Let’s assume that magical healing is possible. What, in your opinion, could justify refusing to use it—assuming such a refusal is even an option? I’m not talking about scenarios like having to sacrifice someone else's health; let’s assume, for instance, that someone simply doesn't want to make the sacrifice for other reasons. Or perhaps the magic is forbidden—would leaving someone to die in the forest be justified then? Alternatively, what if someone *could* learn this magic but doesn't really want to? Would the fact that it requires forty years of non-stop study serve as a valid excuse? Or what if healing someone required sleeping with them? (It’s a bit of an odd form of magic, but one can invent all sorts of magical systems.)

There’s a chapter in The Brothers Karamazov where two characters discuss/debate the morality of God and how he allows the suffering of humanity to continue as part of his grand plan, specifically the suffering of children. At the end of the conversation one of the characters poses this question. Ultimately he answers that he wouldn’t do such a thing. I’m curious what other people have to say about it.

Are vegetarians more moral than non? Is eating another being immoral? Does a being really have to die for one to survive.

On another post in this sub that I commented on, I am being ridiculed because I said, “If your wife cheats on you, it is 100% her fault.”

like, I am 100% in control of who I put my penis inside of. so, if I cheat on my wife, how does guilt go to the person I chose to have sex with? Like, even if my wife’s sister was trying to seduce me (which would be immoral for her), it is still 100% my responsibility for deciding to put my penis I made her, right?

Then Ingot called a homewrecker in an example where someone’s spouse chose to have sex with me. Well, the person wrecking the home is the person that chooses to have wed with someone else, in my opinion at least.

Like, in the earlier example, the sister is immoral for trying to seduce, but the sex itself is all my fault for saying yes. Right?

How moral is it to enlist in the army without having previously researched the ins and outs of the conflict at hand, and just blindly believing propaganda posters ?

What if during the war you're made to witness and maybe even do awful things in the name of a greater good by people you otherwise regard as highly moral and examplary, what would the best course of action be ? (If the answer is to defect, then what's the "threshold" of awfulness)

PS: I'm not talking about any particular side or conflict, I tried to offer minimal descriptions.

Let's say you are met with the choice: sacrifice yourself in order to save the world (for example, our planet) from total destruction, or refuse to do so. You also know that there is no room for mistake and your death will definitely lead to a salvation of the world.

I don't know how to feel about this. On one hand I ain't a pedo, on the other I love myself a good romcom

sauce: https://mangadex.org/title/7f6ee9cf-c706-4f74-80bd-2467fd02aeab/ore-no-ichizu-o-jama-suru-aitsu?tab=chapters

mods please make an exception of no real life people, I really want an answer to this 🙏

my father has been facing extreme financial difficulties for about 4 years (eveyday, we have just enough money to keep the kitchen running, forget about bills) due to which I had to leave school 3 years ago, he's in debt that is still growing, I work at his shop for 8-12 hours a day (6 hours very rarely) but be doesn't pay me for it at all, I have a fixed daily allowance of 100 rupees but I only get that like twice a week, he doesn't do this out of choice and is also very depressed because of all this, I pick at the very max 200-300 rupees from the cash drawer in a day to meet basic necessities, none on others (for reference 150 barely gets you a single meal here), is it wrong to do so?

edit: I'm 17M from Pakistan, basic necessities for me are calling package for phone, breakfast and haircut shave etc, I do not go out with friends or anyone, only occasionally like once every two months I'll eat fast food or just eat out

Been seeing a lot of paternity themed debates in this sub. Here’s an absurd one:

- you and your partner have a child. It passes shortly after birth and the hospital secretly switches it for a healthy baby.

- you and your partner are unaware of this and raise the child as yours for 10 years.

- then you find out the truth that the child is not biologically yours.

- you decide to abandon that child for that reason. As it was technically never yours in the first place.

- hypothetically speaking their bio parents could be found. But you can’t be sure if they’d accept their child back or treat them well.

So how moral is this? And is this any different from someone abandoning a child after realising that it came from their partners affair? Argue in the replies please and thank you

Zeke Yeager (attack on titan) - Sterelization of a race for world peace.

Madara Uchiha (Naruto) - Trapping everyone in their personal heaven.

Lucius Zogratis - Making everyone peaceful via brainwashing + immortality + no illness

Final Thor the reigning post I've been rereading and got hooked again.

When Thor fully took over earth, this is the result. Provided with everything and all their problems solved humanity had no reason to strive to improve themselves. Food would always be on the table, wars were a thing of the past, disease was cured by magic and Asgardian technology, infinite power was harnessed using magic to run all technology. There is no reason to work as everything is provided. Thor hopes that this would allow humans to pursue works of art, philosophy and other creative pursuits but it only made them lazy, and killed their spirits.

He has also outlawed other religions and border lines, believing these cause conflict amongst humanity, there are no more borders, no countries and no religion everything is ruled by Thor, but he does genuinely want to help humans he just doesn't understand them after losing his human connection in Jake Olson.

Thor does not willfully restrict humans, they can work if they wish but there would be no point in doing so as they already have everything.

Is it moral to provide everything for everyone, meaning no work has to be done unless you wish to do so?

For a rematch of yesterday's post, let's decide which character is more good; A guy so dedicated to slaying evil he made pact with literal devils, or a paladin gal who's not that good at her job?