b-but muh victimless crime blablabla soiface.jpg
3. Yes siblings shouldn't have sex.
>b-but muh victimless crime blablabla soiface.jpg

>>82887779
>you cant set a precedent of humans being edible because then you incentivize murder and the spread of disease and etc

You're essentially using gateway drug rhetoric. What she did on her own isn't wrong>>82887771
>She also potentially wronged the lab and everyone else involved, IF she were to be found out what she did - it would sully their reputation for reasons stated previously.

Let's say lab gets sold off to her and they have a cadaver left and she eats it. So she owns right to everything in building then what
>>82887771

>>82888241
its not really about her scenario specifically its about other people seeing/hearing/learning about her and going "well what about me", thats what i mean by precedent
it cant just be a lazy "dont ask dont tell" grey area, because then youre incentivizing illegal/immoral/unallowable means to enable a (dubiously) legal/moral/admissible activity
the primary means by which people obtain human meat is by killing human, which is something that cannot be facilitated by the law, so even in situations where this is not the case the meat still needs to be uncompromisingly forbidden

its basically 1:1 with the ideas behind laws about exotic game and shit like ivory, furs, etc if you need a better comparison
you dont want to create a market for human meat, even by way of inaction, this is always bad if you dont want people being killed

>>82886497 (OP)
1. no, fuck jews.
2. jennifer weird as fuck.
3. that's hot.

>>82887084
>>82887215
Anyone wanna debate me on mine? I'm bored.

>>82886497 (OP)
If we don't suppose the existence of some sort of reference point of absolute moral authority (i.e. God) then what is left is the social contract. Breaking it exempts you from its benefits and protections, but as long as someone can do without them or somehow avoid the consequences, they can do basically whatever. There isn't really any right or wrong, just permitted and not.
1. He did what he felt was necessary to achieve an end he apparently felt it worth taking a risk and breaking the contract for. Maybe he gets away with it and maybe he doesn't.
2. The contract was broken due to the dead man's wishes, but it's up to her how much she cares about them. Nth order consequences are of course an issue, whatever those may be but if there aren't any then it's a matter of her own priorities. Maybe her belief is that it's "wrong" to kill things but I'd have to ask on what grounds; if she's a Hindu and considers it divinely forbidden then that's fine to a fault anyway, otherwise religions tend not to permit it and animals aren't part of the social contract.
3. Once again, nth order consequences are the concern here, and if something is permitted, it should be expected to become commonplace. I don't know what sorts of potential consequences there might be to commonplace incest, so I can't really say much on this one.

1) yes, but only just barely, so on net it was more moral than immoral
2) obviously no
3) obviously no

>>82886622
I am Jewish and I mostly agree with that poster, for what it's worth. Stealing is wrong and the other two things are violations of nonsensical puritanical taboos. Rightists just think with their amygdala instead of their cortex.

>>82888471
>otherwise religions tend not to permit it
excuse me, I meant the opposite of that. religions tend not to FORBID it

>>82886497 (OP)
1: breaking and entering to steal is wrong. And I hope he gave everyone their money back.
2: Presumably, cannibalism is illegal for reasons beyond the scope of this assignment, making it wrong. Also, Jennifer took something that didn't belong to her without permission. That's wrong
3: Nothing wrong with this from my perspective

>>82887327
one of the only intelligent answers in this thread. I have to imagine this person adheres to the one correct political ideology or something similar

>>82888442
>>82887084
>The fact that the body will be cremated could suggest that people are waiting for the remains. There are many other ways in which a body could be disposed of that would cost less and be beneficial to the environment.


Not like she ate whole body


>The body was not her property, a human body is not property of anyone but the person who inhabits it, this continues to be the case even after death.

Are you against abortion as well?

>Anything done to his body outside of his established will is thus immoral.

Legality doesn't imply immorality. Is running red light immoral? Is jay walking immoral?


>A more accurate question for this paradigm would be "why shouldn't we use all dead bodies for science?"

It's dead why should anyone care about inanimate lifeless object? In a month meat she ate would've been consumed by earth yet that is okay but her eating is okay.

>>82888506
>>82888471
>>82887940

I'm trans women according to 3 your okay With me existing right?

>>82886497 (OP)
I think all these situations would be technically permissible to people only as isolated incidents but any proximity would change their response
>Would it be ok for everyone to rob any pharmacy to get the drugs they need? does it stop at only pharmacies and medication or can I shop in your bedroom as well?
>if I dug up your nana's corpse the day after her funeral and shoved a rod through her ass and roasted her on a spit, would you feel indifferent?
>if you were the parent, would you be ok knowing your son is fucking your daughter?

>>82888536
I'm >>82888506
Please correct your grammar, tranzo

>>82888498
Your reason western society has went from normal nuclear white gsmiky to dystopian hell it is now. If you wished you'd have us become androgynous trans humanists androids who live like hive bees. Nothing is sacred to you people.

>>82886497 (OP)
1. Nothing wrong
2. Nothing wrong (and makes me really hard)
3. Nothing wrong

Too easy, next questions!

>>82888536
Just like how siblings shouldn't have sex, trannies shouldn't be allowed to exist.
>b-buh muh victimless crime blablabla soijak.jpg

>>82888545
>I dug up your nana's corpse the day after her funeral and shoved a rod through her ass and roasted her on a spit, would you feel indifferent?

Why how I feel matter in this case? Your nana will be consumed by worms and bacteria so what difference does it make if humans eat it.

>>82886497 (OP)
Nah. These are fake. If they were real, the first one would say "in the United States" and not "in Europe."

>>82886538
>>82888583
Explain why? Why can't I live life without you guys harassing me and making me feel bad. What harm do I commit against you?

>>82888545
>If you were the parent, would you be ok knowing your son is fucking a nigger?
Sorry chud, daddy's feelings about this don't matter

1) Both were wrong. The druggist is being greedy with zero compassion and not even entertaining the thought of starting a loan for the guy. The guy is wrong for theft and not talking to the bank for a loan.

2) She's a dumbass and deserves prion disease.

3) I think it's immoral. Family is family for a reason. Things are going to be awkward from this point forth.

>>82886497 (OP)
This sounds more like a quiz about aptitude of what you want to do. First question is about science.
Second question is about whether you should be in the medical field
Third question is if you should be a politician

>>82888606
They're ones who say liberals are feelings over facts lol

>>82888599
Your delusions justify a forfeiture of your autonomy. In a moral society, you'd be studied in an asylum, in hopes of curing you. Unfortunately, you've been taken advantage of by the medical industrial complex.

>>82888620
How am I on same level of a threat to a schizophrenic who harms people or a psychotic serial killer? I just play dress up

>>82888584
decency laws such as desecration of corpses are dictated by feelings, a utilitarian solution wouldn't really solve the issue

>>82888635
Why should I care about people's feelings which are subjective? They have no basis on material reality? I bet you also think hate crimes aren't even a real thing and people should be able to say what ever they want even if it hurts their sentiments but desecrating lifeless corpse goes too far?

>>82888628
You do not "just play." By your own admission, you consider yourself an actual woman. Or is that a lie?

>>82888657
Because there's no escaping people who believe the nonsense, or at least use the nonsense as an excuse.

>>82888682
I consider myself a women but im trying to come across relatable to you.

>>82886497 (OP)
Because this is an ethics class, I'll answer in a serious way

1. No
2. No
3. No

Ethics and morality are boring. Nothing is intrinsically morally good or bad, things just exist and occur independent of our subjective consciousness, we interpret them and assign moral value to them in accordance with our own dumb limbic system and experience.

Your answer to all three questions could be derived from a more complex form of "morality isn't real and this is a dumb question, we believe these things are wrong because we have socially conditioned each other to be. I choose my own morality based upon my own arbitrary beliefs which I recognise are baseless, choose to regard truth as irrelevant (quote Nietzsche) and say x is bad because I hate it and fuck you I do what I want"

>>82888695
You thought that I would find "playing dress up" relatable?

>>82888710
You're intellectualising because you lack a moral sense.

Those who have one understand the universal objective morality intuitively and don't need "ethics" even if we understand it. This is part of what some of those talking about having a soul are talking about.

>>82886497 (OP)
(1) The Druggist is on the Amoral side for charging such a ludicrous price for life saving medicine but is not breaking the law, the Husband broke the law out of desperation to save a loved one.
(2) Corpse starch, yum.
(3) Just don't bring an incest baby to life, don't coerce your family into sex and don't tell me about it, I do not care

>>82886497 (OP)
1. This is wrong. Pricing is used to prevent shortages. People who want to buy things more will pay more. The husband prevented someone who truly wanted their wife to survive from purchasing the drug. Also property rights are just as important as his wife's life.
2. That's perfectly acceptable. No one was harmed and the body was trash anyway.
3. That's perfectly acceptable too. Two consenting adults should be allowed to do anything they want.

>>82888740
>universal objective morality
Would you be surprised to learn that in most of Europe, during the middle ages, theft was punishable by death, but murder was punishable by a fine?

>>82886497 (OP)
1. Yes, you can't just steal from people, even if they are being greedy assholes. That being said Heinz is based for loving his wife enough to break the law and save her life.
2. No, it was culinary research. Doesn't stop if from being nasty, but no.
3. This one is negative wrong, they both wanted a roll in the hay and their relationship is stronger for it. They did everything right and then some.

>>82886497 (OP)
1. No there was nothing wrong with what Heinz did.
2. Yes what Jennifer did was wrong and disgusting.
3. Julie and Mark are fucking deviant perverts and yes incest is wrong.

>>82888523
>Are you against abortion as well?
Yes. The distinction here is that the body of the baby also has autonomy. Thus, the mother imposing her will on the baby is immoral. The baby, cannot execute his will independently, however. The nature of the relationship of the mother to the baby, it being that the baby js a direct result of the actions of the mother, makes the mother unable to distinguish herself from her actions.

>Legality doesn't imply immorality. Is running red light immoral? Is jay walking immoral?
By themselves no. I think that the question could go further, running a red light could, perhaps, imply the braking of a previously widely agreed upon compromise, that to respect traffic laws, in which case it would be immoral, as the individual is breaking a promise, but then running the red light is not the immoral act, breaking the promise is.
>It's dead why should anyone care about inanimate lifeless object?
Yes, that is the harder question. It is harder to justify without recurring to axiomatic statements.

>>82888785
>a fine
Depending on who you are...

Why the diversion?

>>82888824
>Yes, that is the harder question. It is harder to justify without recurring to axiomatic statements.


Of all three which would you punish?

>>82888824
>body of the baby also has autonomy
NTA but it can have all the autonomy it wants outside of the mother. The mother's autonomy has to supersede the baby's if the baby is essentially a parasite wholly reliant on the mother's body.

Why did you write it like a dave song from drowning pool
4 somethings got to give
WRAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH
LET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOOR

>>82888804
>disgusting and wrong

Why?

>>82888839
>Diversion
I wasn't the guy you were talking to. Obviously there's no universal objective morality (except for mine)

>>82888572
>>82888853
I meant to quote you about it.

>>82888710
>>82888740
I think that second guy is flirting with you.

>>82888564
I think it's no coincidence antisemites tend to have a poor grasp on writing and thinking.

>If you wished you'd have us become androgynous trans humanists androids
Unironically 100% yes; I've been a member of transhumanist communities for 15 years. But you completely misunderstand it. Transhumanism is all about expanding human choice and freedom, not contracting it. A core facet of transhumanism is that the individual should always have their personal choices respected. If you don't want a chip in your brain or cyborg legs, that's your inalienable right and must always be respected. If you want to be androgynous, you should be able to be. If you want to be super masculine or super feminine instead, you should be able to be. If you want to live forever you should be able to. If you don't, you should have the right to end your own life whenever you wish.

Since wanting to live is such an important choice, I think stealing life-saving medicine is acceptable. Something can simultaneously be wrong but acceptable. Punishment should be commensurate with the crime, and this would be a minor crime with mitigating circumstances.

1. How old is the wife? Do they have dependent children? Will stealing this drug deny mass production/ruin research?

2. This is wrong because the cadaver is the property of the medical school. She also probably broke protocols and safety standards of her job contract by doing so (the cleanliness of the cadaver is not a factor)

3. Nothing wrong with it

>>82888876
If you think there isn't you just might be a hylic, even with that wit.

all is fine

>>82888889
>A core facet of transhumanism is that the individual should always have their personal choices respected
I'm not him but I have a question for you
I always argue that all consensual actions should be permitted regardless of the extremity. So e.g., any voluntary death, mutilation, body modification, murder, cannibalism, necrophilia should be permitted. Obviously we draw a line on age at some point, 18 seems perfectly fine, but otherwise we should simply respect consent. So my question is, do transhumanists agree with my position?

>>82888898
>This is wrong because the cadaver is the property of the medical school

restaurants and grocery stores throw out perfectly eatable food so is it Aldo wrong for employees to take some back with them home.

>>82888957
The difference is allowing employees to take product incentivizes them to not sell product they want to get for free

>>82888889
>no coincidence antisemites tend to have a poor grasp on writing and thinking.


Immediately goes for the personal attacks before even retorting my claims.


> If you don't want a chip in your brain or cyborg legs, that's your inalienable right and must always be respected

Hey chud you don't need to own a smartphone but we're going to make life so hard to survive without one simultaneously. The moment such biological improvements become available you'll inevitable be pushed by societal pressure or self preservation to get one yourself. There is no agency in this world just as much agency you'd have in any other dystopian future.

> If you want to be androgynous, you should be able to be. If you want to be super masculine or super feminine instead, you should be able to be. If you want to live forever you should be able to. If you don't, you should have the right to end your own life whenever you wish.

This will lead to collapse of human society and bonds that will make us slave to technology. Thousands of years of traditions and norms will be thrown out so you can feel like what it is to be on receiving end of a dick.


Your deeply sick individual person who wishes to destroy western civilization.

>>82888977
Why allow employees who throw it out be ones who send it out? Easy solution to fix

>>82888921
>consent is all
>because this places the burden on the victims of my manipulations
...

>>82888843
>The mother's autonomy has to supersede the baby's if the baby is essentially a parasite wholly reliant on the mother's body.
It already does. The mother's autonomy directly resulted in the existence of the baby. It was the exercise of her autonomy that derived in that life. Autonomy does not mean freedom from consequence, it actually is the opposite, it means driving actor, thus responsible for the consequences.
>>82888841
I was thinking about this. A book on the morality of punishment would be interesting. If, under the framework I was working on, actions have a moral value by themselves, then punishment means willingly inflicting immoral acts onto another, which can thus be argued to be wrong.
I feel like, since law and morality are not the same, relativity can and should come into play, but that sounds just like a cop-out.
Then I thought about religious beliefs like "eye for an eye", without appealing to the law of God, it can be understood as evil done onto someone evil, of equal measure, is moral. But that is still knowingly doing evil. I feel like that can be expanded into an answer, but I can't figure it out.

>Which should be punished?
Logocally, 1 and 2, as they are both categorized as immoral. However my feeling says that number 1's punishment shouldn't be the same as any other murder, but that falls into relativism again. It's different from self-defense, too.
That also opens the door for precedent, as it would set a standard for how these cases should be treated.
My logical answer is the one stated above, however I see problems with it.

What do you think?

>>82889010
So you think adults are too stupid to figure out what they want on their own? If someone has a disability that prevents them from consenting e.g., down's syndrome, that's different. Freedom is more important than preventing all harm.

>>82889021
>The mother's autonomy directly resulted in the existence of the baby
What does that matter? The baby is still a parasite.
>Autonomy does not mean freedom from consequence
Correct, but the mother should have full control over her body. If she doesn't want to carry the child it is wrong to force her. Preventing an abortion isn't a consequence anyway, it's an abrogation of freedom.

>>82889029
>adults are clever
>choices are made under conditions of true freedom
>so its ok for me to prey on people
...

>>82886497 (OP)
Heinz is based, Jennifer is demented, Julie and Mark did nothing wrong.

>>82889037
Babied aren't parasites and abortion is murder

>>82889050
I have no idea what you're trying to say. If someone chooses to do something then they've consented it. If it's the result of some kind of manipulation there can be a discussion around the manipulation itself, but in general, in society today, we accept that as being legal. It's not really clear to me what your alternative even is, just prevent anyone from doing anything?

>>82889021
>The mother's autonomy directly resulted in the existence of the baby. It was the exercise of her autonomy that derived in that life. Autonomy does not mean freedom from consequence, it actually is the opposite, it means driving actor, thus responsible for the consequences.

What if they're raped? And plan b? IUDs? They are like early early abortions


>Logocally, 1 and 2, as they are both categorized as immoral. However my feeling says that number 1's punishment shouldn't be the same as any other murder, but that falls into relativism again. It's different from self-defense, too.
That also opens the door for precedent, as it would set a standard for how these cases should be treated.
My logical answer is the one stated above, however I see problems with it.

Why 2 btw? No victim in crime and cadavers are literally donated to science with no care in mind. If they had burried him and his flesh was eastern by microbes would that be immoral?

>>82889068
Babies are parasites and abortion gets me wet. I'll name my next one after you.

>>82886570
>why did r9k respond so differently from my class?
Nobody is going to waltz into a public class, with their real face and proclaim "incest is based"

>>82889071
>doesn't understand
>but its legal so it's ok
...

>>82889078
Face
The
Wall

>>82889097
>with their real face and proclaim "incest is based"
Speak for yourself, I always did shit like that minus the retarded internet lingo.

>>82889037
>but the mother should have full control over her body
She had full control of her body when she willingly created the baby. Now, it is her responsibility to take care of him.
If she does not want to have a baby, it is wrong of her to create one.
>Preventing an abortion isn't a consequence anyway, it's an abrogation of freedom.
Abortion is the errasure of the consequence of the sexual encounter.

>>82889101
There is always a risk of """manipulation""" and we need to either ignore it in favor of freedom or clamp down on all expression to prevent harm. Freedom allows people to gravitate towards whatever they desire be that harm (as some people genuinely desire) or whatever else. I see no reason to forbid any consensual action, I don't see how a nanny state is in any superior to simply trusting that adults are capable of deciding what they want for themselves.
If you reply with another retarded greentext I'm not going to keep attempting this discussion though, it's just a waste of my time.

>>82889114
>Now, it is her responsibility to take care of him
Says who and why? Abortion happens in nature all the time.
>Abortion is the errasure of the consequence of the sexual encounter
Should we stop treating cancer caused by tobacco, alcohol, poor diet, obesity, etc? That's also the erasure of a consequence from premeditated action.

>>82889108
Sorry, I misspoke. Better said, anyone with a brain.

>>82889130
>being moral somehow negates all expression, ignore me treating this as a retarded axiom.
>the state is the only moral authority, this has nothing to do with an emotional defense of exploitative legalism.
>green text

>>82889073
>by microbes would that be immoral?
Microbes do not have the capacity for morality, so no. A rock falling down and hitting someone and killing him is not immoral, sad, but not immoral.
>raped.
Yeah, very tough case for me. Irl, I believe that the baby's life is more valuable. I can't justify it rationally. In the country I live in though, it is legal to abort in a rape case.
Plan b, afaik, delays ovulation. It does not try to kill an already conceived baby, but to prevent the egg to be released and the conception to happen. Sperm can last up to 3 days inside the body, so plan b is taken to prevent conception after the act.
IUD's afaik, also work in a similar way, by preventing conception, not killing an already conceived baby.
Tell me what you think.

>>82889151
I got full marks and no one shunned me. It helps to not get up there and give a speech about "I wan fuk my sister". People do understand if you take the devil's advocate position. Most of the time anyway.

>>82889143
>Says who and why? Abortion happens in nature all the time.
You said so when you said that it was correct that autonkmy doesn't imply freedom of consequence.
>should we stop treating
No. But those people should stop smoking or damaging their bodies. What WOULD be wrong is to punish cigarette companies for the decision of the smoker to smoke, knowing it is harmful.
Although I see such business as something shady that I wouldn't involve myself with.

>>82889161
I'm only replying because you're clearly illiterate. I said permitted in my post, not moral. I was only talking about legality. I don't care about morality.

>>82889165
>IUD's afaik, also work in a similar way, by preventing conception, not killing an already conceived baby.
yes. my current girlfriend has the iud. it's just birth control, right. i cream inside her each time and don't have to worry about anythign

>>82889143
>says who
Any moral person.
>babies can be compared to a disease
Sick

>>82889180
>You said so when you said that it was correct that autonkmy doesn't imply freedom of consequence.
The consequence may as well be needing to get an abortion then. I don't understand your point. Sex is really the only thing I can think of where the consequence is somehow special and needs to be lived with instead of dealt with. No one says that an alcoholic should just stay an alcoholic and suffer for their sins.
>No
Then why is abortion special?
>But those people should stop smoking or damaging their bodies
Ok and women should try not to have unwanted pregnancy, but if they do then they can have an abortion.
>What WOULD be wrong is to punish cigarette companies for the decision of the smoker to smoke
This seems like a non-sequitur am I missing something? Or are you trying to say that men shouldn't be on the hook for the women they make pregnant?

>>82889192
>Any moral person.
Actually all moral people believe that all pregnancy should be terminated. You are an immoral evil person.
>Sick
Correct, pregnancy is a sickness.

You people are so fucking stupid please at least construct a real argument.

>>82889165
>Microbes do not have the capacity for morality

Why does capacity of a being morality matter here? Shouldn't we just look at action here? Rock falling on person whether if it was pushed by person or wind still makes it bad. Earth consuming body and human consuming body shouldn't change that theory.

>>82889216
I'm satisfied that you've revealed yourself to the reader as evil.

>>82889223
Reading comprehension has never been this low. I weep for our future.

>>82886497 (OP)
>KILL ALL MAMMON WORSHIPPERS
>RAPE AND MURDER THIS PROFESSOR, THERE IS NO CASE EXCEPT EXTREME STARVATION WHERE EATING HUMAN FLESH IS NOT ABHORRENT
>DIDN'T EVEN READ, PUBLIC BEHEADING FOR INCEST
These are the objective moral answers to your "ethical" problems but you paid for this class so who cares

>>82889205
>This seems like a non-sequitur am I missing something?
It's not. Because, just like the baby, the cigarette company is not responsible for the decision of the individual. The baby should not be killed (punished) for the decisions of the mother.
>why is it different
Because it's another human, and violating the autonomy of another human is wrong. The baby isn't violating the autonomy of the mother, because the baby itself is the "maniphestation" of the autonomy of the mother, as she created it.
>are you saying that
Not at all. I would rather not get into that, as it would derail us. But I think that the dad should obviously be "on the hook" just as much.

>>82889228
I understand what you're trying to say I just don't care to have that conversation yet again for the sake of an evil retard like you. Arrogance really doesn't suit the stupid.

>>82889243
>the cigarette company is not responsible for the decision of the individual
Smokers aren't gestating the cigarette company in their body. The baby is not being punished it's being removed. If I surgically attached myself to you in such a way that removing me would result in my death, I'm certain you'd agree it's perfectly fine for me to die.
>Because it's another human
So? Humans die every day from human action and many of those deaths are not considered immoral.
>violating the autonomy of another human is wrong
So we violate the autonomy of the mother instead?
>The baby isn't violating the autonomy of the mother
Of course it is. The mother doesn't want it and yet it is there. It doesn't matter if she created it. Until it's been born, killing it should be at the sole discretion of the mother. It's no one else's business. It doesn't affect you or me or anyone except the mother.

>>82889255
Luckily abortion remains legal in many places

>>82889282
Until humans put a stop to it

>>82889217
>Why does capacity of a being morality matter here?
That is a difficult question.
I think because actions require a driver, without a conscious driver for an action, there can be no morality.
I have trouble explaining it.
ChatGPT said that philosophers distinguish actions and events, the former requiring a will. But it's a troublesome distinction.
I thought of comparing to the relationship between time and a photon, but I don't understand it that well, I just heard that photons don't experience time, so attributing morality to an event would be like attributing time to a photon.

>>82889293
Or until they don't. But even when it's criminalized it still happens. Abortion is very easy to induce. Humans have been aborting fetuses for at least 3000 years, no reason to suspect they'll stop any time soon.

>>82889313
>humans have been raping eachother for at least 30000 years, no reason to suspect they'll stop anytime soon
nigga you will be killed

>>82889313
In the perfect leftist state there would be total surveillance and control. Are cows permitted to abort their healthy calves? Dystopia is not as wonderful as you hope demon.

>>82889332
I won't but thanks anyway
>>82889335
I'm not a leftist what are you talking about?

>>82889295
>actions require a driver, without a conscious driver for an action, there can be no morality.

We don't apply morality to events like tornado or a hurricane but humans somehow do cause they're this supernatural phenomenon called will? Plus im a determinist who believes we have no free will so human eating your dead ma is as morally questionable as worms in soil digging through her sockets.

>>82889345
No one is using the original meaning of left and right, including me.

I suppose a better term would be degenerate.

>>82886497 (OP)
I feel like there's not enough information. Can we find out more about why there is only 1 cure to this disease. Did the Druggist invent the cure? Was there some prohibition on carrying radioactive goods across borders and he was the only one who could source it locally?
I want to know more about how this drug came to be, and how this shortage came to be

>>82889357
If by degenerate you mean maximal freedom then sure, that's me. But your scenario makes no sense. Total surveillance and control implies a strong State while I believe in keeping the State as weak as possible. All legal restrictions need to be justified by an increase in total freedom (e.g., banning involuntary murder reduces our freedom in one dimension while increasing it in many others).

>>82889268
>If I surgically attached myself to you in such a way that removing me would result in my death, I'm certain you'd agree it's perfectly fine for me to die.
Actually no.
But I understand the point. However, the baby did not WILLINGLY attach himself to the mother, it was the mother's doing.
If you were kidnapped and surgically attached to someone esle whom, upon you waking up, told you that was gonna kill you by separating you from himself, you wouldn't want to die.
That's a very disgusting scenario and you could say that you WOULD want to die, as you don't want to live like that, but let's say that, if you wait a relatively short time, you will be freed, then the desire to die instantly makes less sense.

It's a very weird hypothetical though.
>>82889347
>Plus im a determinist who believes we have no free will so human eating your dead ma is as morally questionable as worms in soil digging through her sockets.
Then there is no moral value. Or worms are immoral. The latter still works.

>>82889373
Whatever, you're a meme. I don't even need to talk to you to know what you'll say about anything.

Evil animal meme thing

>>82889404
>Actually no
I can respect your position but that's completely alien to me that I can't understand it
>However, the baby did not WILLINGLY attach himself to the mother, it was the mother's doing
Arguably the mother is no more to blame than the baby. Unless she set out to get pregnant with the intent of aborting it which I think is rare to nonexistent.
>you wouldn't want to die
Correct but my desires and what is correct do not always agree.
>you could say that you WOULD want to die
Actually I want to kill the person killing me even at the cost of my own life. My actions are rarely morally aligned.
>but let's say that, if you wait a relatively short time
But a baby is 9 months, permanent damage to the mother's body, and at least 18 years of time and money. Not to mention that the mother's lifetime wages will be drastically reduced and she will essentially lose whatever life she wanted to live and instead be forced to be a mother. Personally I'd kill myself if I were a woman and got pregnant and couldn't abort it.

>>82889416
I have no idea what you're trying to say. Do you not understand the trade offs between laws and freedom? Just dismissing what you don't understand out of hand is pathetic anon.

>>82889429
I understand you completely, you just disgust me. You're like a dog but with a greater destructive capacity.

>>82889423
>but my desires and what is correct do not always agree
I know. But you're the one who appealed to my feeling in the hypothetical, I just reversed it.
>unless
The mom set out to have sex, an action which it's entire biological purpose is to procreate.
The intent to have sex, is the intent to procreate. A woman who gets an abortion absolutely has sex under the assurance of the possibility of such thing being an option.

>>82889454
I really doubt you understand what I'm talking about. How is maximizing freedom disgusting? Living as a slave is cucked, is it not?

>>82889455
>The mom set out to have sex, an action which it's entire biological purpose is to procreate
We live in a technological society. Sex is done for pleasure more often than procreation. Even in the past sex was done more often for pleasure and all manner of prophylactics were used. And even in the animal kingdom we see sex for pleasure in e.g., bonobos and dolphins. If the intent is sex, the intent might be procreation but most often it is not.
>A woman who gets an abortion absolutely has sex under the assurance of the possibility of such thing being an option
And people who go on a walk at night do so under the assurance of the possibility that they may be mugged, raped, or murdered. Should we be ok with the consequences they face?

>>82888740
>Soul
Lmao

I have a moral sense, I just acknowledge it isn't real to anyone but me.

>>82889458
You've convinced me.

My freedom to live in a world unpolluted by filth like yourself is being infringed.

>muh total freedom though
My capacity for freedom exceeds your own.

>>82888854
>violating the remains of a person who donated their body for medical research.
>Eating your own species.

>>82889489
You just seem angry for no real reason. You lack a basic understanding of what freedom even is and are railing against it for indiscernible reasons. Maybe try reading some political philosophy.

>>82889469
>If the intent is sex, the intent might be procreation but most often it is not.
Where do you think that the drive for that pleasure comes from? From a biological desire for procreation. The biological impulse for sexual pleasure is indistinguishable from that of the impulse for procreation.

>>82889503
You can keep pretending that a lack of education is why real people disagree with you if it helps you to feel better anon but you'll still be a piece of shit

>>82889518
>Where do you think that the drive for that pleasure comes from?
If everything is just a biological drive then why argue against abortion? The desire to abort a fetus is also biological, animals abort fetuses so it's clearly part of nature.
>The biological impulse for sexual pleasure is indistinguishable from that of the impulse for procreation
I've never desired to create offspring but I have desired to touch my penis.
>>82889520
I don't think you're disagreeing from a lack of education. I think you're misunderstanding what the words I use mean because of your lack of education. Obviously there is significant disagreement about how to balance freedom and safety, I don't expect everyone to agree with me on maximizing freedom. You're just kind of dumb though and not capable of forming a real argument. You just resort to attacks and calling me evil, it's boring. If you were intelligent you would be able to actually argue your position. I'm done replying to you now, you're just a waste of time.

>>82886497 (OP)
1: Nothing wrong with what Heinz did, for profit healthcare that can't be accessed by everyone is deeply immoral
2: Nothing wrong with what Jennifer did. The guy was already dead
3: utterly disgusting and fucked up. Like, come on, they both enjoyed it. So why did they only do it once? They should be having sex all the time and should get married. It fucking pisses me off when brothers and sisters don't have sex.

>>82889537
>If everything is just a biological drive then why argue against abortion?
I am not making this argument, you are.
>The desire to abort a fetus is also biological, animals abort fetuses so it's clearly part of nature
That is known as the appeal to nature fallacy, just because something is natural, it doesn't mean it's right. Rule of weak by the strong is also natural, but immoral.
>The desire to abort a fetus is also biological, animals abort fetuses so it's clearly part of nature
they are the same desire. the desire for sexual pleasure comes from the innate drive for procreation. If all pleasure was the same, you could cure honrniness by eating something, as eating can also be pleasurable. But pleasures are different, as they serve different purposes.

>>82889579
>they are the same desire.
I was talking about this one:
>>82889537
>I've never desired to create offspring but I have desired to touch my penis.

>>82886497 (OP)
>1
No, doctor is a greedy faggot
>2
Yes, cannibalism is just le bad. Most people have a natural aversion to cannibalism. It's not rational but nothing else we do is anyway.
>3
Yes, incest is just another one of those things that people of sound mind are naturally averse to.

>>82889579
>I am not making this argument, you are.
Sorry I misspoke, I meant if biological drives are so important why are you arguing against abortion. It's late here.
>That is known as the appeal to nature fallacy
You're the one saying that the sex drive is inextricably linked with the desire to procreate, that's more of an appeal to nature fallacy than what I said. Humans have sex for lots of reasons and many variants of sex can't result in pregnancy.
>they are the same desire
I really don't see how you can state that so confidently
>the desire for sexual pleasure comes from the innate drive for procreation
Sex acts release feel good chemicals. It's "designed" by evolution to encourage procreation but it's obviously not producing a desire to procreate. They're associated but not the same.
>If all pleasure was the same, you could cure honrniness by eating something
Eating doesn't release the same chemicals. And curing horniness just requires orgasm. You can cum in your hand and stop being horny, no pregnancy possible there.
>as they serve different purposes
All those purposes are just associations. Evolution isn't able to create directives, just an association between brain chemicals and actions. You can hijack all of those associations. Saying that sex is always about procreation is insane from a neuro perspective, that's simply not what's happening in the brain.

>>82889601
>Sex acts release feel good chemicals. It's "designed" by evolution to encourage procreation but it's obviously not producing a desire to procreate. They're associated but not the same.
They are different, as being "horny" is distinct from other feelings of needs. You don't desire anything you don't need on a physical level, of course.
>And curing horniness just requires orgasm. You can cum in your hand and stop being horny, no pregnancy possible there.
that is exactly my point. Different processes for different desires, for different purposes.
If it was the same, masturbation would also cure the desire for sex, but it doesn't, as people seek sex more than they seek masturbation.
>Sorry I misspoke, I meant if biological drives are so important why are you arguing against abortion
my argument is not based on biological desires. You made that argument, I am showing that even with this logic, it doesn't follow.
The axiom I appealed to was that of an individual's freedom, and even the value of an individual. The former is one you have defended yourself in this very thread, if I'm not mistaken.
>All those purposes are just associations
not really. causation isn't a meaningless "association", if A is "designed" to lead to B, A and B are the same thing, they exist in relationship to each other. If humans didn't have the drive to procreate, they wouldn't get horny. Even if you consciously disagree with the drive, you still experience it.

>>82886497 (OP)
>1
Yes.
>2
Yes
>3
Yes

so... why is this thread so popular?

>>82889639
Sibling incest is hot. Look, my sister is a total cutie and if she offered to let me hit, I totally would. It's that simple.

>>82889635
>They are different, as being "horny" is distinct from other feelings of needs
Is it? It's just a feeling like any other.
>masturbation would also cure the desire for sex, but it doesn't, as people seek sex more than they seek masturbation
Well yes, sex is more than just orgasm. It's a social thing. The same as how talking to you here isn't going to make feel as though I've spoken enough to not go socialize with friends in person later.
>I am showing that even with this logic, it doesn't follow
But abortion happens in nature constantly, so I don't see how it doesn't follow.
>was that of an individual's freedom, and even the value of an individual
That is the crux of my argument yes. The mother's freedom is more important than the fetus's because the mother does not require the fetus to live while the fetus requires the mother (and as such is a parasite). It does not matter to me at all if the mother intended to get pregnant. I am still ok with abortion even if the mother explicitly gets pregnant for the sole purpose of abortion. The fetus has no right to life as its life is dependent on another being's labor. You can extend that as far as you wish and I'll stand by it.
>if A is "designed" to lead to B, A and B are the same thing
But that's clearly not right. A leading to B doesn't make A and B the same. In this case A might lead to B, what, 5% of the time? Less? A can't be B. You're assuming that A causes B 100% of the time or something but even sex with the intent to reproduce doesn't result in pregnancy 100% of the time.
>If humans didn't have the drive to procreate, they wouldn't get horny
The drive is to have sex because sex will lead to procreation. There is a higher level desire that humans have to procreate hence why couples will plan pregnancies, but the desire to have sex is not the desire to procreate.

>>82889667
>Is it? It's just a feeling like any other.
yes. I established this by showing that it's distinct from hunger and that they are satisfied in different ways. If they were the same, they could be satisfied by the same action.
>The mother's freedom is more important than the fetus's because the mother does not require the fetus to live while the fetus requires the mother (and as such is a parasite). It does not matter to me at all if the mother intended to get pregnant. I am still ok with abortion even if the mother explicitly gets pregnant for the sole purpose of abortion. The fetus has no right to life as its life is dependent on another being's labor. You can extend that as far as you wish and I'll stand by it.
A parasite is not defined by the need, but by the negative implication to the host. A pregnancy can only be described as parasitic as long as the baby isn't wanted, making it a relative definition. Otherwise it's mutualism, in which both beings use each other to satisfy their needs.
>he fetus has no right to life as its life is dependent on another being's labor. You can extend that as far as you wish and I'll stand by it.
all life is dependent on another's labor, under this framework. So it follows that nobody has a right to life. If nobody has a right to life, nobody has a right to freedom either. The value of freedom needs to be justified in this framework. Freedom of the individual requires labor from the collective, freedom of the collective requires labor of the individuals, neither of which can justify their right to it. If the mother doesn't have a right to freedom, then there is no argument to be made for the morality of the pregnancy. Even in utilitarian terms, which is the only option left, the completion of the pregnancy is the desired outcome.
>But abortion happens in nature constantly, so I don't see how it doesn't follow.
the logic isn't the appeal to nature generally, but the appeal to natural desires.

>might makes right
Heinz wanted something more than the original owner. If some broke fag can just waltz into a research lab and go on a shopping spree this means either the owner neglected basic physical security like locks and basic construction methods and materials, or they weren't willing to defend it with weapons. Should have had armed security and a shoot first questions later policy. Shaquondarius La'fleek-a(dash don't be silent) Octavius Washington understands this principal and applies it to his all in one >50% adulterated fentanyl that is sold to various customers as either meth, Molly, coke, hairon, tranq, etc. And it cost him next to nothing. Something presumably more value should have even better security. Hopefully Heinz also grabbed a few bottles of oxy and penicillin while he was at it.
>waste is bad + might makes right
If Timmy didn't want to get eaten he shouldn't have died. If family doesn't want the body desecrated until it's been to rest that's why we sit Shiva. Same as the drugs, if something is valuable the onus is on you to protect it and maintain possession. Even hillbilly ass farmers know to keep two rounds in their sawed off shotgun. One is saltshot, a painful discourager. If that fails they followup with buckshot. And this is just for rusted out hubcaps, broken plastic lawn chairs, and a few scraggly cornstalks.
>sex feels good + might makes right
Sometimes people get horny, shocking, I know. Sometimes the closest woman is your sister. Kind of a 1+1=??? Scenario. When you pop a boner it's on the person who doesn't want to get fucked to prevent it. If they can't or don't then it's just sex, which is not immoral because it's addressing the need for a sexual outlet. There's a reason Mary-Anne is still a virgin and Betty-Jolleen isn't. Mary-Anne just happens to run a little faster than her sister. Or put another way, Mary-Anne didn't want it and was willing to do something about it. Rule of the jungle, baby.

>the abortion question

>Trimesters
A human soul requires a human mind, which, in turn, requires a human brain. The human brain doesn't begin to develop until the third trimester. A woman should have unrestricted right to abort pre 3rd trimester. If you think there's a human soul that you're killing here, you should go vegan. It's no worse than terminating a human vegetable.

>Conception by rape and incest
Demons are real, and fetuses conceived of (actual, not statutory) rape are demonspawn. A woman should have the right to abort these at any time. If the abortion fails and instead causes birth, the baby can then be killed.

>Incest
I'm the rare case that the incest was not also a rape, then you conceited, inbred, trash made your bed and should lie in it.

>Late term defect detection
For some of these life is cursed, and death is a mercy. Abort away. For others, such as down syndrome, I'm conflicted. The righteous answer is to give them a chance at life. But I am selfish, and can empathize with the selfishness of my fellow humans. I wouldn't want to expend so many resources on a defective child. That said, I know the correct answer. I'm conflicted.

>Men's/father's rights
If this isn't some rare case of an incapacitated pregnant mother, fuck off.

If you disagree with me, you're wrong.

>>82886497 (OP)
2 and 3 did nothing wrong. they appeal to a sense of disgust as it pertains to morals, and i dont think doing disgusting things is morally wrong

#1 is very grey area. im not sure sure. im intuition changes the moment you change numbers around, like the income of the couple, of the income on the drug developer, etc. its a very very very grey area, but as the hypothetical in the op is stipulated, im inclined to hesitantly day the husband is innocent

>>82886497 (OP)
>1
legally wrong, morally questionable. here's the real question: did the wife live? if she did, then this is immediately made much better. also, the druggist is a retard, he could have come up with a payment plan and charged more than the sticker price using interest and *still* been the good guy for taking the guy's money as a down payment.
>2
yes, that was not the intended use of the human remains. it goes against the wishes of the person and the family. it's also psychologically questionable, because we have very strong built in reflexes and urges as humans to not eat each other.
>3
weird as fuck, strange, will absolutely complicate their relationship going forward, but the singular act in and of itself without any context nor future consideration isn't necessarily immoral. incest is a bad idea for a lot of reasons, and morality does play a part, but in this situation i think it's just straight up retarded more than anything. don't fuck your siblings, dumbass. that will always be on your mind until you're in the grave. again, we're just wired to not do this shit. if they got those wires crossed and are fine screwing, whatever.

>>82886757
ok genghis

>>82888241
>Let's say lab gets sold off to her and they have a cadaver left and she eats it. So she owns right to everything in building then what
Doesn't change the premise of the rest of the argument.
>You're essentially using gateway drug rhetoric. What she did on her own isn't wrong
How so? If there was no society and she was the only person left to eat the cadaver, she'd only be wrong on the account that said cadaver (when alive) - only agreed to donate on different terms.

>>82886497 (OP)
>1.
No. It literally says that the druggist is charging ten times what it cost him, he still would've profited off the drug by selling it cheaper. Greed is the root of all evil, we know this
>2.
Definitely in the wrong, serial killer behavior and neither the corpse nor their family is likely to have been okay with having that happen.
>3.
I don't think it was wrong because they both were okay with it.

1. Not killing that asshole pharm stooge during the break in
2. Being a vegetarian to begin with
3. If there's one thing we've learned from the success of that Andy and Leyley game I've never played or even watched gameplay of but have gooned to porn of the characters for probably longer than it would take to play to completion, it's that incest is ok if both parties are attractive but it's an abomination if one or more parties involved are ugly, so potentially wrong for aesthetic reasons or fine if they're both 7/10 or higher.

>>82888899
Being a christcuck makes you a hylic

>>82886497 (OP)
1) mythologically heinz embodies the hero. he rose to the occasion and fought the oppressing power to save his wife. there was nothing wrong with what he did on a moral level
2) it is wrong because she violated the contract the cadaver's former inhabitant agreed to before death; i.e. not to be disrespected. furthermore, this is morally wrong because eating human flesh makes you like an animal. there is a reason cannibalism usually occurs under extreme starvation circumstances.
3) i dont think this is ethically wrong if they consented. but i know for a fact one or both feels regret or some type of disgust with themself afterwards. transgressing sexual boundaries or taboos comes with that feeling. furthermore i would be curious to know their trauma history as this is highly unusual for well-adjusted siblings. so no, not strictly ethucally wrong from my view as the arbitrator, but i am sure they knew it was 'wrong', and i think it is morally wrong to pervert the sibling relationship like this.

but op, if my sister wanted me to fuck her NSA, id totally do it

>>82888536
if people decide you're a freak and don't want you around, then you have failed to uphold the social contract and so lose its protections. if they are willing to tolerate freaks then you're lucky, but a society that tolerates freaks is not headed anywhere good. it will eventually get what it deserves, and all will be right in the world.

>>82887327
>breaking the law is inherently wrong

>>82886497 (OP)
1. no, there is absolutely nothing wrong with what he did
2. technically nobody was harmed but it's still anti-human behavior that should be shunned.
3. no, there is nothing wrong with what they did

>>82886497 (OP)
1. Didn't offer BBC
2. Didn't offer BBC
3. Didn't offer BBC

They're all racist for not offering the BBC bull

>>82891380
WTF is this response why bbc

>>82886497 (OP)
1. Matter of perspective.
2. Of course.
3. Nope. EVERYONE has at least 1 sexual exploration incest story whether it's with a parent, sibling, cousin, etc. I remember in my youth during a truth or dare where a brother and sister made out and the sister flashed everyone her tits.

>>82892617
Sweet home Alabama southern hick aren't ya anon

Appalachia? White trash? Trailer trash? Wigger? Which one are you

>>82892640
You need to learn how to get into people's darkest secrets, anon. I bet you think the tradcath girl at 25 and older is a pure, innocent virgin woman, don't you?

>>82886538
You'd bitch and moan if i said i was going to cum inside jennifers corpse if she died of a heart attack

1) Kike doctor
2) Deserved for donating your body like a retarded nigger
3) Sexy

>>82886677
>womens life>pharmaceutical companies profits
literally anything>womens life

>>82886497 (OP)
1: No. Prohibitive overpricing of things that are necessary for survival is evil.
2: Yes. The individual signed up to have their body used for science and education, not to be eaten.
3: Yes. Look up the Westermarck Effect.

>>82886497 (OP)
you just KNOW that this "test" was designed by some jew

The most interesting thing about ethics is that, if you remove the ethical people, the ethics disappears.

People reach the heighest heights of retardation as soon as they are called to defend their ethical views. It is here that poor logic is employed to defend self-contradictory moral systems based on ignorant views. Where is my catgirl waifu? Only this can cleanse this thread.

>>82886497 (OP)
1. Nothing wrong. The druggist was a Jew, and so were Ayn Rand and Rothbard.
2. Wrong. It's a desecration of the soul of the man who entrusted his body to be used exclusively for research and then cremated.
3. Nothing wrong. It's just a little kissing, sucking, licking, and humping with your sibling.

>>82886497 (OP)
plot twist
the druggist's name is Jennifer Julie

While I enjoy a good argument, ultimately arguing about ethics and morality is pointless. There are a billion arguments for and against every position but ultimately the only thing that matters is what the victor declares to be moral. Vae victus.

>>82886497 (OP)
>1
Yes, I'm not the husband so I have no reason to approve of this case of theft.
>2
The flesh is going to be soaked in formaldehyde so it's a bad idea to be eating it, but a small piece is probably fine.
>3
Incest should be done raw in hopes of pregnancy. Using both a condom also makes it less intimate. Lastly, just doing it once despite them enjoying it is ridiculous.

>>82886497 (OP)
1) Yes, it is wrong to steal. I would steal if I was in his shoes, doesn't make theft right.
2) The corpse is the property of the family members. If they allow it (or if the person who died allowed it before death), there is no issue. But she's doing it in secrecy and stole a piece of flesh that was supposed to be part of the cremation and given to the family. She's in the wrong.
3) Not wrong. People are free to be with whoever they want, as long as there is consent. You may find it icky, but your input should not be law.

>>82886497 (OP)
1. Not enough information. We don't know his real motivation: whether his wife was actually important to him or he wanted to her alive for some other reason, whether she manipulated him or not, etc
2. Not enough information. Even if there's nothing wrong with the act, there's definitely something wrong with Jennifer. "Irrational to waste perfectly good meat" when seeing a cadaver, especially for a self-proclaimed vegetarian, is not a thought that would occur to a sane human being without some extreme or abnormal circumstance. She may be starving or mentally ill. Probably a severe case of nutrient deficiency. In any case, we cannot establish whether the act is wrong without knowing her motivation or whether she was in her right mind and in control of her actions.
3. No.