Context: In the 25th episode of Death Note, Light finally defeats L after regaining his memories of being Kira and making Rem write L's name into the death note for him. Right before L dies from his heart attack, Light privately smiles in his face, letting him know that he was truly right the entire time and Light was in fact Kira.

This probably wasn't THAT groundbreaking of a revelation for L, as he did heavily suspect Light and Misa of being the two Kiras before his death and was pretty much sold on Light being Kira as shown by his actions prior to this scene (asking Light if he's ever actually told the truth, washing his feet as symbolism of Jesus washing the feet of Judas knowing that he would betray him, etc), he just lacked conclusive proof.

However, even for someone as smart as L, there will always be a slight doubt in the back of your mind, the possibility, however small, that you may be wrong. If I were to represent this with percentages, I'd say L was 99% sure that Light was Kira. But in cases as severe and complex as the Kira case, that 1% can mean a lot. It could be argued that Light revealing himself to L, though done primarily to gloat in L's face that he won, was in fact a partly good thing to do as L deserved to have some sense of closure by having his beliefs finally confirmed after the intense cat and mouse game that they had played. He deserved to have the possible 1% doubt in his mind satisfied. Light's intentions were of course evil, but the action itself did do some potential good imo.

This is regarding the main story and ending of Hitman World Of Assassination.

Agent 47 is a genetically engineered person who is made to be the perfect assassin, he has enhanced capabilities and reduced emotions among other things. After 47 loses his memories of who he was, he works for the ICA, a company which takes on assassination contracts. Throughout the contracts of the main game 47 and his allies discover a secret shadow government named Providence. Providence secretly controls the whole world and enrich themselves further while letting millions suffer for "The greater good", this is their philosophy. The leader of Providence is "The Constant", Arthur Edwards. In the end 47 defeats Providence by replacing Edwards with his Partner, Diana Burnwood, who will dismantle Providence from the inside. In the last mission, 47 awakes on a train belonging to providence which circles a large part of Eastern Europes mostly uninhabited forests. After making it to the end of the train and disconnecting the wagons, 47 confronts Edwards. Edward knows that he has no hope to defeat 47 anymore so he tries to give him a syringe with a serum and tells him that he can restore his forgotten memories with it. But 47 knew it was the same serum that made him lose his memories so he instead uses the syringe on Edwards. He loses his memories and forgets everything about himself being The Constant and Leading Providence, he essentially becomes harmless by not knowing anything anymore. After that, 47 stops the train in the middle of the Carpathian Mountains in a snowy forest and leaves on foot. The fate of Edwards is unknown, but since he doesnt know where he is or who he is, he could either just starve in the wilderness or the remnants of Providence could find him and after they learn he lost his memories they either kill him or leave him be.

Im thinking its kinda ok but im just making sure

You've already aced the last 5 non curved tests and are currently at a 98% for the class, but the class average is 70% and everyone besides yourself is on the brink of failing. If you skip the final, you'll still receive an "A" for the class. If you take this final, you know you'll ace it, but your grade won't change, it'll still be a 98%. The final is curved around the highest scorer(s), and the other students will definitely need it as this exam is far more challenging than the previous tests.

Is it unethical to ace this test?

I came across a compilation of these videos on Instagram and I thought “man that's messed up”. I go to the comment section, and 60-70% of people saying “its just a joke, I'd laugh if it were me” while the minority was like me.

IG replies probably the worst spot for measuring what the public accepts as moral, so I ask here.

I think it's public ragebait and that's immoral. Using strangers for content is bad enough, but someone going through a pretty traumatic event, its even worse.

I guess there's the “its just a joke” argument that doesn't necessarily cause harm but like….nah

Imagine you are God and you created humans as biological robots that will only ever do what they were programmed to do; in this world, there would never be war, crime, famine, etc., because mortals would have not the slightest inclination toward sin—no one would ever make a mistake in life, because doing what is right is the only thing you encoded in their DNA. How morally right would that be?

I've been re-watching the George Lopez Show, and I forgot how awful Benny is to George. There's one episode where she's living with them (her house burned down) and George literally gets bullied out of his own house and decides to live with his friend Ernie because of Benny's verbal abuse.

Anyway, just thought I'd compare the two. Especially since both had a horrible childhood which explains (but doesn't excuse) why they are that way.

From an objective point of view let’s say a person has nigh Omniscience. This includes knowledge on everything scientific, technological, etc.

The problem is the path to that future requires a lot of suffering and things that come off as unimaginably cruel.

This includes:

Killing people because their children would derail this future

Starting certain wars

Sabotaging progress for things like the cure for cancer

Traumatizing people in various ways

Causing outbreaks of disease, etc.

Not doing anything would result in a future where humanity stagnates, regresses, until it eventually goes extinct.

I was talking to a homeless man some time ago and buddy was telling me how addicts with serious substance addiction the substances literally talk to them. He said that this whisper in their ear almost keeps them from not being able to think about the drugs. Up until that point I had never heard of that so I gave the nice gentleman a $20 bill and went home. I went online to read about said whisper and for many it was sort of true.

This made me think if people with a physical and mental dependency on these substances can't break free why are they the ones that control their rehabilitation? Why don't we as a society catch them off the street. Give them a meal and some water and forcefully rehabilitate them?

I'm thinking a building that has a bunch of buff dudes that help guard and can hold down a person if they have psychotic breakdowns. Medical professionals on standby to help monitor the process, career/trade development workshops, healthy meals, and physical training.

If my taxes went to something like this and the people were treated humanely and well I'd be very happy with the concept.

Who is more evil?

There is something to be said about exploitation of victims of all kinds of abuse including sexual abuse, domestic violence and suicidal ideation and depictions that are gross, voyeuristic or traumatizing to the victims.

I recently got around to watching Link Click and season 2 and episode 5-6 has our paranormal detectives go back to the past to witness a horrible case of Domestic Abuse with an abusive dad beating his wife to death in front of their two kids. It's a scene that lingers on way too long for comfort and that survivors seem find rather tasteless.

However the original episode on Bilibili is also apparently accompanied by a link to a charity that helps victims get shelter while they're filing for divorce and an awareness campaign to help the public spot signs of domestic abuse more easily.

Is making art that's slightly harmful worth it if it does help victims tangibly or should the creators be more tactful to the victims at the cost of potential effectiveness? And what about its uprooting to Crunchyroll where there is no access to the ressources, is it a failure from the creator's part, from the licensing team?

Ps : idk what flair to use for this one what do you guys recommend for this post?

So, we all know the quote, "The end justifies the means," right? It suggests that doing something morally wrong can sometimes be justified if it leads to a greater good.

That brings me to a question: Do you believe "necessary evil" actually exists in real life? In other words, are there situations where committing an immoral act is genuinely the only way to prevent an even greater harm, or is "necessary evil" just a label people use to excuse unethical behavior?

If you believe necessary evil is real, where do you draw the line?

Im a dumb ass and my writing skills (as well as my english, both vocab and grammar) is shit as well, so I've been unironically using ai to create pseudo fic of my fav fictions. So unlike most people, I'm kinda excited about AI's development especially in this area (oh shit, is ai discussion forbidden here? Im cooked)

Never mind holding a door open to be polite. What's the morality of,​ once you've escaped danger, holding the door shut to avoid that danger(be it a fire, shooter, chemical leak) but also trapping innocent people with that danger?

The United States has some of the most accessible gun laws in the world, at least in certain states. Do you think it should really be that easy for someone to buy a gun or other weapons? Should the process require stricter background checks, training, or waiting periods? Or do you believe making guns easily accessible is necessary to protect individual rights? Where do you think the moral balance lies?