1.

Are clothes a matter of pure aesthetic taste, or does it make sense for clothes to become a subject
in the discussion of ethics? Why? How about other forms of adornment such as tattoos and piercings?

OK, first and foremost, clothing is for protection: from cold, from heat, from wind, from the elements.

Clothing is also worn for modesty. I think it was Desmond Morris who said it’s impossible for one
unclothed human to approach another without performing a genital display… not always appropriate.

Clothing also presents an opportunity for aesthetic expression. Every culture does this; even those in
extremely hot places who wear a minimum of clothing add beads, paint or feathers just for their beauty.
We in the U.S. do the same with the color or fit of our clothes.

Now, ethics may or may not be addressed in one’s clothes. In Western culture, clothing becomes an
ethical problem more often when clothing is not worn, as we have certain taboos about nudity.

But, I think the author of the question is concerned about written messages on T-shirts or tattoos. These
can certainly be unethical when designed to deliberately offend. For example, a baseball cap with
“MAGA” on it is a statement of political affiliation; stating one’s political stance is not an offense. A T-
shirt that has “F… you, you F...ing F…” is deliberately offensive.

If you’re actively looking for it, it’s possible to find nearly any form of clothing unethical. For instance,
there are people who object to silk so strongly that they will destroy a silk shirt even when it’s being
worn*; because worms are killed during silk’s manufacture they find it unethical to wear silk.

Now, if this individual is offended by the silk shirt, that is his individual problem. But, if he attacks the
person in the shirt with the object of ruining it, that results in a new issue: who is behaving unethically,
the guy in the shirt, or the guy ripping the shirt up? The same thing happens more often with fur.
Example: would-be attacker(s) leave home with cans of spray paint in anticipation of finding a vicim; a
woman wearing fox fur is going to the eye doctor. Who’s guilty of unethical behavior, the woman
wearing fox, or the person(s) who spray her coat with paint? It seems clear enough to me, but there are
people who would find this a hard choice.

And, that is the soul of the problem: we, at least in the U.S., do not all practice the same ethics. That
gives us plenty of chances for our ethics to clash. This problem is made even more extreme when, as
now, everyone’s ethics are considered equally valid (and, this has not always been the case). How does
one decide who is behaving ethically, and who is not?

It’s a question I can’t answer, as I am not fit to decide on behalf of the entire country.

But, it would be an improvement if everyone was a bit more cognizant of how his actions impacted
others.

2. Is looking at all the benefits of your own family in all other aspects considered another form of
egoism?
In some ways it can be a form of egoism. Say for instance you have two brothers. Brother A is married,
has kids, a mortgage, and works his ass off 12 hours 7 days a week. The other brother is single, has a
part time job or puts in only 40 hours a week plus either still lives at home or rents a modest apartment.
At family holiday gatherings brother A makes it habit of putting down brother B in front of everyone at
the dinner table by saying along the lines of: “ I swear you’re the laziest son of a bitch I’ve ever seen in
my life! When the hell are you going get some ambition?! Look what I have from working so hard. You
have nothing! You should be ashamed of yourself! You can’t go on living like this forever! I’m ashamed
to acknowledge you as my brother! There’s times I believe you were left on Mom and Dad’s doorstep as
an orphan. You can’t be related to me!” All this to attempt to tear down someone else’s self esteem in
order to make themselves look good in front of others.

It depends on the reason why the person is doing it. Unless you uncover what the person or your true
self is, you can't really be sure if it's just out of caring or just to feed your Ego.

Ego or egoism (if I remeber) in latin as “I” is considered to act according to its self-interest even if the act
is good in nature.

7. When is it justifiable to torture a suspected criminal?

Never.

Torture does not produce “truth”. It produces the results the torturer wants to hear. And that’s before
considering the possibility that the “suspected” criminal isn’t the “actual” criminal and doesn’t even
have the information the torturer wants.

It’s easy to defeat. Let’s go with one of the classic arguments: you have a suspect whom you believe
kidnapped a child and left them in a place with a limited oxygen supply. Do you torture them to get the
information to save the child? If their intent is to kill the child, all they have to do is give you convincing
but wrong information — perhaps sending you to a location miles away from the actual one, maybe
someplace he’d prepared in advance for just this scenario — and by the time you’ve figured out it’s
wrong the child is dead. Those “ticking clock” scenarios are the easiest ones for the bad guys to defeat
for exactly this reason.

We don’t torture not because of who the victims are, but because of who we are. The good guys in the
movies wear white hats, but it’s not the hats that make them the good guys. It’s what they do. If we
torture, how are we different from the criminal who tortures and kills his victim?

8. Is it justifiable to build a basketball court because there are basketball fans than to build a hospital
because there are fewer sick people?

A basketball court can cost a few “Thousand “dollars a basketball stadium could cost millions then again
so could a hospital.

In a perfect world you could build both basketball court for a neighborhood it’s a good activity it
promotes health helps relieve stress and keeps young people active also and a hospital.
Playing basketball can help you reduce your weight and make you healthier building a hospital is
important because it also promotes health hospitals can treat people who would otherwise die. Which
seems more important in the long run.

If as stated you only have enough money to build one build a hospital and make sure it’s accessible to
everyone in the community who needs it. The situation changes there might be a few people who are
sick at the moment but in a pandemic it is possible that there could be more sick people than basketball
fans.

Building a basketball stadium however is different professional sports is a business so is medicine in

many countries however watching basketball at a professional level it’s not going to save your life it
make enjoyable if people have past time that is just sitting around watching a basketball game but it is
not going to give you any physical activity.

If Michael Jordan magic Johnson or Kobe Bryant was on the court and playing that would be a whole
different story Micheal Jordan others inspired to people take up the game. Still it is a business that
should not be funded by taxpayer dollars.

Utilitarianism I believe means that one thing should be chosen over another if it gives the amount of joy
to the most people. In which case one could argue that “we “ all should stop eating broccoli and only eat
ice cream.

Other answer

Just because there are fewer sick people at this point in time, that doesn’t mean there won’t be sick,
injured or elderly people in need of a hospital tomorrow, or the day after.

Personally, too much emphasis is placed on sports, and the glorification of athletes. I never
understood the appeal of paying to watch, what are in essence, millionaires running around the field,
chasing a ball, or bouncing one.

It’s time to admire, and prioritize front line workers instead, who risks their lives every day, caring for
the sick, injured and infected among us. These individuals spend countless years in school, and in
training, but are rarely appreciated, or respected, and they never garner the ridiculous salaries that
athletes are paid.

9. Are there other forms of harm, short of killing another person that may be taken as a violation of
the natural inclination to pressure one's being?

Any action that causes deep trauma to a person may negatively affect their ability to function for many
years. PTSD is famous for this, and it is possible to get PTSD from actions in “normal life” that take place
over a lengthy period of time.
This could be seen “as a violation of the natural inclination to preserve one’s being,” because it
interferes with the individual’s ability of “preserve” their “status quo” way of life.

Many serious crimes, which I will not name, can have this consequence.

3. Imagine that you are a legislator .What rules or laws that currently prohibit certain acts or practices
would you want to amend or repeal?

The question doesn’t state what laws I would write or add, fortunately. I personally believe that over the
past 100+ years, we’ve legislated ourselves into a briar patch of useless and restrictive laws and
regulations, which serve no purpose, other than to hamstring individual freedom and personal growth.

There are so many, that listing them all would be an enormous task, requiring months of writing,
however I can sum up a few key areas…

Health Care - Any law that restricts the freedom of a person to obtain or reject health care from a
provider of their own choice should be abolished in all 50 states.

Penalties and Interest - All Federal, State and Local governments must repeal statutes and regulations,
which impose excessive penalties and compounded interest for payments to the government. Excessive
would be anything in excess of 10% of the original fee.

Graduated Taxes - The complex graduated tax system would be eliminated in favor of a simple 10% flat
tax, without any exemptions or exceptions.

Subsidies - Eliminate all government subsidies in private industry, including agriculture and energy
production.

Self Defense - Eliminate the thousands of conflicting requirements and restrictions for firearm
ownership, carriage and use. Eliminate all individual state and local laws regarding firearms in favor of
one simple Federal standard. This would be to interpret the 2nd Amendment simply and literally, as
written. All legal adults (all non-felons 18 and over) may keep AND bear arms, including while crossing
state lines, traveling, in their homes and on their person. Same thing with complex and convoluted knife
laws.

Marriage - The U.S. government should not be in the “business” of sanctioning, encouraging,
discouraging or facilitating marriage. No more government-issued marriage licenses, license fees, tax
advantages or wasted court time over marriage issues. Marriage is a cultural tradition that should be
conducted as the parties see fit.

Transportation - Individual state-to-state automobile standards for things like equipment, emission
controls and driver laws should be standardized at the federal level. Any requirements shouldn’t
become a financial burden on the individuals or families using their car.

Standardized Ages - Ages for things like drinking, smoking, driving, sex or firearm purchases should be
standard across state lines, to prevent conflicts when an individual travels across the country.
Property Taxes - These should remain fixed, as long as the current owner retains the property. They
should only be reassessed when the property is sold or transferred.

International Assistance - All international aid or assistance to another nation must be in response to a
bonafide disaster or emergency.

International Trade - Eliminate NAFTA.

Energy Policy - Allow the market to determine what form of energy to sell and use. No government
subsidies to drive one form of energy usage over another.

Illegal Immigration - Build the wall and guard the southern border.

Legal Immigration - Simplify and streamline the difficult, lengthy and expensive immigration policy. If
people want to sneak in and work under the table, kick them out. If they come here to find work, pay
their fair share and contribute to society, then make it easy for them to do so.

Affirmative Action - Eliminate any race or gender based discrimination in employment, education or
housing by NOT giving special preferences to anyone, because of their skin color or sex.

Education - National minimum standards for quality education should be implemented, replacing any
varying local and state standards. Home schooling and private institutions qualify as long as they meet
the samee minimum standard.

Welfare - Welfare reductions of 10% every month, to provide incentive to recipients to find work and
support themselves.

Those are just a few ideas I’ve had about government reduction and intrusion in our lives…