Staying in the news loop...

Where do you get the bulk of your news?  If multiple outlets, give percentage breakdown.
How much do you "trust" your source(s)?  What source(s) do you "distrust" the most?

Some examples to choose from:

• FB
• Twitter
• Newspaper
• Magazines
• Cable TV
• Network TV
• Friends
• Late nite shows
• Podcasts
• Talk radio
• Other

Thanks for posting and recommending.

Moral Utilitarianism: Good, Evil or Context-Sensitive?

To destroy a man there should certainly be some better reason than mere dislike to his taste, let that dislike be ever so strong. -- Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) arguing against persecution of homosexuals


On the NPR program Hidden Brain program, host Shankar Vedantam looks into a moral mindset called utilitarianism. The program, Justifying The Means: What It Means To Treat All Suffering Equally, is a 55 minute broadcast segment. Vedantam interviews the Australian philosopher Peter Singer, who is now the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the Princeton University Center for Human Values.


Long story short, the utilitarian Singer believes that applying cold utilitarianism (logic and math, not personal qualms, applied to more happiness or less suffering) to difficult situations is more moral than other moral ideologies. Part of his logic is that our minds are biased and do flawed thinking and that isn't a rational basis from which to evaluate morality or moral choices. He believes that there are situations where some deeply immoral acts justify greater ends. An example that Singer cites gets right to the point. Is it moral for a person to torture a young, innocent child to a painful death if it leads to a world where all children are treated well and live healthy childhoods forever after? Singer says it is, but he cannot say that he would be able to bring himself to be the torturer.

In essence, what Singer believes is that moral thinking should consider what will most reduce suffering among the most, while increasing happiness the most for the most. Singer argues that the ends can justifying the means if one treats all suffering equally. He extends that to treatment of animals, which led him to morph into a vegetarian. But if one sets any concern for plants or non-human animals aside and just focuses on humans, is it moral to harm or kill one or two to save some or millions of others?

This line of logic arguably falls apart when doing something bad to one or a few would help one or the same number of people. What Singer points out is that humans have an innate tendency to avoid killing one innocent to save many others.

Some have called Singer a moral monster. Is he?

Philosophical questions

https://conversationstartersworld.com/philosophical-questions/

 I know very few, if any, will read from this link because it is exhaustive and comprehensive, and I am only posting the link for the curious and as a reference point AND to ask a simple question.

This simple question is this one:

At what point do we stop thinking in broader terms, decide to live within our comfort zones, and accept what we have been taught and/or what we believe to be true and leave it at that?

I find as I grow older, I am like most human beings, I have made up my mind about certain things and don't want to know MORE or consider alternative ideas.

And I really don't want to contemplate "Philosophical questions", the nature of existence or the universe or the nature of "man" (or humankind to be political correct).

On the other hand some of the thoughts presented in the above link DO make me wonder or ponder, so I might consider some the questions posed, but only to a limit.

Others immerse themselves into Philosophical questions, and are successful in better understanding the human condition and the larger picture of life and existence, while others end up philosophizing themselves into circles and are no better off for all their contemplations than if they didn't bother with so much contemplation.

Thirst for knowledge and expanding your mind vs comfort and acceptance?

Personally I find that distinction FAR TOO SIMPLE, it may simple come down to how we are wired.

SO back to my question:

At what point do we stop thinking in broader terms, decide to live within our comfort zones, and accept what we have been taught and/or what we believe to be true and leave it at that?

Interesting question to ponder...

In your opinion:

-Does politics trump religion, or does religion trump politics?

-How much are they a reflection of each other?

Make your contorted ("all depends") case(s). 😉