this is more of an opinion post because both are terrible situations but i’ve seen conflicting sides, i believe rape with no consequences is worse.

Is it a morally sound decision—from the perspective of the children themselves—to end one’s own life when one has been, in a sense, cursed from the very moment of birth?

Recently because of my overspeeding, my grandmother fell from scooty and got hurt. She told everybody at home that she thought to step out of the scooty at a shop on the roadside but forgot to tell me and got out of a moving scooty. She truly believes that this happened. But deep down in my mind, only I know that that's only one half of the story. My overspeeding plays a big role due to which dhe got kinda scared or due to the speed braker ahead. Dont know what to do in such situaltions. Although I got only little scolding at home due to this as everybody thinks it was my grandma's fault but still I have a bit guilt in my mind. Please someone, as my elder brother/sister teach me how to deal with this 🙏🙏

Yet people believe in the idea of negative reinforcement, hurting someone, to teach them a lesson and call it "parenting" where you take control over another individuals life. Which in its worst forms are slavery and enslavement to abusive ideas. Like say having an addiction is abusive. Yet everyone has one.

I hope scenario 3 doesn't apply to rule 9 of the sub, this is a hypothetical moral question not actually trying to expose someone of cheating)

Recently had a debate with a friend if ignorance is bliss really is a good saying or when we should/n’t apply it.

The basic question is: If you are genuinely happy, but that happiness is based on something false that you will never discover, are you actually worse off?

Scenario 1: Fake friends

You have a group of friends who don't actually like you. They pretend to enjoy your company but truly don’t care bout you that much.

However:

• You genuinely enjoy spending time with them. You have fun bowling, talking about sports, and hanging out.
• They treat you well and never insult, manipulate, or mistreat you
• You will never discover that they don't actually like you
• Your relationships will never become deeper than casual friendships based on shared activities
• You will never rely on them for important advice or emotional support
• These friendships will never prevent you from forming other relationships or negatively affect your future
• Your enjoyment is completely genuine. You're not pretending to be happy; you really do have a good time

What exactly is wrong with the situation for you?

In my opinion, you're better off than they are. You are the one having a good time. Sure, they could be talking shit behind your back, but does that actually make your situation any different? The fact that they don't have your best interests in mind might be relevant, but if you keep things casual and just talk about generic stuff like sports, where you never take any important advice from them, does it really have any impact on you whatsoever?

Scenario 2: Unfaithful partner

You're in the happiest relationship of your life. Your partner is wonderful to you, supports you, treats you with love, and makes you happier than you've ever been. Basically, everything is going as well as it could.

However, your partner cheated on you once. (doesn't necessarily have to be recent)

The parameters:

• You will never discover the infidelity
• Your partner continues to treat you wonderfully
• The cheating has no health, financial, emotional, or other consequences for you
• It doesn't change your partner's behaviour toward you
• Your relationship continues to be just as fulfilling as it would have been if the cheating had never happened
• You will never experience any negative consequences from this event, either now or in the future

In other words, the only difference between this relationship and a completely faithful one is the fact that your partner cheated.

No harm, no foul?

Obviously, I believe that if the information were out there, I would break up with my partner. Cheating is inexcusable and a terrible thing to do, and I would definitely leave, no questions asked.

That being said, I find this hypothetical interesting because, if we assume that none of the negative consequences ever happen, what exactly has the person lost?

Their partner still loves them, they still have an amazing relationship, and they're still living the happiest life they've ever lived. The only difference is that their understanding of the relationship isn't entirely accurate.

But does that actually make their life worse?

I mean, their partner did something terrible, and I'm not trying to argue otherwise. But is there a difference between someone doing something morally wrong and someone actually being harmed by it? Because I feel like we often treat those two things as if they're automatically the same.

You know how some people want to preserve the way others remember the dead? For example, some husbands or wives might try to make sure that their deceased partner's bad habits or certain negative qualities never come to light because they don't want their children to change their opinion of their parent. They'd rather their children continue remembering them as the person they loved instead of finding out things that might change how they see them.

And I think that's interesting because, in a way, you're deliberately keeping someone ignorant of the truth to preserve something good in their life. Most people probably wouldn't consider that a terrible thing to do, depending on what the information is.

So why does it become so different in the relationship scenario? Is it because the partner has a right to know? Is it because cheating is a betrayal of an agreement? Or is it simply because we think the truth is something people should know, regardless of whether knowing it actually makes their life better?

I'm not saying these situations are exactly the same, but I think there's something interesting about the idea that sometimes we actively try to preserve someone's positive view of another person, even when that view might not be entirely accurate.

Scenario 3: Your friend is being cheated on

Now imagine that a friend of yours is in the situation described above. You discover that their partner cheated on them at the start of the relationship, but your friend is genuinely happy and will never find out.

You know that telling them would cause emotional pain and might destroy an otherwise wonderful relationship. Keeping quiet would allow them to continue living happily.

Assume there are no future consequences to prevent and no practical reason they need to know.

Would you/should you tell them?

I mean, of course you should, right? At least, that's what my initial instinct tells me. But I feel like my reasoning is also a bit weak, or maybe I'm just overthinking it.

My instinct is to tell them because it's the right thing to do. But why, exactly?

Your friend fell in love with someone under false pretences. But is that actually the case? They fell in love with someone who treats them wonderfully, makes them happy, and gives them the best relationship they've ever had. The only thing they don't know is that their partner cheated on them once at the start of the relationship.

So, yes, their understanding of their partner is incomplete, but does that necessarily mean their entire relationship was built on false pretences? Were their feelings any less genuine? Was the happiness they experienced any less real?

I think most people would agree that the partner did something wrong, but does that automatically mean the person who was cheated on has been harmed, given the parameters of this hypothetical?

And if we believe they have been harmed regardless, what exactly is the harm? Is it the betrayal itself, the fact that they were denied the opportunity to make an informed decision about their relationship, or simply the fact that the truth is different from what they believe it to be?

Because if we remove all the future consequences, all the emotional suffering that would come from eventually finding out, and every practical reason for needing to know, what exactly are we left with?

I guess what I'm ultimately asking is whether my reasoning is actually flawed, or whether I'm just following what society has taught me is the morally correct thing to do.

Of course, I believe that one should tell them, because that just is the right thing to do. But when I actually try to explain why, I struggle to come up with a strong argument that holds up under the parameters of this hypothetical.

Is there something inherently wrong with allowing someone to remain ignorant if that ignorance genuinely makes their life better? Does the fact that someone has been deceived automatically mean they've been harmed, even if the deception has had absolutely no negative impact on their life?

Or is my instinct to tell them simply based on the fact that we generally consider honesty and transparency to be morally good, without necessarily questioning why they are good in the first place?

I'm not trying to argue that cheating is acceptable, nor am I saying that I would personally stay with someone who cheated on me. I'm trying to understand whether there's a meaningful distinction between someone doing something morally wrong and someone actually being harmed by it, and whether knowing the truth is always better than remaining blissfully ignorant.

Is it possible for someone to do something morally wrong to you without actually making your life worse? And if so, is ignorance sometimes genuinely better than the truth?

Let’s say your driving down a dark road at highway speeds with no street lights and you accidentally run someone over. Would you drive off knowing what you’ve done even if it was by accident leaving them to die but you get away with the crime or do you stop and help and take them to the hospital but you may be charged with manslaughter and sent to jail if they’re saved

This is hypotheticalso there is no witnesses but if you take them to the hospital and they save them they remember it’s you

I emotionally connect with the song but one of the artists is a bad person so I am not sure what to do.

Okay I know I sound crazy probably. I can be a little superstitious and I believe in the karma of the universe… but just hear me out.

About 3 years ago, I was at an east meets west store in a mall with my now ex. We were looking at their rings, and I decided I wanted this one plain black stainless steel ring. I remember it was only 7 dollars.

I was putting it on my finger and contemplated if i should just keep wearing it and walk out with it. I was conflicted bc it was only $7, which I had, but its not like I was stealing an expensive figurine. My ex encouraged me to just take it. And so I did.

Well I’ve been wearing this ring basically every single day since then. My ex and I broke up in January and they were really not good for me.

I worried that because of who I was with when I stole the ring, and the fact that it wasn’t just a normal store, that the ring holds negative energy and

1) is there any merit to this line of thinking
2) if there is, how should I right my wrong?

A possible solution to the second question is maybe I go back to that store (if it still exist) maybe leave the ring there and give them like a $21 tip? ($7 for each year I had it)

Is forgiving someone always the mature thing to do, or have we romanticized forgiveness to make people tolerate things they shouldn't?

I’ve never done this before so I might make no sense. I think I might have gotten sexually assaulted but I don’t know. I’m a 17 year old girl and I’m a senior in high school. One of my friends, I’ll call her Mabel (17), I’ve been friends with her since freshman year. But during my junior year I became friends with this other girl Lea (18) who’s a grade older than all of me. I’ve never been with a guy before and I’m really nervous about getting with one. I also don’t have much experience with drinking alcohol. Me and Mabel have some what made out before while we were drunk cuz I wanted help. It was bad and when we got back home she got on top of me and kept grabbing my face. I didn’t care but flash forward to two nights ago. I was extremely drunk and all the things I know are what I’ve been told. First of all I get rlly sleepy when drunk. All night Lea was like let’s make out and she’s been saying that for a while now. I was down for it before I got drunk. I wanted to make out with Mabel too, just for experience. All night, Lea kept asking me are u drunk yet r u drunk yet and I would say hold on hold on. Apparently me Lea Mabel and another on of my friends went downstairs at this party and I made out with Mabel. But with Lea, apparently we made out and she’s was on top of me while I just lied there. I remember her grabbing my boobs and ppl said she was grabbing my crotch. From what ppl tell me, I looked half dead or like asleep. When Lea stopped I remember being like hold on give me a sec. I didn’t know what I was doing. All of these ppl have more sexual experiences than me. Many of my other friends say that I was assaulted and that I was taken advantage of. Also after this happened I fell down the stairs to the basement and gotten really hurt. I know they would never do anything to hurt me but I don’t know what to think, I don’t feel anything. I feel like I’ve been going crazy over this because I’m being pulled in so many different directions. This was a lot lol sorry.

Also Mabel keeps making me tell other people to clear her name and she keeps telling me she feel suicidal after thinking everyone hates her. She thinks her life is ruined when this happened to me, not her.

They did this to African-Americans, immigrants, other races. AA rioted about systematic abuse from people in power like mangers, executives, landlords, police, the government. All governing agencies ignored their plight because they "acted badly" so they aren't going to give it attention, not until they do something to make you hurt. Not until these 1967 and 1968 race riots ruined businesses and neighborhoods would white people listen to the fact that black people were inherently disenfranchised from birth because their ancestors were angry over slavery and constant inhumane terrorism. We still go "oh they caused damage" fuck that shitty line of thinking. I am a white male, not helping my case, but we should've listened long ago when black people were enraged and helped them instead of letting them be enslaved because your day went better with enslaved workforce and you didn't have to work menial jobs.

It is systematic abuse thats allowable because those abusing another person don't want to "have to be" perfect all the time, after working hard. They don't want to adhere to rules all day and these rules are about respecting individuals.

Its not as easily identifiable as a group of people with a similar characteristic. In fact this cruelty has existed for centuries but the proliferation of this cruelty towards "anyone" is the single reason why AA were oppressed and so are other ethnicities. IF people don't like you, some will sanction attacking you on the basis of just not liking you, dishonoring your basic human rights, even dehumanizing and torturing with thoughtless actions. Even worse turning a crowd against you for saying "you had a thoughtless action" that either is true or not. Even if it is true, cruelty is a horrible way to stop a thoughtless actor. It never makes them more thoughtful. Hurting people doesn't make you more thoughtful, it makes you more mental. It's your decision to do good that is the thoughtfulness, otherwise its mental disturbance than can qualify later as a mental illness if it multiples.

The punishments are inhumane. Lifelong backlash and bullying are the least inhumane actions (jesus christ), let along being left out of opportunity even when you have the wherewithal to perform the activity or be given a chance, but no one will work with you let alone gamble on anyone with a reputation preceding them, regardless of if true or not. Constantly harassed by "strangers", stolen from, kept lonely, kept isolated and without social support or the same network of resources used for support. They lie to others about what theyyyy've already done to teach that person a lesson, getting others to go harder on the individual when they've already been kicked down and heeling over when someone else gut wrenches them.

You guys regularly support these liars. You all do. I am going to be bullied or asked "if I am ok" no I am not ok with this treatment. knee-jerkers, STFU and everyone else, why won't you use this opportunity to be more thoughtful and (1) create a better world with more thoughtful individuals (I get it you don't want to be thoughtful all the time - at least analyze for approriate times to be thoughtful or untougtful (2) if god is real I'd sure hate to be a tormenter. If you hate this life, wait til you see what you get for tormenting others, in the next life.

Sin in question, incest rape.
Perpetrator refuses to seek mental health help nor turn themselves into the police, no actual improvements in life besides “reading the bible” and “following gods teachings” . also double moral dilemma if you the person in question have the right to curse them out for their shitty behaviors and not seeking steps to change and inform the police right after you said you wouldn’t.

so unlawfulness is only prevalent because it is started by the "lawful men". Its because lawful men need someone to be unlawful to in order to appear lawful in comparison, when all of man don't want to be lawful, inherently, according to your Bible.

I have to speak in Biblical terms for your moralists to get me. Lawful man is gods man. Unlawful men are men of the BEEaSt

Take a look at the law man, fighting on the wrong guy. Take a look at him go, and what a wonderful show" said the great late David Bowie. because these "lawful men" love deciphering and snuffing out people, to make fools out of normal, or nice characters, in order to have someone to beat on. There's this idea that there's a false light in this world, and we need to fight it. In biblical terms that satanism, hedonism, stark individualism. I represent stark individual, so I am attacked. You would qualify as satan to act lawful in pursuant on your benefit, but unlawful when you please and when it would go against your benefit. We call unlawful men devils, but lawful men really present lawful and still are loweing themselves to these same tactics and actions of "unlawful men" requiring any wise person to leave even these "lawful men" in the same field as the unlawful ones they so detest and swear they are nothing alike.
Well attacking anyone is a lawless action. The only reason that you can attack that follows the law is from self defense. You can't preemptively attack someone acting as a good character, beat on them and try to put them down so the fear letting their voice be heard.

That's why when I call out the unlawful men, I am a part of your never ending cycle, where youre the devil but coming up with fake rules, fake judgements against my character, so you can look as though you have some defense to attack my character. When my character is about calling out your wildness that you crave simply because you sometimes have to be lawful, in order for you to benefit. A lawful character doesn't break the law or do lawless actions like attack others without a defense of being attacked firstly. Not this preemptive "I had to punch you the prevent you from punching" when I am not even punching. I make reddit posts and get told my verbose ass makes no sense.

so you start calling me a fool under the post to have a "man of unlawfulness" to fight for your pleasure. If you qualify as the lawman you know your role in stoking the flames of others fires to get your perceivable "bad character" after hurting someone, again so you have the pig you can slaughter. Youre all being little devils, not me yet you claim I am incomprehensible like mad men. when you have refuse dto engage and display nice character that truly lawful character have. Leading to the obvious judgement you are only acting as false lights. No man is lawful. Man is sin remember? ut characters. Characters have arcs, redemptions. Remember, this story isn't yours. You didn't write this.

Why can't it be positive reinforcement rather than negative? Because they'll never do what you want them to do? You're the only one offering something good so people should do only as you say? Why do we make this life miserable for each, just because the person in power is not miserable.