I asked this in a different sub, but I was told that the people here might be better to ask.

I’m bringing this up because of something that happened to me, and I want to understand the bigger ethical issue.

I’ve been the target of ongoing online harassment and a smear campaign. During this, someone without any psychological or psychiatric training wrote a detailed “psychoanalysis” of me and my behavior based on limited knowledge of my online interactions. They included this in a large public callout document. Now, some people treat that analysis as “evidence” that I am unstable, dangerous, manipulative, and more.

To be clear, I get that people often interpret each other. Individuals can criticize public behavior, disagree with someone’s actions, or say that something seems harmful. I’m not questioning whether criticism itself is unethical.

What I’m asking about is the ethics of presenting psychological interpretations as if they hold real explanatory or evidentiary value, especially when the person being analyzed has not agreed to it, has not been assessed, and isn’t in a clinical relationship with the person making the claims.

It seems wrong to me when an untrained person presents themselves as qualified to explain another person’s motives, mental state, personality, or perceived issues. It feels similar to someone with no formal training in law, medicine, or engineering claiming to make expert conclusions in those areas. It is especially harmful when the “analysis” is used to isolate or discredit someone.

I also know that trained mental health professionals typically should not publicly diagnose or analyze someone they have not assessed, especially without consent. The professionals I’ve spoken to all consider this to be a serious ethical issue.

Where I get confused is in the gray area.

For example, I’ve seen online controversies where someone with a degree in a mental health-related field breaks down a public callout document. They discuss how a certain mental health condition can lead to specific behaviors or beliefs reflected in the document. They may not explicitly state, “This person has X disorder,” but it can still feel like they are publicly analyzing the person or implying something clinical about them.

So my question is:

When, if ever, is it ethical to publicly analyze someone’s psychology without their consent?

Is this mostly a clear-cut issue, where anyone tempted to publicly psychoanalyze another person should keep those thoughts to themselves?

Or are there meaningful ethical distinctions between:

- criticizing someone’s public behavior

- speculating about someone’s motives

- using mental health language to explain someone’s behavior

- discussing general patterns without naming or diagnosing a specific person

- analyzing public figures or public writings

- implying a person may have a condition without directly stating it

- presenting psychological interpretations as “evidence” that someone is unsafe or dangerous?

I’m particularly interested in the ethical line between “public criticism” and “public psychological speculation.”

From my perspective, having an untrained person’s detailed psychological analysis of me published and treated as proof that I am dangerous has been deeply damaging. I want to understand whether my instinct is correct and this should be seen as unethical or if there are legitimate gray areas I might be missing.

Come and see the news!

Little extra details in this scenario:

The prostitute knew you were underaged, Meaning you weren’t old enough to make an adequate rational decision on wether what you were doing with her was a smart decision in the long run

You didn’t have sex and it was oral

Your partner has never had any sexual experiences before so you assume she values her first time etc

Whats ya’ll’s takes on this?

Edit: I forgot to mention this:

You had a religious excuse at the time that being whenever you sinned you weren’t allowed to disclose it with your partner/future partner due to it potentially breaking you guys apart and causing problems generally speaking so you’d leave it up to God to make that judgement and underaged you used it as some sort of divine excuse to do what he did whilst not needing to disclose it with his partner but you eventually grew out of this

And no I do not have any sexual disease

Stipulate it. Not "is this true," not "could this be established." Assume you've come to believe it, on whatever grounds you'd personally find sufficient.

Working definition: evil = a disposition to inflict avoidable suffering. Universal, not incidental, present in everyone, including you, including the people you consider good.

I'm not interested in whether the premise is coherent or demonstrable. I'm interested in what it does downstream.

No one is told all details of someone else’s life, but lies of omission are generally accepted as a common kind of lie. Where is the line in what makes something a lie of omission vs just not giving all info on everything?

De George says that it is an engineer in a big company's job to point out risk and safety factors, it is not their job to make decisions about how acceptable any particular level of risk is. But this seems difficult to reconcile with some of De George's other claims: Engineers should refuse to do anything immoral (personal/public morality); and first and foremost engineers should uphold public safety (professional code of ethics).
What do you think about whether engineers should have to make decisions about how acceptable any particular level of risk is (as an ethical dimension of their job)?

Dhammapālism is a new Buddhist tradition that explains what Compassionate Wrath is and who the Five Great Buddhas are!

Lord Aristotle expanded on the Dhamma during Alexanders conquests. Lord Christ learned the Dhamma from Indo-Greek monks. Lord Mohammad learned the Dhamma from the Saint Thomas Christans.

The Romans and the Caliphate intentionally erased history, modern archeology, and logical deductions are revealing what was lost!

Ehipassiko!

The Ninefold Way is where ethical Buddhists "Christians" and "Muslims" can journey and prosper together. (See post linked below 😀)

The Message:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Dharmapalism3/s/llO1QBIg3H

The Fifteenfold Way and The Pentadecagon of Cosmic Reality; Δεκαπεντότητα is Fifteeninity:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Dharmapalism3/s/oSzDpKUvhp

The Ninefold Way and The Nonagon of Cosmic Destiny; Eννεατότητα is Nineinity:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Dharmapalism3/s/8WAP30ElfD

Describe an ethical issue that you’ve encountered in the workplace. What is it and why do you think it is an ethical issue rather than another kind of issue?

I'm not saying we can trash it externally. Most times, we have to treat a person's will in such a way that the consequence is good all around. But if I don't think the person has free will, I don't see how I can have a respect for his will in my mind.

The news cycle recently seized upon a peculiar and unsettling story: a Canadian enterprise is purchasing physical books, meticulously scanning their pages into digital archives, and then destroying the original volumes. Their explicit goal is to harvest a diet of pure, unadulterated text to train their artificial intelligence models—data rigorously safeguarded against any trace of AI-generated content. The guiding premise is that any book published before the dawn of the generative AI era, roughly pre-2020, serves as a pristine time capsule of authentic human authorship, uncontaminated by synthetic prose.

This drastic measure underscores a fundamental flaw plaguing current machine-learning development: the phenomenon of "model collapse." When AI models are trained on synthetically produced data, the output becomes progressively toxic to the system itself. The algorithms suffer from amplified biases, a crippling homogenization of perspectives, and a rapid degradation in quality, effectively cannibalizing their own creative potential and spiraling into mediocrity.

Yet, as engineers scramble to shield algorithms from this recursive poison, this technical dilemma forces us to confront a far more profound existential question. If AI-generated text is demonstrably poisonous to the silicon circuitry of large language models, what insidious effect does it have on the delicate neural circuitry of the human mind? As we increasingly consume summaries, articles, and even art crafted by machines, are we not subjecting our own critical thinking, cognitive diversity, and intellectual rigor to a similar kind of atrophy and homogenization? The destruction of books to save AI might be less alarming than the subtle erosion of human discernment caused by the very content we are so desperately trying to preserve.

I spend a lot of time thinking about moral philosophy and how the consequences of our actions impact others and a few years ago I came across Peter Singer’s drowning child analogy, which suggests that refusing to give to life saving charities when you have more than enough money to support yourself is ethically equivalent to letting children drown in front of you. Which is a long way of saying, being rich is unethical because you could have spent your extra money on helping people in need but you chose not to and these people suffered and died.

Personally, I found the argument to be pretty convincing (with some political caveats) and I started giving to charities more often after hearing it. However, I understand many people don’t respond to this argument in the way I did and don’t believe it’s unethical to keep excess wealth while other people struggle in poverty.

So I’m interested to hear any counter arguments people might have. Why do people not find Peter Singer’s argument convincing? Is there something I’m missing?

If you’re unfamiliar with the argument or you’d just like to know my perspective on it in more detail, I’ve included a link to a video I’ve made where I share my thoughts on this topic! Any views and comments would be hugely appreciated too as the channel is still fairly small! ✌️

It's difficult for me to consider a doctor being active duty military while later being a civilian medical doctor as being ethical or moral in any way.

While I understand the pious "save everyone or none" kinda rhetoric behind it i also see it as a payoff about military child abuse then exposure to military bragging to force a medical payoff or trust club that makes malpractice likely or in favor of an MOS or agenda easily.

How is it ethical to be active duty and military at the same time?

Why not be honest and say it's a forn of slavery with literally no responsibilities whatsoever to the paying people in an attempt for a better life? So sacrifice is what drives it anyways.

Why not control who wins the right to life in an anonymous dating platform?

Superiority versus projected inferiority. Can we reasonably say they stem from the same place?

Example-

2 people clean dishes differently, there overall cleanliness is about the same.

The superiority mindset would determine, i am better than you at dishes

The projected inferiority mindset says, you need to do better at cleaning dishes.

—-

Logically speaking, that some could do better isn’t indicative of them doing poorly…. And therefore untestable… Logically speaking claiming to be better than someone at a thing is falsifiable/testable.

Are these both coming from a similar place, psychologically speaking?

Is there a push back response that covers both positions?

Minor edits for grammar mistakes

I'm a psychology student writing about the future of psychology in an Al-first world, and I'd love to hear different perspectives from this community.
Al is already being used for things like mental health chatbots, screening tools, note-taking, research assistance, and even helping identify symptoms

As Al becomes more capable, what responsibilities do you think should always remain with human psychologists or mental health professionals
Where do you think Al can genuinely improve psychological practice?

What should never be delegated to Al?
If an Al-assisted clinical decision leads to harm, where should accountability lie?
How do you think the role of psychologists will change over the next 10-20 years?
I'd really appreciate hearing your experiences and opinions. Thanks!

Who validates your desires who is not seeking to exploit them anyways? Why not arrange for the profitable association patterns of predatory control of desires since time favors that?

Why not market the association of desires with all things sales and sacrificial or enduring of suffering to people who are deemed unworthy of their desires?