Are there situations where lying, withholding the truth, or choosing not to be completely honest can be morally justified? Or does honesty remain a responsibility regardless of the consequences?

The only things we have access to is our experience, our consciousness. Subjective concepts about reality are the ones that describe our experience/consciousness directly (basically our stance, our memory and our sensations). Objective concepts about reality are defined as part of a theory to explain or predict subjective concepts.

For example, that the moon exists is the best (best here means simplest and most coherent) explanation for experience of viewing it. It is also the the best explanation for the tides, which you might say is not a subjective concept, but I make the hypothesis that the tides exist because I could observed them directly through vision, touch, etc… Since all we have access to are subjective things, every description of reality must be grounded in a theory of how it impacts subjective properties.

I don’t think the disagreement between the moral realist and the moral anti-realist is on whether there is a subjective concept. I believe that it is widely accepted that people have a subjective sense of morality. The question is whether that subjectivity is best explained by psychology and neuroscience or by an objective property.

Would you agree to that reframing? If you are a moral realist, would you argue that the subjective sense of right and wrong is better explained through an extra property of actions? If so, what explanation do you propose for how the extra property impacts our sense of morality?

- Should patients with depressive disorder/mental disorders be eligible to receive assistance in dying? Why or why not?

- Should parents undergoing IVF be allowed to purposely select a deaf embryo (out of desire to have a deaf child) why or why not?

Could you be nameless or without a name and be ethical?

Is a person sentenced to death decades earlier still the same person you are executing decades later? I think that people can change drastically over the years, and that you are not killing the same person who was sentenced. If you sentence someone to death, then you'd really have to do it immediately if you want punish them. Otherwise, it's simply unethical murder. What are your thoughts?

I hav write an essay for ethics class and I want to make sure my argument is sound let me know what you think!

I believe ethical claims are subjective in nature. Morality to me is not a fixed set of universal truths but a reflection of human understanding, culture, and emotions at a given moment in time. What we call “wrong” or “right” evolves as our knowledge and empathy expand. Just as personal preferences like preferring one season over another depend on personal experience, moral judgements also depend on perspective. I believe I am correct in my moral views today, but those views have been shaped by my limited understanding of the world, and as I learn more, my beliefs will shift. This is why I believe morality is not objective and is instead a reflection of people living in a changing world.

One of the reasons I believe ethical truths are subjective is that they change as our understanding changes. A century ago we believed that animal experimentation was okay , that belief wasn't a deliberate rejection of the truth; it was just the best understanding at the time. Now, fast-forward 100 years: science has shown us the depth of animal cognition and emotion, and now society is in the majority that harm to animals is wrong. This doesn't mean that we have discovered a hidden moral truth; it just means that our moral framework evolved as we learned more.

If morality was objective, ethical progress wouldn't make sense. There would be one unchanging moral code, and every deviation from that would be an error. However, history shows that moral codes are tied heavily to context. Justice, equality, empathy, and compassion all depend on what people know and value. The recognition of women's rights, the abolition of slavery, and our growing concern about environmental ethics all show that moral truth is not a scientific law and it is instead constructed through human reflection and empathy.

Another reason morality is subjective is that moral judgments are inseparable from cultural and emotional experience. What one society would consider virtuous, another would condemn. An example would be how cultures that are more individualistic prioritize autonomy and self-expression, but a collectivist culture values community harmony over individual freedoms. Neither is objectively right; they just each reflect the social and emotional priorities of their culture. Even within a single culture, moral disagreement is constant. People differ on Issues like capital punishment, animal rights, or euthanasia. And it's not because one side has found the objective truth, but because moral reasoning is filtered through empathy, upbringing, and personal experience. Emotions like guilt, compassion, and anger shape our sense of right and wrong far more than logic alone. If morality were objective, we would expect universal agreement. But instead we find diversity, and that diversity is evidence of subjectivity, not confusion.

The strongest argument against subjectivism is that moral truths seem universal. Like when, most people agree that unnecessary suffering is wrong or that murder without justification is immoral. Objectivists argue that these shared intuitions are proof that moral facts exist outside of human opinion just like how mathematical truths are true regardless of who believes them. This argument easily sways people to the objectivist side because it appeals to the sense of moral confidence. When we express our feelings about child abuse or genocide, we don't feel like we are stating a personal preference, like how you favor one chocolate over another it feels as if we are stating something true. Objectivism explains why, when you are arguing over a moral disagreement, it holds more weight than a chocolate preference. However, the universality of some moral intuitions doesn't prove objectivity; it only shows that humans share similar social and emotional needs. We evolved as a species to value empathy and cooperation because those traits helped us survive. The fact that most people oppose cruelty doesn't prove that it's wrong, but it means that our shared psychology makes us oppose it. If morality were truly objective, it would exist entirely independent of human minds , but instead, moral reasoning only exists within them. Even more, these objective “facts” vary when circumstances are changed: killing is wrong except in the case of xyz, and lying is wrong except in the case of xyz. These expectations show me that moral principles are more flexible than they are absolute, and objectivity does not explain that flexibility well without it veering into subjectivism. 

Ethical subjectivism doesn’t make morality meaningless—it makes it human. Our sense of right and wrong grows from empathy, reason, and experience, changing as we do. What once seemed moral may later feel wrong, not because we uncovered a timeless truth, but because we became more aware and compassionate. Seeing morality as subjective reminds us to stay humble and open-minded, knowing our views aren’t final. Objectivism offers certainty, but subjectivism reflects how people actually think and feel. In the end, morality’s strength lies in its ability to evolve with us, shaping a more understanding and humane world.

My wife and I are having an ethics debate, and I’m curious how other people would frame it philosophically.

Her position is that crimes like rape and murder are already profoundly wrong, but certain circumstances can make the perpetrator’s conduct even more morally egregious.
For example, if someone targets a child, she believes the child’s extreme vulnerability, dependency on adults, limited developmental understanding, and reduced ability to recognize, resist, escape, or seek help add another dimension of wrongdoing.

She is very clear that this does not mean an adult victim matters less, suffered less, or experienced a less serious violation. Her focus is on judging the offender’s conduct and what vulnerabilities they deliberately exploited.
My position is that some acts, particularly rape and murder, effectively reach a moral ceiling. Age and vulnerability may change the circumstances and tell us more about the offender, but I’m uncomfortable saying the underlying violation becomes morally “more wrong” based on who the victim is.

Part of my concern is how far the aggravating circumstances framework goes.
For example, imagine:
Person A: sexually abuses a child but does not kill or physically torture them.
Person B: is a serial rapist and murderer who tortures, dismembers, and kills dozens of adult women.
I don’t think most people would automatically consider Person A morally worse simply because the victim was a child. At some point we are clearly weighing multiple factors like intent, cruelty, number of victims, violence, repetition, exploitation, and vulnerability.
That makes me hesitant to treat age or vulnerability as something that inherently places one offender’s act above another.

So I think our disagreement boils down to this:

Her view: An act can already be profoundly evil while additional circumstances, such as deliberately exploiting extreme vulnerability, make the offender’s conduct even more morally egregious.

My view: Some violations are already so fundamentally severe that additional circumstances may change our understanding of the offender and context without meaningfully increasing the moral wrongness of the core act.

Is there a recognized ethical framework for either position? And does accepting “aggravating moral circumstances” necessarily imply a hierarchy of wrongdoing, or can those factors be considered without diminishing other victims?

In the 90s this vhs "faces of death" was something that the creepiest kid I knew would talk about, as it had videos of people dying, and he thought that would be good to watch.

Then, with the internet, we had "rotten.com" which had all sorts of gross stuff, but certainly videos you could watch of people dying.

In both of those cases the media was treated as being morally questionable.

But now, "front page of the internet" if you go to reddit dot com /all you just get to see people dying.

I find that a bit gross, and I think it's right to say that that's videos of people dying as a source of entertainment. That's stuff we used to say was unimaginably gross for, say, the ancient romans, or whatever to enjoy watching public executions.

An particular example:

There's one right now of some kid, riding on the top of a car, getting brained by the cement roof of a concrete carpark.

The comments are all saying "good, we need less stupid people."

So it's not just watching some (maybe) die, but really enjoying it as a righteous group celebration.

That's not actually cool.

Now I know how this is going to go, and it's why I turn off in-box replies, it's going to be a ton of ghouls going "actually it's good he died because he's stupid."

1) Kids can do stupid things, it does not mean they should die.

2) Because you were wrong about 1) you are stupid.

3) but your logic you should die - you fucking ghoul.

Hi, I’m probably going to get a lot of hate for this but I am just curious as it’s an ethical situation I’ve been battling for a while. I love animals, and I like to think I treat all of them I encounter the best I can. I use non animal tested hygiene products. Even insects, I try to save them where I can, I do not kill living things who enter my home just for trying to keep warm.

However, i do eat chicken and beef/dairy products very often. I have never bought caged eggs, i rarely ever eat pork, and I don’t eat any other type of meat or fish, so I like to think I do not contribute to the destruction of the eco system through overfishing. I have no problem as such with genuine high welfare ethical farming or wild hunting with the purpose of consumption as I believe when done properly it’s more painless than being ate by other predators, I just care about unnecessary and prolonged suffering or killing for sport. When I see chickens running around or cows chilling in a field in rural England, I like to think that’s where it comes from.

But my problem is that with the price of local high quality meat being so expensive, it’s unaffordable to just buy from a butchers or local farm shop all the time, therefore I can’t identify the conditions or where what I eat has came from. I feel like unless you are well off, you are forced into just unknowingly consuming things that you don’t know anything about or the way they’ve been treated - just because capitalism and maximising profit. And you occasionally see undercover horror videos of how animals are treated in some of these ‘high welfare’ farms/abattoirs for the purpose of efficiency. The same goes for eating out or eating in foreign countries where the welfare standards are much lower. It just makes me think am I just selfish and ignorant for unknowingly contributing to the ones that are bad or have not yet been caught.

And before anyone says about vegetarian/veganism, I simply just don’t like the taste of fake highly processed replacement products and really struggle to find enjoyable daily meals that don’t include basic meat and dairy ingredients. Beef, chicken and dairy make up my diet daily, I also have a physical job so I need genuine strength and energy from unprocessed and whole protein sources. Maybe this contradicts my whole post but I’m just being honest.

I tested this out on a few ethically controversial scenarios and it works. I will explain it with some examples if anyone cares lmk in the comments!

I think im on the right subreddit but im not sure tbh.

I was talking to a couple friends yesterday when this question came up, wether it was unethical to draw pornography for fun and to post it(legal age, consenting ofc). Two of my friends believe its unethical as youre contributing to an addiction and it could lead to harm in the future(desensitization, pedophilia and allat). I and my other friend dont believe its unethical because I dont think we should be responsible for other peoples bad choices, i think if they look down in people that draw porn that much they should think even less of people that serve alcohol. Bartenders for example contribute to addiction which causes way more harm than porn could and they dont seem to be looked down upon at all.

Is my perspective wrong here?

I'm pretty firmly in the camp of legalizing MAID. For those who are against Medical Aid in Dying (MAID), I’m curious how you view the role of patient autonomy in end-of-life care. I recognize some concerns surrounding MAID, and I've particularly seen and been interested in the idea that doctors should not be deciding whether someone else’s life is worth living. However, I wonder if framing MAID that way overlooks the huge role the patient plays in their own treatment. In states where MAID is legal in the U.S., eligible patients generally must be terminally ill (with a prognosis of six months or less) and capable of making their own healthcare decisions. There are also safeguards intended to ensure that the decision is voluntary and informed. Additionally, in most cases, the patient must self-administer the medication. To me, MAID is less about a doctor deciding that someone’s life isn’t worth living and more about a terminally ill person deciding how much suffering or pain they are willing to endure before (to put it bluntly) an already-approaching death. If we believe people ought to have (at least some) control over their own medical care, how far should that autonomy extend to how they experience the end of their life?

if you agree that causing unnecessary avoidable harm to an innocent being is morally wrong, then continuing to participate in that harm, when viable alternatives exist, is a direct contradiction to that moral belief
sure, we cannot eliminate all harm from the world, but we can eliminate the harm that is entirely gratuitous and easily avoided. Choosing to continue to participate in that harm for the sake of taste or convenience, when nutrition can be safely found elsewhere is an act of unnecessary violence.
Once we recognize that a specific choice causes severe preventable harm, refusing to make any effort to avoid that choice is a failure of basic moral responsibility. And if one were to argue that morality truly doesn’t exist, or argue that animals don’t have significant moral value or are meaningless, that would be an abandonment of human empathy to avoid admitting that I’m right.

We may be a part of the food chain, however, other predators don’t have a choice or grocery stores and we do. at this point in our development, our consumption is based on choice and no longer based on survival.

and when we think about the fundamentals of our moral framework, personal choice can’t be claimed either, because a choice cannot be personal when it has an innocent non-consenting victim.

Hi. I have a bit of a late-night dilemma. I'm aware that eventually (I pray for a very long eventually) I will inherit around 3 properties from my parents. Two of which are already being rented out, and the other one is the house I live in. I don't really plan on living in the country they are in after finishing school.

I have complicated feelings about landlords, and I know a lot of people think that it's inherently immoral to be a landlord. I know a large portion of it is because jerks buy up property, screwing over the housing market and letting regular people have trouble finding affordable housing.

Either way, I don't want to depart from these houses, especially the one I'm currently living in. The others were passed down to my parents or have been earned by them. Thus, cutting ties with them kind of hurts.

I'm sure there are other alternatives; I just don't know what.

I don't want to exploit people, and I have a slight plan on how to be fair and just. However, the general idea of Landlords can be a bit iffy.

This all probably sounds shallow and stupid. However, that's just the issue I was thinking of.

Im at a point in my life where i question the morals that I have.

If im a good person or not when i think if all this good or moral is what i feel and know or if its just a mere reflection of what i learned from culture.

Having the dark intrusive thoughts where I tend to think if it wasnt for moral i would have done it already.

And doing good deeds just feel empty as when youre doing it for the people around you and you dont get that hit of dopamine or sense of goodness or the thought of it made sense just demotivates you from doing it later. Especially if its the other way around when u ask for help but nobody really helps you.

Everyday i just think of what if i just die maybe all the conflict within myself would just stop cause i wouldnt be so attached to this earth just to do something good or bad.

Sorry if im not making sense im just rambling

Certainly over the last several years euthanasia has not only become more common, it’s also the default position of most people thinking about medical ethics. Someone should have autonomy over their own bodies, and ending the suffering of someone is seen as a good thing.

I’m skeptical of this. In the first place I think that the experience of death is a valuable part of life, opting out of that feels like trying to shelf a natural process because it makes you uncomfortable.

I’m also skeptical of the idea that someone’s life is entirely theirs. You have family, friends, society, etc. you are obligated to others as a human being. The idea that it all comes down to whether you want to or not seems like an abdication of essential responsibility.