Tumgik
#ethical dilemma
Text
Captain Marvel Adopts Superboy AU
TW: Angst and a little violence
Imagine an angst fanfiction where the Justice League is put into an impossible situation where Superboy has to die in order to save the whole universe. Everyone is arguing about the ethics and what they should do. Dad Captain Marvel™ is absolutely against sacrificing Superboy or anyone but Superman thinks it's a necessary evil to save everything in the universe!
Superman talking to the league: All of creation is about to be wiped from the world! Do you know how many lives wouldn't have happened, how many people wouldn't have lived!
Superman: Connor isn't more important than the whole universe! 
Captain Marvel furious turning Superman around and sucker punching him in the face:
HE IS TO ME!!!
94 notes · View notes
Text
Consider this version of the Trolley Problem.
48 notes · View notes
shisasan · 1 year
Text
I would appreciate your opinion: Should I continue posting excerpts from the authors even after finding they were actually terrible people and had led horrible lives? 
127 notes · View notes
aziraphales-library · 11 months
Note
Hello wonderful people! I was wondering if the mods or anyone knows any AU fics where Aziraphale is Crowley’s therapist? Or vice versa? I looked in the therapy tag but those all seemed to be about them seeing a third party. I want the messed up “Oh no, I’m in love with my therapist/Oh no, I’m in love with my patient” scenario. I know it’s a problematic trope but I still find it fun! Thank you for any recs related to this!
Hi! I can only find a couple of therapist/patient fics, but I also have a few fics which deal with other kinds of professional/client relationships. You may also want to check out our #sex work tag, as these fics often explore the ethics behind these kinds of relationships.
Do Not Disturb by AppleSeeds (M)
Crowley decides to see a therapist, but the appointment doesn't go ahead as planned after he recognises a particular notification sound emanating from Dr Fell's phone.
DEFINITELY Do Not Disturb by IneffableToreshi (E)
A spicy follow-up to "Do Not Disturb" by Appleseeds
Crowley has just discovered that the guy he's been chatting up on Grindr is actually his new therapist. As it turns out Dr Fell may not be up for accepting him as a client after all, but it might be for the best. <3
How Two Hands Touch by thefoxandtherose (T)
Aziraphale didn't believe in reiki, or healing energies, or crystals, despite the thinly veiled implications and upsell offerings of this particular spa. But he believed in love. He believed in loving the people around him, and he believed in channeling that care into his work. --- Crowley seeks out a new massage therapist when his old injury starts giving him hell.
Lost and Found by Quefish (E)
Dr Anthony J Crowley is nearing the end of his shift when a patient with an unfortunate issue comes in for help.
The Pillow Fort by Kalimyre (E)
Chronically touch-starved, Crowley decides to try one of those "professional cuddling" places. Aziraphale volunteers there for reasons of his own. Crowley gets attached far too quickly, but it's not as one-sided as he thinks.
- Mod D
55 notes · View notes
gallium-spoon · 13 days
Text
My OC is having a moral dilemma and I have some ideas for how I want the story to play out, but I'm curious what people think is the moral option. So, Imagine you are a psychic with the ability to see through time. You receive a vision that you and a person you recently met are going to start dating at some point.
The question: is it more ethical to tell them about your vision so you aren't hiding information from them, or is it more ethical to keep it to yourself so they don't feel pressured?
More context: psychic powers are known about so you don't have to worry about sounding crazy. This person is attractive so you would have been open to dating them even without the vision, but you don't know them well yet. Unfortunately despite your attempts you are unable to get a vision of their response if you do tell them, future vision be like that sometimes
9 notes · View notes
pratchettquotes · 1 year
Text
"What's a little blood, for the good of the community? Of course Verence will have to be demoted a little but, let's face it, the man is rather more of a clerk than a king. And...our friends may find us grateful. What is the point of resisting?"
"Are vampires ever grateful?"
"We can learn."
"You're just saying that in exchange for not actually being evil you'll simply be bad, is that it?"
Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
84 notes · View notes
carpediembitchess · 6 months
Text
the taste of metal still on my lips like traces of your forbidden smile if none of this was real i impose upon you tell me, darling would you destroy everything, everything in the world for me? for i destroyed myself, darling for that nostalgic taste of steel and if this love was artifical all along the paperclip problem cannot riddle you senseless can it, my darling machine?
8 notes · View notes
yikesmcdykes · 11 months
Note
Having children is inherently unethical
I wouldn't say it's inherently unethical, but rather consequently unethical due to things that humans have caused and things that are coming to light at this point in time. It is a particularly bad time to have children right now, so I want to agree with you, but that may not be the case in the future.
9 notes · View notes
nopizzaaftermidnight · 3 months
Text
Tumblr media
2 notes · View notes
Text
You guys know ethical dilemmas, right? Like the trolley problem? Lemme kick it up a notch by providing an altered version of it.
Optimus was given the trolley problem in a way. He had to choose between letting Megatron activate the Omega Lock, which would damn Earth, or destroy it, which would damn Cybertron. He chose to destroy it. Was he right for this?
14 notes · View notes
robot-horde · 1 year
Text
Not that anyone will see this, but as an artist myself I am against AI art. Not because it’s not “real” art. I believe it is real art. But because it draws from other artists work in an unethical way and profits from it.
I believe the users of AI art are not artists but curators. They have a good eye, but they are not doing the work. Instead they are selecting the most desirable properties. Which is valuable in its own right. But to me, if anyone in AI art is the artist, it’s the programmers that developed a program capable of producing these works.
I do think AI art harms artists, much like I believe NFTs do. The technology is fascinating and wonderful, but it harms creatives in a society that does not value their work or effort or thoughts.
I’m sure my thoughts and opinions will change over time, but for now, I believe it is a great tool, but should not be used for profit. Much like a digital collage made by an artist using stolen (not fair use or purchased images) should not be sold for profit. It undermines the original creators.
10 notes · View notes
omelas-simulator · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media
5 notes · View notes
whitehorsevale · 1 year
Text
You may think sandwiches are good, but consider this ethical dilemma: what if a mad scientist strapped you to a gurney and force-fed one to you
9 notes · View notes
Text
Should we be able to seperate the art from the artist?
Isn't that the best way to enjoy art
But isn't art a part of the artist's soul
Could their black soul bleed though the blue paint, the black letters, the big words,the small words?
At what point will we stop?
Should we seperate the crime from the criminal?
4 notes · View notes
adhdmother · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media
6 notes · View notes
clovisarchives · 1 year
Text
Is She a Friend of Dorothy's?: Archived Queer Photos and Ethical Usage
Let's quickly talk about ethical usage of unidentified subjects in archived queer media, primarily photographs.
The primary question is, when an institution is presented with a collection of historical photos that depict seemingly queer individuals performing queerness in times/places where presenting as queer is illegal or could result in harm, such as the 1970s civil rights era, & the subjects of the photos are not identified, is it ethical to use those materials to promote a collection or the institution?
Reasonings as to not: At first glance people may not consider the impact of the materials' usage. The subject isn't identified, so what could the ramifications be? Well that's part of why this is an ethical grey area. In America the 1970s and 80s was an age of civil rights movements, including such organizations as the Gay Liberation Front and ACT UP!. These activists fought for equality but where faced with many obstacle such as homophobia, racism, and transphobia. Outing someone could result in prison, physical harm, death, and/or the loss of their jobs and families. With that in mind, while photos of this era are miracles that deserve to be celebrated as they are acts of queerness as rebellion for freedom, not all subjects of these photos where consenting or wanted to be photographed. Many where not rebels who wanted their lives or actions to be radicalized, they merely wanted to exist. To celebrate themselves through expressing their natural identity. Thus presenting these photos can be seen as an act to disrupt the wishes of these people, another action to violate their rights to exist although retroactive. Which is why this question is not a legal question but an ethical one.
This ideology does not bar the photos from being held in the collection or being available via request or searches. It is still part of the collection and queer history, but with the ethical issue presented I believe it would be unethical to use these photos as promotional material. The exception to this would be that: a) the institution has exhausted research methods to identify the subject and b) a reasonable amount of time has passed in which the likelihood of the subject being identified is mute.
Let me know your thoughts and ideas below or in my asks!
4 notes · View notes