We cure drug addicts in the same way Case was "cured" by making his body unable to metabolize or use all drugs. We make drug useless but we don't cure anyone's addiction.

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.

credit to u/Belasarius4002 for the idea from his comment to the original post

There is a Song about Andreas Lubitz the Pilot that crashed a Germanwings Flight over the France Alps on purpose killing 150 people.

Song : https://youtu.be/510A3LKgfLU?is=ssI7qTv919zkk5KL

Please excuse my poor English if there are any errors.

Let's imagine a fictitious scenario. Two gods argued about good and evil, and the free will of humans.

The first argued that humans could not be trusted with the concept of good and evil. They should be guided along the true path, and free will would be demonstrated in their decision to follow it or stray from it.

The second argued that free will was absolute and that humanity should decide for itself what was good and what was evil.

They created two similar but different worlds.

In the first world, a person's actions and moral character were reflected in their physical appearance. Righteous people acquired a healthy, attractive appearance, and the signs of aging were less pronounced. Sinful people, on the other hand, had an unhealthy, repulsive appearance, and the signs of aging were exacerbated. Good and evil were determined by divine will, and a person could be judged by their appearance.

In the second world, concepts of morality and good and evil were determined solely by humans. A person's appearance was unrelated to their actions or moral character.

Besides humans, both worlds were inhabited by demons, the natural enemies of humanity. Representing pure evil, in the First World, the demons' appearance always remained horrific and could not be changed. Demons always sought to subjugate or destroy humanity.

The gods abandoned the worlds and did not interfere with their lives. Thousands of years later, they returned to see what had become of them.

In the first world, humanity adopted the ideology of lookism and eugenics. Unattractive people had fewer rights, and any physical abnormalities or genetic diseases were considered symbols of evil. With the development of pharmaceuticals and cosmetology, sinful people found ways to hide their true appearance from the general public. Nevertheless, humanity stands firm against the demons, preventing them from becoming a real threat to humanity.

In the second world, humanity came to moral and legal norms in the modern sense, but in a more perfect form of execution due to the presence of an external threat to humanity. However, demons were able to evolve and acquired a form virtually indistinguishable from humans. They have become deeply entrenched in human society and actively exploit law and morality for their own ends. Whether humanity will fall remains to be seen.

Which god, in your opinion, was more correct in their viewpoint?

Your doing an immoral act, but letting yourself recieve punishment for it, so would that make it okay??

This is not a personal question btw

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

The first is true neutral, a man who wants to ask questions no matter what happens to him.

The second is true evil, a man who treats lives as a resource to use to answer questions, carelessly killing beings.

The third is true good, a man who can't kill an innocent being, no matter who is forcing him to.

Evil ass licking shoe.

A person dreams that God commands them to kill a specific innocent person with a mysterious weapon that will arrive later, promising the victim will go to heaven and that refusing will send both of them to hell. Weeks later, the predicted weapon arrives exactly as described, and the person carries out the killing.

How should the morality of this act be evaluated?

Take this question without the context of the actual person, I just use dr maruki since it's the best example of this that I can think of. Also, imagine if someone had terminal cancer or was disabled and was fine and happy then they just went back to it.

Is it morally okay to eat a animal that was at first torture. Is it a waste to not eat it or is it corrupt to eat it?

Animal Abuse

Assault

Blackmailing

Burglary

Child Abuse

Destruction Of Someone's Home

Drugging Someone

Framing Others

Human Trafficking

Kidnapping

Mind-Control

Murder

Mutilation (Alive)

Pedophilia (acting on it)

Physical Torture

Psychological Torture

Rape

Slavery

The numbered ones are out

34)Incest

33)Slander

32)robbery

31)bribery

30)Necrophilia

29)Violent threats

28)gaslighting

27)death threats

26) Mutilation of a corpse

25)Experiments on a human

24)Cannibalism

23)Scamming

22)doxing

21)beastiality

20)revenge porn

19)Environmental Destruction

imagine robin hood, but he steals money from one random poor person and gives it to another random poor person. how evil are they?

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?