Author: eewhite

When saving your roommate’s life is FINALLY the “right” decision.

Should I give my dying grandpa pain medicine even though he said he didn’t want it?

TL;DR: A grandfather had stated to his family members previously in his life that he does not want any pain medication if he happens to need it when he is old. As of now, the grandfather is an old man who is suffering from memory loss and tons of pain due to an illness. Although the grandfather had told his family members not to give him pain medication, the time has come as to whether or not he is going to receive some. The family members are worrying about whether or not to give the grandfather the pain medication.

Mill’s answer would be clear in this situation: the family should give the grandpa the pain medication. Being a subjective consequentialist, Mill asserts that a good action is one that brings “the greatest amount of happiness altogether” (189). In this situation, we can assess the happiness in each scenario–if the family gives the grandpa the pain killers, and if they choose not to. If the family did not give the grandpa medicine, the grandpa would still be in pain and this would have repercussive effects on the family and their happiness. The grandpa being in more pain would only increase the stress and discontentment of the family, as well as the doctors who help the grandpa. The grandpa complaining less and being more calm would benefit everyone. The painkillers would increase the grandpa’s current happiness, increase the happiness of the family, and increase the happiness of any doctors helping the grandpa. Some would argue that the grandpa’s happiness would be less because he specifically mentioned not wanting pain killers in the past. But, the grandpa is already losing his memory and currently would be happier if the medication was administered. If the family is still hesitant about the grandpa’s wishes, they could ask him in the state that he is right now about painkillers. Even if the grandpa replies that he does not want medication, the family should still consent to him having it because it would increase their happiness and the happiness of the doctors. Additionally, because Mill defines happiness as “intended pleasure, and the absence of pain”, technically the grandpa’s happiness would be greater, though he does not want the medication (186). Medication would remove pain and increase pleasure in the case of the grandpa, so his opinion on the matter would not be important according to Mill. Overall, Mill would say that the family should give the grandpa pain medication, even if he does not want it.

Should I lie to a murderer at my door to save my roommate’s life?

TL;DR: Two roommates live in a house. Roommate one is in their room and relaxing. Roommate two is in the TV room by the front door. Roommate two hears a knock on the door and to his surprise it is a murderer asking whether or not roommate one is at the house. Roommate two has an opportunity to lie as to the whereabouts of where roommate one is, or he can tell the truth and ultimately end up allowing the murderer to kill roommate one and probably himself (Because no witnesses). Should roommate two lie to save his roommate’s life? 

As Mill represents the subjective consequentialist, concerned with outcomes, and unlike Kant who focuses on the lie, Mill would remain much more focused on the murder about to take place. Essentially, for Mill this becomes a question of saving the most amount of lives because this is connected to happiness; if I lie to the murderer, he/she might kill me as well as my roommate while if I lie, saying my roommates not home, the murderer may leave and we both survive. In this case, Mill would clearly side with lying to immediately protect these individuals’ happiness. As he represents the subjective consequentialist, it’s important to consider the murderers perspective. While the context and motivation for the murder may vary, for this murderer, killing the roommate is bringing them a sort of happiness at the expense of another’s life. While Mozi, the objective consequentialist, maintains ethical standards of contributing to the population or poor, Mill believes the morally right choice is that that produces the overall happiest result to benefit the maximum number of people. Murdering even one person is not producing the happiest outcome for the most number of people. For the above scenario because Mill is the subjective consequentialist and is therefore concerned with the outcomes of the action, Mill would advise the action that brings the greatest subjective happiness to the greatest number of people. Mill represents utilitarianism:


“The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness  Principle, holds that actions are right in  proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure”

Mill 186

Given this quote, it is apparent that Mill would advise the action that promotes happiness and absence of pain. Therefore if roommate #2 lies and says that roommate #1 is not home and this causes the murderer to leave, then both roommates are happy but the murderer is not. If roommate #2 tells the truth and the murderer then comes inside and kills roommate #1 (and possibly #2 as well for being a witness) then both roommates are dead and this is not beneficial to them and only the murderer is happy because this action was only beneficial for the murderer. Therefore, Mill would advise roommate #1 to lie in order to maximize the overall happiness of everyone involved.

To Pay or Not To Pay… That is the Question

Coffee+Brownies=Mad Father… But can I do it anyways?

TL;DR: This individual is concerned about whether or not she is an a-hole for baking brownies with coffee in it because her father does not like coffee in them. She has gotten into baking since Covid started and has become very interested in the subject. Her father asks her to remove the coffee but she is adamant that it is up to her as to what goes into the brownies. Her father eats the brownies nonetheless, even though there is coffee in it and still complains to her. She is wondering if she is the a-hole for not adding coffee even though her fathers hates coffee, yet he eats it anyways.

In the above scenario, the brownies were made for the individual and not for the individual’s father but the father was upset that there was coffee as an ingredient of the brownies and yet he ate the brownies knowing that there was coffee in them. The individual wants to know if they are an asshole for including coffee in their personal celebratory brownies and based on Mozi’s philosophy we have decided to assess the consequences of this action rather than the intent. There are two possible options that could occur: the individual includes coffee in their brownies or they do not. The consequences for keeping the coffee in the brownies yield 3 happy family members who eat the brownies, and 1 unhappy family member that still eats the brownies. The consequences for removing the coffee from the brownies results in 2 family members that eat the brownies but do not enjoy them as much as if they had coffee, 1 very happy family member who eats the majority of the brownies leaving fewer and less tasty brownies for the rest, and 1 very unhappy family member who dislikes having their recipe altered and having their father eat all of their brownies. It is clear that the less desirable result for the majority occurs when the coffee is removed so by removing the coffee, the individual would be acting partially toward their father. Mozi condemns partiality,


“The business of a benevolent person is to promote what is beneficial to the world and eliminate what is harmful”

Mozi 68

Relating to Mozi’s quote, in order to bring the most benefit and eliminate the most harm, the individual must consider the above mentioned consequences and consider what would bring the most good to the majority of the family. From this, we can conclude that because the individual in the scenario discovered this recipe prior to this instance, and when they first added coffee all 4 individuals in the household enjoyed the brownies and ate them but only the father got upset about the ingredient. Because the father still eats the brownies regardless of whether they contain coffee or not, by adding coffee the individual is bringing joy to 4 people. If the individual had not included coffee, they personally would have been upset and enjoyed the brownies less and given that the mother and brother prefer cooking with added ingredients, it is likely that they would also enjoy the brownies less. Therefore, although the coffee ingredient angers their father, the coffee is still bringing joy to the most number of people. Therefore it would not be treating everyone impartially to take away an ingredient that the majority prefers just to satisfy the minority. Similarly, the brownies in question were made for the individual only but the father still ate 3 of them willingly and knowing that they contained coffee. We do not consider the individual to be the asshole.

Do I have a moral obligation to pay medical bills for someone I hit with my car even though I was not at fault?

TL;DR: This individual was driving home from work on a 4-lane road with a 45 mph speed limit that has a divider in between the lanes. A group of teenagers were standing on the divider waiting to cross once the traffic lights changed. The traffic lights did not change and a teenager decided to walk right in front of the car. The driver slammed on the breaks but could not swerve due to other cars driving right next to her. She ended up hitting the teenager and he ended up with injuries but survived. The teenager knowingly walked in front of oncoming traffic without a change in traffic lights and ended up getting it. Even if the driver could have stopped in time, the other car over probably would have hit the teenager. The driver was sued by the teenagers parents and ended up being found not at fault every time. The parents of the teenager think the driver should be paying most if not all of the medical bills of the teenager, even though it was 100% the teenagers fault. The driver believes she has a moral obligation to pay at least some of the medical bills. The driver and her husband are already planning on having a child via IVF, which is expensive as it is, but the husband has a moral conflict as to whether or not they should pay the bills to the injured teenager or have their own child (via IVF). The individual is wondering whether or not she is the a-hole for not paying for the injured teenagers medical bills. 

Mozi represents objective consequentialism and is therefore only concerned with the resulting outcome. Here, Mozi would most likely tend to side with the driver as the events transpired and the consequential results do not promote moral goodness. To accomplish this, actions must promote enriching the poor, contributing to the population, or establishing order. This specific situation offers a unique perspective as the events conflict against each other in Mozi’s criteria analysis. “Looks at consequences of either action: not helping and helping. Do these consequences align with promoting enrichment of poor, increasing population, and making order,” (80). By knowingly defying the law and refusing to cross at the properly designated locations, this individual is incorrectly assessing the situation and not accounting for others in considering the consequential ramifications for their actions. After the damage has been done, it is unrealistic to expect the driver to pay for another’s mistake, although, according to Mozi, some consideration should first be examined. While paying the pedestrian’s family would satisfy Mozi’s first criteria of enriching the poor, in this specific situation where the pedestrian remains completely at fault, answering this question still remains difficult today. Assessing the second criteria does not appear to clarify the answer further as ensuring the driver pays reparations to the pedestrian would be indirectly withholding funds the driver’s family planned for their first child.


“If people regarded other people’s families in the same way that they regarded their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself”

Mozi 69

Here, a quick glance at a role-reversal scenario illustrates how indirectly taking money planned for the birth of a child is most likely interpreted by each party in the same manner, it is unreasonable to expect. The last criteria is the tie-breaking vote; by paying the reparations, the driver may accumulate negative affect and emotions towards having to pay large sums of money to someone who foolishly made a very dangerous decision that put both themselves and the driver in harm’s way. In this way, the driver’s family loses money, meaning they potentially may not be able to afford the procedure to give them a child, or must wait again to save enough to complete the procedure later on only increasing the likelihood of complications with the woman’s increasing age.

In addition, while the pedestrian’s family shouldn’t be punished for his mistakes, having the innocent driver pay prevents any learning to occur. While unjust, the decision the pedestrian made should be paid by that individual alone yet, seeing as medical expenses divert to the family, while unfortunate, owning up to the consequences of parenting and decision making should be kept to the side at fault. The animosity experienced by the pedestrian’s family is not comparable to the disorder caused by an innocent family having to sacrifice their hard-earned money to pay for the damage of a mistake made by a young adult.

Considering both situations where the driver does or does not pay in accordance with Mozi’s criteria does not give one concrete morally correct answer but does reason the better choice, all things considered. If the driver does not pay reparations, according to the criteria set by Mozi, it would be most morally logical that the pedestrian’s family pay alone, ensuring the pedestrian heals properly, with some financial burden as the consequence for their actions while the driver’s family can continue to plan to have the procedure done and start a family, effectively contributing to the population and increasing order in society. 

What To Do About My Terribly Dysfunctional Family

WIBTA for not apologizing to smothering in-laws?

TL;DR: This woman is having her first child with her husband. The husband’s parents have never really paid them any attention until they found out that their son and daughter in-law were going to have a child. So, the parents began involving themselves into much of their kids’ lives; Often giving their opinion about decisions that are not theirs to make and imposing themselves upon their kids’ lives. It has gotten to the point that both the husband and wife have told the parents to back off, yet they do not and continue to impose their wishes and opinions on the lives of their kids. One day, the newly pregnant wife was minding her own business and the parents showed up and began berating the wife. She couldn’t take it any more and lost her temper, blowing up on the parents and telling them that they are not welcome around her, her family, and her house. The parents ended up leaving hesitantly and other family members from the husband’s family are demanding an apology from the wife. The husband thinks that she should not apologize and the wife is wondering if she is an a-hole for not apologizing. 

In the above scenario, both the wife and the smothering in-laws have both failed to treat each other respectfully. The wife shouted for the in-laws to leave and the in-laws called the wife an “ungrateful bitch” and were trying to control the wife’s entire pregnancy. While both are in the wrong, our advice for the wife stems from Buss’ moral philosophy based on mutual respect and treating others with dignity. Buss writes, “to treat someone ‘with respect’ is to treat her in a way that acknowledges her intrinsic value, or ‘dignity.’ This is a value she has no matter what her deeds and accomplishments may be; it is tied to what she is, not to what she has done” (797).

Though the husband’s parents acted in ways that irritate the wife, Buss advises that the wife should still treat them with dignity and respect because they still have intrinsic value, even though she might think their actions do not. The in-laws certainly treated the wife without dignity, but the wife’s response should be to apologize. When the wife snapped back at the in-laws she failed to acknowledge their dignity in that moment. It is for this reason that regardless of what the in-laws had done, and whether or not it was justified, the wife should apologize. Similarly for the in-laws, regardless of the wife’s actions, they too need to apologize. Our advice is to then have a calm discussion with the in-laws in which the wife apologizes for her yelling, and then facilitates a discussion about her and her husband’s needs and how they alone should make the decisions about their child in order to prevent future situations like this.

AITA for refusing to hug my cheating mum?

TL;DR: This individual found out that her mother was cheating on her dad with another man that she had met through a mutual friend. The mother has been sending explicit messages and photos back and forth with the other man without her father knowing. The individual confronted her mother and her mother promised that she would stop. Eventually the mother told the father but had omitted the truth about the types of messages being sent to the other man. A month passes and the individual finds that her mother is still sending messages, so the daughter confronts her again. The mother swears on her grandchildren that she will stop, but she does not stop. A week later, her mother asks for a hug, but the daughter cannot and has not forgiven her for manipulating her father and consistently lying, so she politely denies the hug from her mother. The mother then becomes angry and storms out of the room. The daughter doesn’t want a relationship with her cheating mother and has been informed from her father that her mother now hates her. The daughter is wondering if she is the a-hole for not wanting to hug her mother.

Buss’s main argument, in relation to Kant’s philosophy, demonstrates that morality is the result not merely of agreeableness, but in demonstrating respect and dignity for others. Just as we would want for ourselves, we too should show respect through societally agreed upon activities and events that quickly establish a mutual groundwork of human deference. Morality does not come from simply performing these actions but in genuinely conveying and meaning to show respect and caring of others, again, as we would expect for ourselves. In this particular situation, it is clear to see the mother is not respecting anyone in her family by continuing to flirt with another man. This can be seen from multiple perspectives and each view results in the same conclusion; the mother’s actions are both immoral and disrespectful to her family members as well as herself.

However, regarding the author of the post, in answering this question, “am I the asshole for not hugging my mother,” Kant and Buss would most likely agree that the daughter is also demonstrating immoral behavior. While her actions may be warranted due the mothers immoral behavior, the daughter is responsible for her own actions which she can justifiably choose, unlike her mother, to take the moral high ground. Personal emotions may prevent her from physically showing affection, withholding this affection will not solve her problems, only exacerbating them, demonstrated in the mothers tantrumatic response.

Although a less favorable path, the daughter should apologize and should try to come to a solution of talking with her mother rather than withholding affection as an incentive for her to stop cheating as this demonstrates very little respect or dignity. As Buss states, “human beings deserve to be treated with respect, that they are respectworthy, that is, that they have a dignity not shared by those whom one does not bother to treat with such deference and care” (Buss, 801). Whether or not the mother responds with moral actions is unpredictable but according to Buss and Kant, moral action dictates the daughter should own up to her mistake, openly voice her concerns, frustrations, issues with her mother, and eventually accept the mistake and person for who her mother is.

You mean I Kant act on my disagreements with others?

Are individuals justified in wishing death upon Donald Trump?

TL;DR: This person’s question is quite straightforward. They are wondering if wishing death on the person and president Donald Trump is justified. Perhaps this question must be broadened to include wishing death on any person and whether or not that is justified at all. 

According to Kant, yes, individuals may wish death upon Donald Trump because it requires no action. Consider utilization: if everyone were to simply wish death upon Donald Trump (but not actively try to kill him) there would not exist a contradiction. The world would continue to function normally. If we were to take this one step further and ask what would happen if everyone wished death upon everyone else, would there be a contradiction? Our group thinks not because this is not an action, people would not go around killing everyone. Instead, they would have private internal desires for everyone else to die. This does not mean that anyone would die, instead it would foster an individualist society in which we wish death upon others but still partake in cultural norms for our own personal benefit. Most people will choose duty over acting on these wishes and maintain a moral life anyway. Meaning, we can wish death upon others without erupting into chaos.

Kant’s definition of a maxim reveals that morals depend on action, he writes, “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become universal law” (37). He calls the reader to act with a maxim that can be universalized, but thinking about something would not qualify. Since Kant only deals with actions, individuals are justified in wishing for that death upon Donald Trump so long as they do not act on these feelings.

Can I still be friends with someone who does not believe in gay marriage?

TL;DR: This person has an acquaintance who is a part of the Latter Day Saints Church and does not believe in gay marriage. They have been friends since they were kids and now only know that their friend does not share the same beliefs they do. This person is wondering whether or not they should stay friends or not due to differing beliefs. 

For Kant, this would result in an impossible world because the maxim is contradictory, meaning that it would be immoral to do this. Kant reasons that every situation can be made into a short statement or maxim, which for this case would be ‘I will not be friends with someone if they have a different worldview than me’. After forming a maxim, Kant says that we should universalize or make it applicable to everyone. The new maxim resulting from this would be ‘Everyone should not be friends with someone if they have a different worldview’. Now, we must assess the universalized maxim and look for any conceptual contradictions.

In the context of this specific situation, Kant would advise this individual to continue being friends with his friend because this maxim is internally contradictory. This individual takes issue with the fact that their friend does not support the fundamental rights of another group of individuals. In this particular context, the outgroup here is the LGBTQ+ community but any other racial, cultural, or social group could be imaged as well for the purposes of this analysis. As previously stated, the maxim here is contradictory because if we universalize the act of unfriending someone for having negative beliefs about certain groups of people, no one would have any friends. As Kant states in a similar situation,

“The case could sometimes arise in which [an individual] needs the love and sympathetic participation of other, and where, through such a natural law arising from his own will, he would rob himself of all the hope of assistance that he wishes for himself.”

Kant, 40

If individuals become completely individualized and the maxim of not being friends with someone because of their different worldview becomes universalized, people would have very little friends. Because humans rely on other humans for “love and sympathetic participation”, this maxim is contradictory to will. Therefore, Kant would say that there is an imperfect duty for this person to keep being friends with his friend who does not believe in gay marriage.

Altruistic Extremes: British Girlfriends and Arranged Marriages Edition

The Philosophy

The Nahua’s maintain a community-based morality, where if one’s actions are rooted the community, those actions are perceived as good. Although Purcell (“Eudaimonia and Neltiliztli: Aristotle and the Aztecs on the Good Life“, 2017) never defined what a community to the Nahuas is, it seems that people must satisfactorily serve their social roles in order to be good.

“If one looks to [the Nahua’s] analysis of good and bad performance of social roles, one sees that they justify assessment by appealing to a harm or help rendered”

Purcell 2017: 15

In the Nahuas’ eyes, every person in a community has social roles that they must participate in, and the effect of a social role on other people is the measurement of its goodness or badness. So, if a person feels helped by another community member, it is perceived as a good fulfillment of a social role, while if a person feels harmed by another’s actions, this is a bad fulfillment of a social role.

Girlfriend vs. Parents

tl;dr: Do you often find yourself having to choose between your parents’ wishes and your partner’s? Tom (not real name) struggles with these things too, here is his dilemma: Tom brings over his British girlfriend for dinner, but his parents act minorly hostile during dinner and promptly rush her out of the house following the completion of the meal. When Tom talks to his parents, they only yell at him that he should not be dating her because she is a whore, tell him to break up with her, and make it clear that she is no longer welcome in their home. So, Tom must decide if he should try to make his parents accept her, or if he should just drop the matter and never bring her over again.

Based on the morality system of the Nahuas, our group decided that, while the parents need to adjust their actions, Tom should attempt to balance the worlds of being a good boyfriend and being a good son. Tom has a social obligation to both his girlfriend and his parents, so he must try to please both. Breaking up with his girlfriend would result in a bad social role fulfillment because it causes harm, while at the same time bringing the girlfriend over more often would represent a bad social role fulfillment with the parents because she is unpleasant to them. So, Tom should attempt to maintain his relationship with his girlfriend while also subtly seeking to have his parents warm up to her. While this could cause minor disappointments in both the parents and girlfriend, this harm is less than it would be if either of the other extremes (breaking up / forcing them to get to know her) were acted upon.

Fiance vs. Family

tl;dr: Have your friends ever blamed you for their marriage? If they have, this post is for you! Meet a girl (the protagonist) whose family adamantly believes in arranged marriages. The protagonist is engaged to her fiancé, whom she chose, and knows her family would hate her and be hostile to her fiancé if she were to tell them. So, she acts like she is having an arranged marriage to assuage her family. Her uncle is perhaps the most adamant about arranged marriages, and he forces his daughter into one, telling her that the protagonist is also in an arranged marriage. But, as the protagonist and her fiancé are not in an arranged marriage, she ends up telling her cousin the truth after she is married. The cousin was so mad that the protagonist was not in an arranged marriage that she refuses to talk to her and blames her for her own arranged marriage, claiming that if she had known that her cousin had chosen her husband, she would have rebelled against her uncle’s wishes and not gotten married. So, the protagonist feels horrible and does not know what to do about her cousin who is unhappily in an arranged marriage.

Applying the Nahua’s morality to this situation, it becomes clear that the girl should dump her chosen fiancé and align with her family’s wishes of arranged marriage. The girl has already performed badly in her social roles, and if she tries to maintain the lie that her fiancé is arranged, she will only hurt more people around her. Both her uncle and her cousin are harmed by her decision to not be in an arranged marriage, and once the secret gets out, her whole family will be outraged. She must try to please her family because they are her community and the majority of her social roles are with them. Therefore, she should dump her boyfriend and tell her family that she wishes to have an arranged marriage.