#ethical debate

[princeescaluswords]

Can I ask what a realist is? You've described theo as one and I tried looking it up but the definitions are going right over my head, so I was wondering if you could help?

I described Theo as a realist because he described himself as a realist. This is his line from The Last Chimera (5x11):

Theo: I'm not the bad guy, Stiles. I'm just a realist. I'm a survivor. If you knew the things that I know…

But to be fair, in my opinion, he is not actually a realist. He, like many other villains both in fiction and in real life, is in my view a pessimistic fatalist. Of course, I'm going to have to explain what I mean by this.

A realist evaluates events and probable outcomes by analysis of observable factors. To ground it in a common scenario, if there is a battle against hostile forces approaching, the realist will examine how many members each side has, what supplies they have, what the external environment has, the respective training each side has received, and even their morale before predicting an outcome or planning a strategy.

What a realist doesn't take into account are things such as the morality of the outcome. This doesn't mean that they won't have an abstract goal in mind, but they don't believe that those abstract goals, on either side, will have an impact on the outcome of the battle. Virtue, in and of itself, doesn't matter to success or failure, and the ethics of the tactics employed are irrelevant. Again, this doesn't mean that these things are unimportant to the realist; it simply means that they don't think they affect the outcome.

The audience can see why Theo thinks he is a realist; he believes he is aping his mentors. As he tells Donovan in Condition Terminal (5x04), "you see, these guys, they believe in numbers." And he certainly talks about practical decision making, such as when he mentions allying with the Soviets in WWII to Scott and Stiles in Amplification (5x15), persuades Malia to let him help her in The Sword and the Spirit (5x14), negotiates with Deucalion or betrays Tracy in Apotheosis (5x20).

But he really isn't. In my conception, a pessimistic fatalist is an individual who assumes that the outcome of any event or scenario will be the most negative possible unless measures are taken to prevent it. It's very popular among villains and antagonists because it can cloak wicked actions as moral rectitude: "we have to do what's necessary." For example, individuals who think this way always go for the kill, because that's the only way for them to assure a positive outcome. To them, any consideration of ethics is suicidal foolishness; ruthlessness is required for survival.

This isn't realism. A realist won't assume that all possibilities that cannot be controlled will tend toward the worst result, and thus does not include that perception in their evaluation of events. A realist doesn't dismiss the possibility or effectiveness of, for example, negotiation if it conforms to other measurable factors.

Theo believes that things will always end badly unless he makes them end well. That's how Deucalion is able to deceive him into disregarding the usefulness of Belasko's talons, because there is a possibility that the talons wouldn't work, and so Theo assumed that they wouldn't. That's why he kills Tracy after she suggests that they take a few days to recover, because throughout the range of possible actions he could take, killing her for her power and to restore himself is the most ruthless. He can't consider that he might get another chance with Tracy's help because he is not thinking realistically, he's acting on the idea that he's already lost control and thus the worst possible result is destined to occur.

Theo's story isn't the first time that pessimistic fatalists have become villains on Teen Wolf. Derek's villain arc in Season 2 is entirely fueled by this perspective, look at the exchange with Scott on the lacrosse pitch in Venomous (2x05). Scott was wrong in his analysis of why both Lydia and Jackson survived and didn't turn, but the facts remain the facts. Derek doesn't know why this happened, and one of them may be the kanima, and a realist wouldn't plan strategy on what they don't know. But Derek is motivated by fear, not reason, and when he ends up shouting "I can't let her live!" even though he has no rational basis for that decision, he's exhibiting pessimistic fatalism.

Scott McCall, on the other hand, isn't a realist either. He's what I like to call an optimistic pragmatist. He does allow concepts of right and wrong to influence his decision making, but he does it without denying objective reality. That's why he's willing to replace Gerard's medication with mountain ash as a fail safe in case he can't stop Gerard from forcing Derek to bite him. It's why he's willing to work with the Alpha Pack to stop Jennifer, because "I don't think I can stop her without them." It's why he plants Deucalion in Theo's camp, and why he uses the dead bodies of the deputies in an attempt to save Jiang and Tierney. There were more practical decisions in each of those scenarios, decisions a realist would have taken, but Scott will not reject his core principle that all life has value.

It is this optimistic pragmatism that makes Scott less popular than he should be with the fandom, because pessimistic fatalism tends to be a very popular point of view, especially in power fantasies. When confronted by enemies, many can only see the worst possible result, and so, to them, the only rational response to a threat is war-to-the-knife, lethal and final force. That's why it often appears in fan-fiction that the author has their mouthpiece despise Scott for giving "second and third" chances to their enemies, even though these are enemies that Scott has beaten repeatedly. For example, a realist would see that is Scott has out-thought and out-fought Gerard repeatedly, then there is a chance that he will out-think and out-fight him again. They would not automatically jump to the idea that it's only a matter of time before the threat of Gerard destroys them all.

I hope this answers your questions. Feel free to ask follow ups.

[ericartem]

Genetic Engineering: A Moral Quandary or Humanity's Evolutionary Pathway

Content 16+ In the corridors of scientific progress, few domains elicit as much fervent debate and ethical introspection as genetic engineering. At its core, this field wields the power to sculpt the very essence of life, a power that invokes both awe and trepidation in equal measure. Is genetic engineering an audacious act of playing god, or is it the inevitable trajectory of human evolution, a…

[frnwhcom]

Understanding the Finality: Whole Life Orders and Life Without Parole

Whole life orders, also known as whole life tariffs, represent the most severe sentence available in the legal systems of the United Kingdom and some other jurisdictions. This form of sentencing means that the convicted individual is mandated to spend the remainder of their life in prison without the possibility of release on parole. Reserved for the most heinous crimes, whole life orders…

[worldphilosophyday]

Shaping the philosophical and ethical debate about computing, information technologies, and artificial intelligence.

International Association for Computing and Philosophy (IACAP), Symposium.

IACAP's members have contributed to shaping the philosophical and ethical debate about Computer science, Information and communication technologies, and Artificial intelligence.

University of Oregon

[kittykatninja321]

One thing that’s annoying about pit madness as a trope in fic is when people act like Jason killing people is the result of magic induced compulsion and not a fundamental philosophical difference between him and the other bats. Jason was already saying “well maybe she had a point” about a woman who killed a serial killer rapist when he was ROBIN

[orbch]

selfcest yaoi for the soul

[evilminji]

A Moral Dilemma! Question!

Let's say there is a trucker. An average man. Kind enough, did okay in school, loves his wife and misses her like you wouldn't believe every time he has to go. Misses his little girl even more. HATES he's missing the early years of her life. First day to school, getting her up and brushing her hair into pigtails, making pancakes like his Pa used to make. The works.

But the economy is shit. Him and his wife have to work. Make ends meet. They're DESPERATE to get out of Gotham. Move somewhere boring. Safe.

But... well, places like that cost money. Kids cost money. And he did OKAY in school. Not a lot of jobs out there for "Okay" guys from Gotham.

His cousin finds him a route though. A solid job. Really pulled through when push came to shove and things were looking bad. Like he might have to take up that offer to Goon. Now he's a trucker.

And his route? Well the half way point is Amity Park. He stops to stay the night every time. Never really STAYS, has heard they got themselves a Cape and such, but? It is what it is. He's from Gotham. He minds his business. Parks on the outskirts of town to avoid getting hit.

Doesn't realize, he's getting SOAKED in Ectoplasm every time he's in town.

And this trucker? Not the healthiest man. He wishes he could be. But life on the road is not exactly conducive to fresh fruit and leafy greens. He eats more grease and sugar then his doctor would EVER recommend. In fact, has specifically warned him not too.

But some days you just need a warm meal. You miss your kid, your wife, your bed. And you know it'll be days before you can see any of them. But at least there is pancakes.

You can pretend you're eating with your family. Or at least, let the coffee be warm enough for the two of you. God, but the poor man is tired.

And as he gets close to Gotham?

Breaking News!

The Joker. AGAIN. The trucker cringes, horror filling him. What poor soul has that mad man hurt NOW? When will it end? Him and his wife are so close to getting the hell out. Thinking Kansas. His wife has been joking about pie baking competit-

No.

Oh God No.

There, on the screen, tears streaming down her beautiful face? Is the love of his life. His best friend. His EVERYTHING. And in her arms, trying so, so hard to be quiet. To muffle her terror born sobs... is his little girl. One pigtail torn from its srunchie, blood on her tiny face.

The trucker knows how this story ends.

Batman will try. He ALWAYS tries. And sometimes... sometimes that's enough. But he knows the odds here. His family are in front. Stars of this sick show. The trucker can't breathe. His heart is pounding, too hard for a man of his health.

He's not young. Should be on blood pressure meds he simply cant afford. Is panicked by a terror few should ever suffer. And? What runs in his family, strikes true. It feels so far away, the pain in his chest. He... No, he can't.

He can't.

His family.

He can't die. Leave them. They're in danger! They can't die like this. So close to freedom. Happiness. They... the..y.. ca..n..t...

.

.

THEY WON'T. HE REFUSES.

~~~

So! Here in comes the QUESTION! As you sit, watching this terrified child call for her father, ripped from her begging mothers arms, you see a green opaque man full body tackle the Joker.

You watch his eyes visible glow and change color, fight a visible STRUGGLE, like jeckle and Hyde, for control of his body. Between the monster known as Joker and what seems to be? The little girl's newly Meta father.

The Father wins.

You watch the Bat arrive with the police. Thank the man and say he can release Joker into custody. See the EXACT moment the Meta realizes something. Turns to look at his daughter, then his wife. Looks back at the commissioner.

Says "No".

Is he right to do this? To Possess the Joker, as a life sentence, to insure the safety of others? He is perfectly will to sit that life in a jail cell. Knows he will never be allowed to roam free again. But! The Joker is contained.

Is this Right? Or merely emotionally satisfying?

Discuss :3

@hypewinter @hdgnj @the-witchhunter @ailithnight @nerdpoe

[r0semultiverse]

[aimasup]

Hear me out

[mrghostrat]

"You know what else i get a week without? Your red fucking pen." This made me think about a math teacher i had in highschool that whenever she gave us back our tests the first thing we saw is that she had writed everywhere "WRONG." "NO." "INCOHERENT." "NO! NO! NO!" in red ink So now all i can imagine is Aziraphale writing everywhere things like "Crowley wtf is this." "???" "STOP USING *insert connecting word here* SO MUCH" and so on lmao

YOU UNDERSTAND MY VISION

can’t remember if it was written in the post but i must clarify that crowley exclusively uses whatever the latest tech and software is (high end laptop, ipad pro with $300 magnetic keyboard or some shit, unnecessarily expensive word processors with every possible bell and whistle he doesn’t actually use)

which means aziraphale has to print out his wips when he wants to read whole chapters at a time, because he’s a creature of habit and likes reading books on paper <3

and really, the notes are helpful! aziraphale is extremely well read, and a fantastic editor!! (which crowley will never admit before his fifth glass) but his stupid anachronistic little habits drive him up the wall, especially when he’s a snobby minimalist and aziraphale presents him with a redwood tree worth of loose leaf papers and crowley just GLARES at him like

[randomthunk]

If you know, you know.

[sparkling-pink-lemonade]

If the person you're responding/talking about (in your original post) didn't communicate that they are a minor in any way, you shouldn't be blamed for saying one very mild unserious sexual thing. Especially if this person was interacting/behaving in a sexual context (like posting in adult nasfw tags) first. Especially especially if you posted your response with nsfw tags as well. Also, you didn't speak to them directly. You made a very obvious joke in your own post that didn't have any connection to them or their blog. Minors cannot force their way into adult spaces and then have everyone start to complain that the adults are talking like adults. That's insane. The screenshots don't have that persons un or pfp. You weren't sending them dms telling them to their face that they should fuck you. Kids and teenagers say way worse and more sexual things than "block me harder daddy" on a daily basis. People getting mad at you about this are just virtue signaling.

I don't think they are inherently virtue signaling. It genuinely can be an uncomfortable topic/situation for some. And both anons approached the topic in a genuine and sincere way. So I don't fault them. But should someone else now try to convince a stranger on the internet to feel the same discomfort and disgust in their own actions, they sure can try, but shouldn't be surprised if the stranger chooses not to backpedal. And if they don't like that. Get mad and tell your friends about me behind my back, and block me. But it's not worth continuing the conversation against someone who made it clear they won't change their mind.

But yeah, I genuinely think it's more harmful to coddle teens from learning to handle uncomfortable situations or sexual humor. It's infantilizing and dehumanizing. I remember being a minor, a few months from turning 18 and having people who weren't even 19 yet feel too uncomfortable making a slightly sexual joke in my presence. And because of people like that, I knew people my age at that time frame who were way too prudish with discussing anything sexual at all.

On the topic though, I also got another anon who absolutely was virtue signaling. And since it's relevant, I can just address it here.

And it's like, first of all, being called smelly as an insult is genuinely funny. But it's just so ironic, because unlike the first two anons, this one absolutely isn't trying to have a genuine conversation here. In fact, seeing as it's an ask, and the language used, I was meant to see it and I was meant to be intimidated, not informed. It could technically be construed as harassment if I were to warp things enough. But I don't care enough.

It's interesting to note a few things though. Like how much this mirrors anti behavior. The use of a strawman, pedojacketing, and the idea of using moral purity to "exclude" me from a community.

Sexual harassment is not okay, whether it is is not the conversation being had. But since harassment is a social construct, the debate is whether what I said constitutes harassment. It's not a black or white issue, so with no definite line, I know that some people won't agree with my judgement, nor do I expect everyone to.

Plus... have I really misconstrued what it means to be proship if I don't believe what I've done to be harassment, and encourage people to curate their experience by blocking stances that make them uncomfortable?

I'm not even gonna touch the pedojacketing part, because I don't feel like making an essay on the definition and differences between pedophilia, csa, and csh on an already long post. Maybe some other time.

And lastly, it doesn't matter if anon claims me or not. No one has the power to gatekeep a label based community like proship. They will never be able to speak for all proshippers. There will be assholes, there will be people who use the label wrong, but you can’t decide for them that they are any less proship if they say they're proship. And trying to appear as though I'm not part of the community only serves to show other antis "See, we don't approve of that evil person over there. We are all good people, so stop spreading mean misinformation about us." And like... antis aren't gonna care. Unless you abide to their cult mindset, you're always gonna be the enemy.

[redheadedfailgirl]

I just had a riveting discussion with a self proclaimed anarcho-capitalist at work, whose opinions included:

Tipping is bad because 'contracts with your employer are voluntary and they can leave if they're not paid enough.' He will still tip if he thinks his wife is watching

If you're stuck inside a torture chamber with an apple you can bite every ten seconds that sends you to paradise for a year, it is illogical to bite the apple and humanity is broken for thinking so

The ending to the good place was bad because the characters weren't being logical and there was so much shit you can do with the afterlife.

The marxist labor theory of value 'isn't true' because paintings have arbitrary value

Heidegger was an idiot

Kant was an idiot

Nietzche was an idiot

He is an anarcho-capitalist

If I don't have 100% certainty for something than I can't truly say that I know something is true, and isn't it illogical that people do that?

I have to see this man every Monday from now until I quit. We work one on one.

[squeakadeeks]

moodboard for this past week ❤️

[cocolacola]

me watching hellsing fandom reblog obvious AI art thinking it's real i??%€%€#£%£#^

[compacflt]

wip wednesday: made a HUGE amount of progress this week (for context—purple is unfinished & yellow is finished; last week all of them were purple) … i am in the home stretch here