Your Most Ethically Questionable View

[Moral Orel]

I think personal income should be taxed at 100% over, let's say, a hundred grand. No one needs or deserves to be rich. The wealthy have a hoarding disorder and they give us nothing but social inequality. Surplus income is put to better use in education, infrastructure, health care, and scientific research. On this point my conscience doesn't feel queasy one little bit.

I saw a guy who ran a company that paid all of his employees $75k a year because he found studies that said that's what it takes to be comfortable. Anything beyond that doesn't really bring extra happiness, but having less than that produces a lot of stress.

 

[Nithavela]

I think that the whole of humanity should be eradicated as quickly and painfully as possible.

While I don't think this is really questionable, it is an understandably unpopular view.

 

[zephcom]

I see where you're coming from, but I think politicians do have a personal stake in the fight. Getting re-elected, promises made to political donors, allies abroad...these things matter to them.

However, when it comes to military recruits...parents proud of their hero children...how many would volunteer/be proud if we told them "we're sending your kids off to kill everyone, military, insurgent, and any civilians who get in the way."?

Perhaps those things can be considered personal because they matter to them, but, at least in my mind, they pale in comparison to seeing one's child returned to you in a flag covered box or worse having them return with a shattered and mutilated body or a mind suffering from PTSD.

If a politician isn't willing to put his/her own children on the line for the nation, I see no reason why anyone would do the same.

 

[zephcom]

I saw a guy who ran a company that paid all of his employees $75k a year because he found studies that said that's what it takes to be comfortable. Anything beyond that doesn't really bring extra happiness, but having less than that produces a lot of stress.

As I recall the studies increasing salaries had a direct effect on happiness up to that point. Beyond that point the increase of happiness dropped off very quickly. That point will change based on inflation and deflation. I think the point of the study is to show how very little income it takes to flood people with happiness and satisfaction.

It isn't having a million dollars or multiple millions of dollars. It is only the level of income which is sufficient to provide one's family with security, safety and the ability to provide a college education for one's children.

Much of America's social unrest would disappear if that level of family income was available to everyone...IMMHO anyway.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Perhaps those things can be considered personal because they matter to them, but, at least in my mind, they pale in comparison to seeing one's child returned to you in a flag covered box or worse having them return with a shattered and mutilated body or a mind suffering from PTSD.

If a politician isn't willing to put his/her own children on the line for the nation, I see no reason why anyone would do the same.

Well, we used to have a system that allowed for the possibility that a politicians child could end up on the battle lines. But then collage deferments allowed some to stay out. If they did happen to miss out on that there was the National Guard, nice safe jobs behind the lines that they could get or “special” jobs that the Hollywood Elites and Elvis were able to get. I suppose you could also get bone spurs or poop your pants every day for a week before meeting with the draft board if they really wanted to stay safe.

 

[zephcom]

Well, we used to have a system that allowed for the possibility that a politicians child could end up on the battle lines. But then collage deferments allowed some to stay out. If they did happen to miss out on that there was the National Guard, nice safe jobs behind the lines that they could get or “special” jobs that the Hollywood Elites and Elvis were able to get. I suppose you could also get bone spurs or poop your pants every day for a week before meeting with the draft board if they really wanted to stay safe.

There is no doubt that America's elite require special handling and consideration if they are going to be successful in extracting as much money as possible from the masses. Having to worry about such things as getting killed in battle could cause them to make mistakes in their drive to make America the winner of our planet wide game of Monopoly.

 

[Gadarene]

Probably non/antifeminism for me.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I think if the government wants war for whatever reason, the first on the ground with guns should be all congresscritters under the age of 50 and for those older than 50, their children over the age of 18. No exceptions. They become the front line. Let them and their families suffer the horror of war. Maybe they'll think twice after the first "military action".

 

[TNF_13]

Well, I am new. But I have three views that many would consider ethically questionable, and all three will touch your nerves. Mind you, I have a bit of experience with this area, and not entirely by choice.

Politicians that ignore the facts on an issue, as presented by an expert familiar with that issue, to pass laws that put further barriers into solving that issue, should be removed from office. IE: Surrogacy, internet equality, sexual offenses, sexual education, taxes, withholding tax information while holding a public office, etc.

Mandatory reporting laws should be done away with re: child sexual abuse: Most abusers are trusted in the community, and not wanting them to get in trouble pushes both victims and abusers away from appropriate mental health help. This would also allow pedophiles (those with an attraction to children, NOT those who have abused children- they are child rapists, and there is a difference) to receive the help they need, without the fear of having their life ruined if the wrong person finds out (about their attraction). I believe mandatory reporting gets in the way of preventing sexual abuse, and also can prolong abuse where it does occur.

First-time offenders, regardless of the crime, should be given several years of probation and the appropriate treatment- quality treatment using cognitive behavioral therapy and programs to help re-integrate them into the community, and no criminal record unless they violate probation or are charged with a subsequent crime. From there on, if there are further offenses, the judge should decide the sentence, given the circumstances and the offense.

Why? I believe people who commit crimes should be treated as human, unless they prove that they are an ongoing risk to society.

And yes, I said regardless of the crime.

 

[durangodawood]

I'm really struggling to think of ethically questionable views that I hold

How do I go about this?

 

[TNF_13]

I'm really struggling to think of ethically questionable views that I hold

How do I go about this?

I just picked the ones I thought would be most controversial. Seemed like the theme for this thread, but maybe I am wrong... I AM the new guy, after all.

 

[Icewater]

Mine: I am a strong supporter of the death penalty. I think all murderers should be given the death penalty, with no last supper, and a maximum of 5 years for appeals. I think repeat rape offenders and child rapists should also be killed. Illegal slave trafficking? Kill them.

I'm interested in what you think should be the penalty for people in power who misuse that power.

Murderers, rapists, etc. do a lot of damage to a relatively small-ish number of people, but corrupt politicians and executives and such can do a low-to-moderate amount of damage to a large number of people. I think there's a strong argument to be made that they do more damage in aggregate than any murderer.

What do you think?

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm really struggling to think of ethically questionable views that I hold

How do I go about this?

Think about Louis CK's "Of course! ...but maybe" bit. That's what this thread made me think of.

 

[Apex]

I think personal income should be taxed at 100% over, let's say, a hundred grand. No one needs or deserves to be rich. The wealthy have a hoarding disorder and they give us nothing but social inequality. Surplus income is put to better use in education, infrastructure, health care, and scientific research. On this point my conscience doesn't feel queasy one little bit.

This is a horrible idea. There would be no motivation to make more than this maximum. I doubt you understand how our economy works. We need wealthy people.

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't believe in the death penalty and I am strongly pro-life, but willing to compromise on abortion in the first trimester. I like a lot of the principles of the conservative right but inevitably vote Democrat.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

I believe slavery is morally neutral - it's merely a primitive form of labor relations.

 

[Icewater]

I doubt you understand how our economy works. We need wealthy people.

Why?

 

[Strathos]

Why?

Because some people are always going to find a way to game the system to get power, wealth, and influence above others, so the best option is to make that possible for as many people as you can.

Otherwise you get a communist dictatorship.

 

[Icewater]

Because some people are always going to find a way to game the system to get power, wealth, and influence above others, so the best option is to make that possible for as many people as you can.

Otherwise you get a communist dictatorship.

I guess it depends on how you define "wealthy", but I don't see the number of people who get to be truly wealthy ever being more than a relative few. How does that protect anyone else?

 

[Apex]

Why?

Most people who are successful have worked hard to accomplish what they have. Most of the time their work greatly benefits us.

Let's say I invented a product that saves you $500 a year. I charge you $50 for it. You think this is a great price since you will be saving thousands of dollars over the next few years. After production and shipping costs, I make $10 profit off each unit. I decide to work 50 hours a week, all year, and end up selling 100,000 units nationally. I just made 1 million dollars because of my innovation and hard work. However, if the government tells me that's too much money to make and takes $900,000 of that away from me, what incentive do I have to sell more than 10,000 units each year? This product was saving others money and added value to society, but if I can cut my weekly hours down to 5 and make the same amount, why not? More time for fishing!

Society and the economy suffer when we restrict the success of others. We just need to get over the idea that we are all equal and it is unfair to have less than others. We live like kings compared to those living just 300 years ago. Why? Because we gave people the freedom and motivation to succeed.