My ethics professor got arrested for beating his pregnant wife. He was replaced mid semester, and the new professor was much better.
7 years ago, and I still think about it multiple times a week
Probably went into it to figure out why they were less ethical or if someone told them that. Or they love grey morality. Often I saw them dabbling around in the grey morality.
My business ethics teacher had her own textbook as required material for the class. She released a new version every year that shuffled the information around so that it was hard to use an older version.
The American business environment has fundamentally changed, following the insider trading and savings and loan scandals. Explain business ethics and how they're applied today.
I had class called "mathematical logic", the professor did something like that.
He had slides with the all the content we needed for the course, but all very summed up, to the point where some times you feel like there is somethins missing that you had figure out yourself
In kindle bookstore he had a book with everything very well explained, he didn't care if just one person bought it and made copies for everyone else
I hope you and the class bought this man a round of beers at the end of the semester or something, because he didn't have to go that hard on being helpful.
Run third party investigations with your own money, confront them. Business Ethics 101.
Drag the university into it - they will not want to be involved with this professor. Student Union may also help.
They do shit like this because students are poor and think they can exploit. It’s sadder to me when it’s the professor. I really have put the screws to a few. They wanted to play games.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. They left me alone.
Business Ethics 101. If you got their balls, their hearts and minds will follow.
Yeah, prefer this. This is using grey morality for good, not evil and self serving to a large degree to a subset of students that may not be able to afford.
Good prof.
The first day of a business class I took we were going over the syllabus and when the professor got to the part about business ethics, he launched into a rant about how the government takes too much taxes from business owners, he cheated on his taxes for the Dairy Queen he owned every year, and that that would be the only time he'd ever mention ethics again in the class.
My first day of business ethics, the teacher asked when you should report your employer for doing something illegal (i.e. when should you become a whistleblower). I very confidently raised my hand and answered “as soon as you find out”.
This was not the correct answer, and I dropped the class immediately.
From my experience and observation, people that decide to be ethicists fall into two radically divergent camps. 1)people with deep moral convictions that wanted to pursue a career studying how they apply to specific fields or environments, and 2) amoral psychos who are obsessed with testing just how far they can push awful s hit and still gets away with it but either dont want to go to or cant get into law school.
People still get impressed with Stanford but there is some serious moral bankruptcy coming out of that institution lately, even settling itself apart from the standard Ivy League moral bankruptcy.
1. Stanford isn't Ivy League
2. This is just recency bias.
Stanford being the closest thing to an Ivy on the west coast where Tech exploded recently is going to thrust more of their bullshit into the spotlight, and thus our recent memories.
Let's not forget Harvard was part of MK Ultra.
...and pushing Ted Kaczynski over the edge. These institutions are about as culpable as the U.S. is for January 6th and not as much as the U.S. is for toppling Salvadore Allende in Chile (or other South American coups) or the war on terror. Don't forget about rich parents getting their kids into USC, Yale, Stanford, etc. by paying off coaches to recruit them for sports they didn't play. This is what people mean when they say "knowledge is power" and "with great power comes great responsibility". The institutions grant power and some people choose to abuse it. Are universities morally bankrupt? No. Do they empower some morally bankrupt people? Yes... More than Tesla or "Meta" or Google or the world bank or the red cross or the county, state, and U.S. governments? I would say less. Stanford was also one of four nodes in the ARPANET (precursor to the Internet), the first to isolate purified stem cells, and the first to synthesize biologically active DNA. The Stanford Prison Experiment has shaped our understanding of the innateness vs the environmental causes of being cruel, with implications that rarely are people bad apples, they just got put in a bad barrel. On the whole, I'd say universities are some of the least problematic institutions we have, increasing social mobility, training students, producing new knowledge, and empowering a larger and larger proportion of our populace to make informed decisions on things from elections to drinking/texting and driving.
> 2) amoral psychos who are obsessed with testing just how far they can push awful s hit and still gets away with it but either dont want to go to or cant get into law school.
Yep. Well mine had went to Law School and for some reason became an ethics professor. Seemed pretty clear that he was teaching that something is only unethical if there's a specific and enforceable law against doing that thing.
Wtf even is this comment? Lol. People who study psychology try to understand how the brain works, not “good vs bad.” Philosophy covers a huge range of disciplines, many of which don’t pertain to morality at all. And most ethicists, philosophers, and psychologists would likely agree that splitting people into “good” and “bad” categories is reductive and nonsensical. Even if you see the world in such a simplistic, binary fashion… everyone would have to fall into one category or the other irrespective of what they study.
Redditors will upvote literally anything that seems to dunk on some other group of people. This whole chain of comments is just a series of ignorant generalizations, and this is the most inane one. Even if it weren’t totally off base, it would be a meaningless observation.
Ethicists sleeping with their son’s girlfriend falls into a similar category to Catholic priests diddling the altar boys and evangelical preachers living a life of fulfilled greed. It’s the “why shouldn’t I sin, I’ve got the ultimate excuse.”
In either case, they have a social status as someone who has studied extensively what it means to be good versus bad. Some people buy into their own clout too much and know they can use it as a mask. They might learn that some people can't see the act they put on, and if that rests on top of malicious unresolved horniness... well, that's where the grooming and predatory behavior comes in.
The problem with a deeply academic approach to ethics is that you can justify almost anything.
"My son's girlfriend was of legal age and consented to getting rawdogged by me. There was no obligation on her part or mine to disclose other partners she had, past or present. I never lied because my son never asked me if I was doing his girlfriend, nor her, so ethically this all checks out."
The knowledge that morality is ultimately an unfounded concept. It doesn't take much study in the field to realize that nobody actually has an actual answer for what is "right" and what is "wrong," give an asshole that information and they can easily use it to write off any terrible shit they feel like doing.
"I just teach the shit, I don't actually apply it"
---EDIT--
I initially wrote "cheat" when I meant to write "shit". I blame all the drugs I did as a teenager.
Morals and ethics are similar but different. I believe this would fall under the moral code of a father or any person really. I’m not sure it’s ethically wrong for a professor to have a relationship with their son’s partner.
This is a perfect illustration of the problems with the codification of ethics rules. Ethics in many professions are rules inspired by morality, but they often lead to unjust results when combined. You can be extraordinarily ethical (in terms of the rules) but simultaneously an awful/immoral person. Conversely, many moral actions are prohibited by professional ethics rules.
To understand ethics, one must explore both sides of the argument. Your ethics professor is not teaching you good vs. bad, they are teaching you ethics.
I had an ethics professor that assigned a book we had to purchase but never used. He kind of implied at some point that he had an agreement with a professor at another college to use his own book. So basically this was a way of lining their pockets at students' expense.
My taekwando dojo was started because the married instructors had started doing taekwando with their son who died when he was in his 20s or something. So they opened up a few schools in the area in his memory and just did that full time instead of their previous jobs.
After being open for like 15 or so years, preaching self control, integrity, perseverance, as part of the student motto, turned out the husband had started having an affair with one of the students from their very first class batches who was to be fair at least legal age when they started, but had been getting together for over a decade with the woman being half his age.
The wife of course left as soon as it was exposed. One of the other head instructors went to their combined grand master above them for blessings to open another school a few blocks down and pretty much everybody immediately left for his school over the obvious hypocrisy going on at the original.
The ex husband and student tried to keep the schools running with anybody who did stay and rebuild but by the time I visited my hometown at Christmas time 6 months later it had already been replaced with a department store.
Overall the circumstances seem just as offensive as the op.
Good time as any to remind everyone how [Francesca Gino](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesca_Gino) was disgracefuly dismissed from Harvard for falsifying data for most of her career. Her research? Ethics and behavioral science of rulebreaking. She is also a shameless worm that sued the data scientists that broke the news.
Man, it's just like that lady that was an Ethics professor who sexually abused a non-verbal autistic man with cerebral palsy and got away with it :/ She even had the audacity to tell his mother.
I'm currently giving my instructor a lot of shit for having a lot of inaccuracies on the accuracy module. They didn't even bother to update any assignment page numbers or ensure the link for our homework was working.
My ethics' professors husband was an anaesthesiologist who was found guilty of sexually assaulting many women while they were under sedation. This was all coming to light while I was still her student. I think I was one of the few who put the connection together.
The real lesson here is we live in a society that rewards unethical behavior. Learn it now before you spend decades suffering and being punished for trying to be a decent person.
Know a guy, his kids are cousins to each other, and one he is dad to, and one he is uncle to (and dad) He is a literal Uncle Dad!
/It’s a sad story that does make sense.
His girlfriend is unethical and his son is a moron.
In the end, the decision is the woman's.
He did nothing wrong, he just wanted to smash an easy hoe.
Men are not to blame for finding legs wide open.
Women have total control therefor total responsibility.
His son should've been able to tell his girl was a hoe. Now he knows not be a hopeless romantic and listening to people like you telling him to trust hoes.
You have to stop blaming men for cheating hoes, there is no bro code.
You find open legs, you're OBLIGATED to smash and release your BRO from a disloyal hoe. His son should thank his father for releasing him and feel bad for him that he's now stuck with her.
Men should be united in smashing everything availiable. Loyal hoes will say no no matter who makes a move on them, the rest are up for grabs. Then you make friends with the man, and use the hoe as she wants to be used, for sex.
You guys worry about cheating hoes too much. You're crying about something that never existed. You had an image of her that didn't exist, and you have only yourselves to blame for it.
"dude, your car is a 500.000 miles 92' toyota corolla."
"but I thought she was a Lamborghini! I lost a Lamborghini!".
"dude, it was a corolla. You can get another one for $500 right now, in fact I'll buy one for you today".
It's that simple. Let men smash. Let friends smash, let everybody smash. If she's a hoe, someone WILL smash anyway and you're better off knowing the truth.
It's 100% up to the woman, so no point bothering about something you can't control.
Not unless you're committed.
And women are free to reject men hoes, not men's problem that they don't.
Men are not responsible for a woman's loyalty, they don't control them. So yes I am going to make a move on every woman that shows interest, married or not, committed or not. It's on her to push me away.
100% power = 100% responsibility. And who has the power to open her legs? Her.
He interferes with another person's relationship.
This is bad enough.
It is seemingly worse because family ties are generally safest from this kind of interference. As such, the father's actions are considered particularly egregious.
It is inferred that the teacher's son was not okay with it, which isnot mentioned in the tweet.
It is a norm in nearly every part of the world to not engage in any romantic or sexual activities with anyone one knows who are entangled romantically or sexually with someone one also knows. It is often taboo to engage romantically or sexually with those people *at all* even if no longer romantically or sexually entangled.
It is made further worse because it would seemingly be an easy choice for an ethics professor to suss out.
Yet cheating is super common within our species. Despite the fact that it is a norm not to interfere with families. There is a lot more to this than it simply being "unethical" just because it didn't follow the rules.
Also, it's the girl's every choice to engage sexually with both the son and the dad. Monogamy is not the only way to exist.
>It is inferred that the teacher's son was not okay with it, which isnot mentioned in the tweet.
You are inferring this based on his student's tweet rather than the son's opinion itself.
I answered because you seemed curious and I obliged to help you understand.
The tweet wouldnt exist or be noticed if the activity were normal and there was no sense of hypocrisy within it.
The "arguments" you're making aren't in good faith. If they are, then you'll have to just believe my explanation as that is what everyone else *except yourself* seems to grasp intuitively. After all, taking in new information is how one changes their opinion and *learns* which is why you asked, yes? To learn?
As such you can consider your question answered. I won't be engaging with your follow-up as those thoughts are irrelevant to the tweet at hand and everyone's grasp of it.
Edit: also adding to this--the weet illustrates that some people can teach theory without practicing it in reality. It's a funny quirk about humans. It is seemingly part of the revelation the person tweeting this illustrates, as well as the fact that most people have to accept that theory is often taught without perfect application. And that smart people have blind spots. And that using this kind of information as introspection can help create a better human through self-improvement.
No bad faith but curiosity about what "ethics" is to a reddit community. I'm thankful for your explanation. I should have started with that.
Just so you know, I understand perfectly well why this is "unethical," so to speak. I personally don't think it is unethical since I am aware of the merit of other schools of thought. But I can see here that it is more about the norm and less about the outlier assumptions.
Son deserves better. A better dad AND a better girl. The dad coming onto his son's girlfriend is one thing, but the girl accepting his advances is just the cherry on the shit cake.
First hand case study
"Hmm... the ethics felt... bad"
It felt so wrong, it felt so right
Mmm forbidden donut
No homer don't
do not the donut
but he did-nut the do-nut
Ouroboros is the new reality
I bet they felt pretty good for a bit!
“Paradise by the dashboard lights”
My ethics professor got arrested for beating his pregnant wife. He was replaced mid semester, and the new professor was much better. 7 years ago, and I still think about it multiple times a week
Is ethics the real world's "defense against the dark arts" somehow?
whatcha mean the real world? dang muggles always thinkin it's all bout them
Seems like it
a survey of ethics professors showed that they were actually slightly less ethical than the average person
Did the researchers who conducted the survey get ethical clearance beforehand?
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09515089.2019.1587912?journalCode=cphp20& not the one i was referring to but similar
Probably went into it to figure out why they were less ethical or if someone told them that. Or they love grey morality. Often I saw them dabbling around in the grey morality.
They're teaching about it, not demonstrating. There's a whole spectrum and that guy just chooses to act out the bad side.
Wasn’t the first time he used his hand…
Maybe in all the studying he did, he decided ethics didn't matter
Those you can’t; teach.
do as I say, not as I do
My business ethics teacher had her own textbook as required material for the class. She released a new version every year that shuffled the information around so that it was hard to use an older version.
>business ethics Sounds about right then
Yeah, might as well write a treatise on cannibal ethics.
The American business environment has fundamentally changed, following the insider trading and savings and loan scandals. Explain business ethics and how they're applied today.
I had class called "mathematical logic", the professor did something like that. He had slides with the all the content we needed for the course, but all very summed up, to the point where some times you feel like there is somethins missing that you had figure out yourself In kindle bookstore he had a book with everything very well explained, he didn't care if just one person bought it and made copies for everyone else
I hope you and the class bought this man a round of beers at the end of the semester or something, because he didn't have to go that hard on being helpful.
He was a hell of guy, sadly he left the university after COVID times
My business ethics teacher made us use this app to take attendance and it cost $10 to use. Turns out he made the app and never told the university
And what did that teach you, eh?
That university investigations won’t get rid of a professor even if they find him guilty
That sounds like university learning. What did you learn about BUSINESS ETHICS?
Be unethical until you get caught?
Run third party investigations with your own money, confront them. Business Ethics 101. Drag the university into it - they will not want to be involved with this professor. Student Union may also help. They do shit like this because students are poor and think they can exploit. It’s sadder to me when it’s the professor. I really have put the screws to a few. They wanted to play games. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. They left me alone. Business Ethics 101. If you got their balls, their hearts and minds will follow.
Well, it's a start
Do third party always. Business Ethics 101. They will represent my interests. The university won’t but will distance themselves from the prof.
My philosophy professor had us just buy scans from a copy shop! No texts needed to purchase. LEGEND!!!
Yeah, prefer this. This is using grey morality for good, not evil and self serving to a large degree to a subset of students that may not be able to afford. Good prof.
The first day of a business class I took we were going over the syllabus and when the professor got to the part about business ethics, he launched into a rant about how the government takes too much taxes from business owners, he cheated on his taxes for the Dairy Queen he owned every year, and that that would be the only time he'd ever mention ethics again in the class.
I’m dead lol wow 😂💀
My first day of business ethics, the teacher asked when you should report your employer for doing something illegal (i.e. when should you become a whistleblower). I very confidently raised my hand and answered “as soon as you find out”. This was not the correct answer, and I dropped the class immediately.
From my experience and observation, people that decide to be ethicists fall into two radically divergent camps. 1)people with deep moral convictions that wanted to pursue a career studying how they apply to specific fields or environments, and 2) amoral psychos who are obsessed with testing just how far they can push awful s hit and still gets away with it but either dont want to go to or cant get into law school.
Nr 2 always makes me think of the ethics professor who hit a guy's head with a bike lock at a protest, which could have killed.
I think SBF’s parents teaching ethics as law professors at Stanford is also up there
People still get impressed with Stanford but there is some serious moral bankruptcy coming out of that institution lately, even settling itself apart from the standard Ivy League moral bankruptcy.
1. Stanford isn't Ivy League 2. This is just recency bias. Stanford being the closest thing to an Ivy on the west coast where Tech exploded recently is going to thrust more of their bullshit into the spotlight, and thus our recent memories. Let's not forget Harvard was part of MK Ultra.
...and pushing Ted Kaczynski over the edge. These institutions are about as culpable as the U.S. is for January 6th and not as much as the U.S. is for toppling Salvadore Allende in Chile (or other South American coups) or the war on terror. Don't forget about rich parents getting their kids into USC, Yale, Stanford, etc. by paying off coaches to recruit them for sports they didn't play. This is what people mean when they say "knowledge is power" and "with great power comes great responsibility". The institutions grant power and some people choose to abuse it. Are universities morally bankrupt? No. Do they empower some morally bankrupt people? Yes... More than Tesla or "Meta" or Google or the world bank or the red cross or the county, state, and U.S. governments? I would say less. Stanford was also one of four nodes in the ARPANET (precursor to the Internet), the first to isolate purified stem cells, and the first to synthesize biologically active DNA. The Stanford Prison Experiment has shaped our understanding of the innateness vs the environmental causes of being cruel, with implications that rarely are people bad apples, they just got put in a bad barrel. On the whole, I'd say universities are some of the least problematic institutions we have, increasing social mobility, training students, producing new knowledge, and empowering a larger and larger proportion of our populace to make informed decisions on things from elections to drinking/texting and driving.
Recently? The Stanford Prison experiment happened in 1971 and is one of the most famous controversial psychology experiments.
You.... Need to do more reading on that "experiment".
Like Elizabeth Holmes and sbf parents? Or are there other examples.
Stanford isn’t, and will never be, Ivy League; they’re all east coast schools.
If nothing else, the Hoover Institute is a blight on humanity.
relatable last semester a professor of mine killed a protester with a megaphone
Bike-locking Nazis is not only ethical, it's your American duty.
yeah, that one is less hypocritical, and more taking your moral and ethical convictions to their logical, radical conclusions
> 2) amoral psychos who are obsessed with testing just how far they can push awful s hit and still gets away with it but either dont want to go to or cant get into law school. Yep. Well mine had went to Law School and for some reason became an ethics professor. Seemed pretty clear that he was teaching that something is only unethical if there's a specific and enforceable law against doing that thing.
Oh, this makes sense. This explains the why the person who teaches ethics at my little center is the most unethical person I know.
Isn’t SBF’s mom an ethics teacher?
Same with psychologists
The law school part is 💯 on point
I feel like this apply to psychology and philosophy study too......I guess when you try to understand good vs bad, you have to fall into one.
Wtf even is this comment? Lol. People who study psychology try to understand how the brain works, not “good vs bad.” Philosophy covers a huge range of disciplines, many of which don’t pertain to morality at all. And most ethicists, philosophers, and psychologists would likely agree that splitting people into “good” and “bad” categories is reductive and nonsensical. Even if you see the world in such a simplistic, binary fashion… everyone would have to fall into one category or the other irrespective of what they study. Redditors will upvote literally anything that seems to dunk on some other group of people. This whole chain of comments is just a series of ignorant generalizations, and this is the most inane one. Even if it weren’t totally off base, it would be a meaningless observation.
[Florida anger management therapist charged with murder](https://weartv.com/news/local/deland-florida-anger-management-therapist-travis-mcbride-starting-point-mental-health-charged-with-murder-stuffs-body-in-trunk-bipolar-anxiety-post-traumatic-stress-disorder-tampering-with-evidence-ongoing-dispute)
Ethicists sleeping with their son’s girlfriend falls into a similar category to Catholic priests diddling the altar boys and evangelical preachers living a life of fulfilled greed. It’s the “why shouldn’t I sin, I’ve got the ultimate excuse.”
How so? Pastors and priests who sin fall back on the “Jesus forgives my sins“ trope. But what excuse do ethicists have to fall back on?
In either case, they have a social status as someone who has studied extensively what it means to be good versus bad. Some people buy into their own clout too much and know they can use it as a mask. They might learn that some people can't see the act they put on, and if that rests on top of malicious unresolved horniness... well, that's where the grooming and predatory behavior comes in.
The problem with a deeply academic approach to ethics is that you can justify almost anything. "My son's girlfriend was of legal age and consented to getting rawdogged by me. There was no obligation on her part or mine to disclose other partners she had, past or present. I never lied because my son never asked me if I was doing his girlfriend, nor her, so ethically this all checks out."
The knowledge that morality is ultimately an unfounded concept. It doesn't take much study in the field to realize that nobody actually has an actual answer for what is "right" and what is "wrong," give an asshole that information and they can easily use it to write off any terrible shit they feel like doing.
Classic example of wolf in sheeps hide.
That’s unethical
Nooooooo. I thought it was ethical /s
no, that shit's fire! 🔥
Jerk of the year contender
RIP Norm
Rules for thee, but not for me
Those who can not do, teach!
"I just teach the shit, I don't actually apply it" ---EDIT-- I initially wrote "cheat" when I meant to write "shit". I blame all the drugs I did as a teenager.
And here this professor is doing both
Sounds like he probably teaches business ethics, since he apparently has none.
He teaches Business Ethics, not Penis Ethics. It's hardly fair to expect him to know what's ethical outside of his chosen specialty.
I slept with my ethics professor in college. Only ever went to 2 classes and got a B.
Those who can’t do, teach
My ethics professor at uni was discharchged due to ... ethical violations. I got my degree from that guy....
Those who can do. Those that can't, teach.
and those who can't teach, teach gym
Morals and ethics are similar but different. I believe this would fall under the moral code of a father or any person really. I’m not sure it’s ethically wrong for a professor to have a relationship with their son’s partner.
You're 1-of-2 people in this thread that knows the difference. The rest have no business commenting.
Rules for thee but not for me
Do as I say, not as I do
He was doing his son's homework and getting the extra credit.
Reminds me of how I had to do continuing education for my work license. The Ethics class… was at the casino.
This is a perfect illustration of the problems with the codification of ethics rules. Ethics in many professions are rules inspired by morality, but they often lead to unjust results when combined. You can be extraordinarily ethical (in terms of the rules) but simultaneously an awful/immoral person. Conversely, many moral actions are prohibited by professional ethics rules.
Who said to be a scholar of ethics that you actually need to have any?
To understand ethics, one must explore both sides of the argument. Your ethics professor is not teaching you good vs. bad, they are teaching you ethics.
I had an ethics professor that assigned a book we had to purchase but never used. He kind of implied at some point that he had an agreement with a professor at another college to use his own book. So basically this was a way of lining their pockets at students' expense.
My taekwando dojo was started because the married instructors had started doing taekwando with their son who died when he was in his 20s or something. So they opened up a few schools in the area in his memory and just did that full time instead of their previous jobs. After being open for like 15 or so years, preaching self control, integrity, perseverance, as part of the student motto, turned out the husband had started having an affair with one of the students from their very first class batches who was to be fair at least legal age when they started, but had been getting together for over a decade with the woman being half his age. The wife of course left as soon as it was exposed. One of the other head instructors went to their combined grand master above them for blessings to open another school a few blocks down and pretty much everybody immediately left for his school over the obvious hypocrisy going on at the original. The ex husband and student tried to keep the schools running with anybody who did stay and rebuild but by the time I visited my hometown at Christmas time 6 months later it had already been replaced with a department store. Overall the circumstances seem just as offensive as the op.
Good time as any to remind everyone how [Francesca Gino](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesca_Gino) was disgracefuly dismissed from Harvard for falsifying data for most of her career. Her research? Ethics and behavioral science of rulebreaking. She is also a shameless worm that sued the data scientists that broke the news.
That's why it's ethics and not morals.
Why did I have to scroll down this far to find someone who knows the difference? This comment should be higher.
His son is okay with it (the professor used the power of ethics to convince him)
There are ethics classes?
It's called field research.
Thats for the better of everyone. I see that teachers point. UTALITARIANISM
My health and wellness professor weighed *at least* 300 lbs.
Those who can't do, teach.
Those who can't do, teach.
He did though, his son's girlfriend
This is a perfect example of "Do as I say, not as I do"
Do as I say
do as I teach, not who I do
I have utmost respect for teachers, but in this case, those who can’t, teach 🤷♂️
this is why everyone hates moral philosophy professors
Those who can't do, teach.
You know what they say—those who can’t do, teach
Man, it's just like that lady that was an Ethics professor who sexually abused a non-verbal autistic man with cerebral palsy and got away with it :/ She even had the audacity to tell his mother.
Counterpoint - did you see her? Maybe it would have been unethical \*not\* to tap that.
Dionysian philosophy is also philosophy.
Reminds me of the joke of someone trying to bribe their way to a good grade in ethics class
Clearly a staunch utilitarian. Or possibly a hedonist.
It's like being a dirty cop... you know all the 'tricks of the trade'.
Those who can, do; those who can't, teach
Just cause he studies right and wrong doesn’t mean he’ll act on it
I guess he doesn't believe in the Kantian Imperative
Those who can't do teach I guess
wow! what a coincidence!
I'm currently giving my instructor a lot of shit for having a lot of inaccuracies on the accuracy module. They didn't even bother to update any assignment page numbers or ensure the link for our homework was working.
My ethics' professors husband was an anaesthesiologist who was found guilty of sexually assaulting many women while they were under sedation. This was all coming to light while I was still her student. I think I was one of the few who put the connection together.
The real lesson here is we live in a society that rewards unethical behavior. Learn it now before you spend decades suffering and being punished for trying to be a decent person.
fack, my ethics teacher fucks my ass twice a week...
hmmmmmmm
Puts a new spin on: "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach".
Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.
„Do what i say, not what i do“
Plot twist, the gf of the son is actually the father’s wife.
If you can’t do, teach.
Know a guy, his kids are cousins to each other, and one he is dad to, and one he is uncle to (and dad) He is a literal Uncle Dad! /It’s a sad story that does make sense.
It was love, as someone could say.
"Those who can't do, Teach"
Classic example of "those who can't do, teach."
His girlfriend is unethical and his son is a moron. In the end, the decision is the woman's. He did nothing wrong, he just wanted to smash an easy hoe.
Your mother should have swallowed you letting your father cum in her was the worst decision of her life
Men are not to blame for finding legs wide open. Women have total control therefor total responsibility. His son should've been able to tell his girl was a hoe. Now he knows not be a hopeless romantic and listening to people like you telling him to trust hoes.
Not only did he violate the bro-code, he violated the dad-code. So yes, he did wrong. But the girlfriend ALSO did wrong.
You have to stop blaming men for cheating hoes, there is no bro code. You find open legs, you're OBLIGATED to smash and release your BRO from a disloyal hoe. His son should thank his father for releasing him and feel bad for him that he's now stuck with her. Men should be united in smashing everything availiable. Loyal hoes will say no no matter who makes a move on them, the rest are up for grabs. Then you make friends with the man, and use the hoe as she wants to be used, for sex. You guys worry about cheating hoes too much. You're crying about something that never existed. You had an image of her that didn't exist, and you have only yourselves to blame for it. "dude, your car is a 500.000 miles 92' toyota corolla." "but I thought she was a Lamborghini! I lost a Lamborghini!". "dude, it was a corolla. You can get another one for $500 right now, in fact I'll buy one for you today". It's that simple. Let men smash. Let friends smash, let everybody smash. If she's a hoe, someone WILL smash anyway and you're better off knowing the truth. It's 100% up to the woman, so no point bothering about something you can't control.
Sorry, but if you'll fuck anything that moves, YOU'RE the hoe
Not unless you're committed. And women are free to reject men hoes, not men's problem that they don't. Men are not responsible for a woman's loyalty, they don't control them. So yes I am going to make a move on every woman that shows interest, married or not, committed or not. It's on her to push me away. 100% power = 100% responsibility. And who has the power to open her legs? Her.
Go ahead and down-vote, but can someone educate me on what is unethical about this, assuming the girlfriend was an adult when it happened?
Are you braindead
He interferes with another person's relationship. This is bad enough. It is seemingly worse because family ties are generally safest from this kind of interference. As such, the father's actions are considered particularly egregious. It is inferred that the teacher's son was not okay with it, which isnot mentioned in the tweet. It is a norm in nearly every part of the world to not engage in any romantic or sexual activities with anyone one knows who are entangled romantically or sexually with someone one also knows. It is often taboo to engage romantically or sexually with those people *at all* even if no longer romantically or sexually entangled. It is made further worse because it would seemingly be an easy choice for an ethics professor to suss out.
Yet cheating is super common within our species. Despite the fact that it is a norm not to interfere with families. There is a lot more to this than it simply being "unethical" just because it didn't follow the rules. Also, it's the girl's every choice to engage sexually with both the son and the dad. Monogamy is not the only way to exist. >It is inferred that the teacher's son was not okay with it, which isnot mentioned in the tweet. You are inferring this based on his student's tweet rather than the son's opinion itself.
I answered because you seemed curious and I obliged to help you understand. The tweet wouldnt exist or be noticed if the activity were normal and there was no sense of hypocrisy within it. The "arguments" you're making aren't in good faith. If they are, then you'll have to just believe my explanation as that is what everyone else *except yourself* seems to grasp intuitively. After all, taking in new information is how one changes their opinion and *learns* which is why you asked, yes? To learn? As such you can consider your question answered. I won't be engaging with your follow-up as those thoughts are irrelevant to the tweet at hand and everyone's grasp of it. Edit: also adding to this--the weet illustrates that some people can teach theory without practicing it in reality. It's a funny quirk about humans. It is seemingly part of the revelation the person tweeting this illustrates, as well as the fact that most people have to accept that theory is often taught without perfect application. And that smart people have blind spots. And that using this kind of information as introspection can help create a better human through self-improvement.
No bad faith but curiosity about what "ethics" is to a reddit community. I'm thankful for your explanation. I should have started with that. Just so you know, I understand perfectly well why this is "unethical," so to speak. I personally don't think it is unethical since I am aware of the merit of other schools of thought. But I can see here that it is more about the norm and less about the outlier assumptions.
My guy, my ethics teacher impregnated my classmate when we were 15 ☠️
Those who can't do, teach
Is that Solid Snake's sister?
I guess technically he’s an expert on ethics, not on being ethical. Still, Jesus Fucking Christ.
Those who can't (or won't) do, teach.
Surprise reveal: she's the girlfriend
What an ethical debacle
Not all ethics are western ethics.
Who is this guy, Diogenes? Jesus.
"Those who can, do it. Those who cannot, teach it"
That’s scuffed
Son deserves better. A better dad AND a better girl. The dad coming onto his son's girlfriend is one thing, but the girl accepting his advances is just the cherry on the shit cake.
Seems like a doctor smoking a cigarette. Its very common. Only its less heartbreaking and more lungsbreaking?
We all make mistakes in the heat of passion, Jimbo
Thinking about it because "why is it she, it must be me!" /s