To be clear, I’m not suggesting we do what I’m about to propose, I just think it’s an interesting ethical/moral thought experiment.

If we could find a lot of people who want to unalive themselves, and say to them: there’s been a disaster and there are a lot of people who are stuck (e.g. a mine collapse, or 9/11 or something like that) and it’s a dangerous situation for rescue workers to go into, since you don’t care if you die we’re gonna send you in… would it be an ethical or moral thing to do? To ask or make people who don’t care if they live or not, to go into a situation that there’s a known high risk that they won’t survive?

(Also, I not asking wether it is a good idea to send such people in or wether it would be effective — I’m only interested in the ethics/morality of such an idea)

The definition of cancel culture: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/cancel-culture

With the ever-ongoing ‘progress’ of the proposed UK nuclear power plants, I wonder if this is the best course of action (not just in the UK, but across other nations also)?

For those who don’t know about this 9/11 mystery, let me explain (or read about it here, or here in more detail):

This man is called Earnest Armstead.

Armstead worked as an EMS worker at ground zero during the September 11 attacks, triaging. In the decades since, Armstead has claimed to have come across a severely mangled woman. As he went to place the black tag (the deceased tag) on what he assumed was a corpse, he alleges that he was startled to find that she was alive and begged him not to put the black tag on her, despite the fact that he knew she was going to die shortly after anyway due to the condition of her body. He claims that when he found her, she was only a head and a torso (in some accounts, he also claims that she was just head, Shoulders and a bit of lung), and he theorised that she was in such a mangled state due to falling from such a tall height (which would make sense, if that amount of damage had been done to her body, as that’s what falling from such a height would (or could) do to a human body).

However, there’s just one issue: it’s not physically possible to survive that much bodily damage. Had she really only been a head and a torso, she would either have not survived the impact, or she would’ve bled out rapidly before the triage team could arrive. Investigators of the case therefore find his claim dubious, suggesting that he may have misremembered what he was seeing, though the account seems too graphic to have been something misremembered. Moreover, the woman in question has never been identified, and despite combing through footage of all different angles and shots of the area on that day, nobody has ever seen the woman, or even Armstead interacting with anyone even remotely like the suggestion.

One alternative theory that has been proposed is that this woman was not mangled, but actually had been hit by a falling mangled body (perhaps from the plane) which may explain why Armstead mistook her for such, presumably in a panicked state, though it wouldn’t explain the other dubious aspects of the claim, like the fact that that nobody else saw such a thing, etc.

I keep hearing people say that the far-left is significantly less organised, more fragmented than the far-right. Why is that? (And to be clear: I’m asking about the far-left, not just the left in general (though they may be linked)

Hopefully I’ve worded the question right.

I was once told (I could never verify if it was true) that a crocs company once almost went bankrupt after they made their crocs practically indestructible. Whilst the story was most likely bullshit, it makes me wonder: if a company can make a product that is practically indestructible, is it ethical for them not to make them indestructible, so people will buy more from them?

The way I look at it is, on one hand, I feel like they should make products to the highest quality if they can so that the consumer has to spend less money and that less is wasted, but at the same time if it leads to the company going bankrupt, what of the workers and their families? So I can’t decide, what do you think?

I hear all this uproar all the time about people who use cultural appropriation, yet sometimes I just don’t see what the problem is. I get that it has been done for malicious intent before and I’m not defending that or suggesting I agree with doing it for such purposes, but is, for example, a chef cooking a certain dish that originates from a land that is not his own, or other examples, really worth the same uproar?