[ SECRET POST #5624 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5624 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.






Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 35 secrets from Secret Submission Post #805.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Anon from above but NAYRT

I didn't think too much about it until your comment about Steve B being horribly screwed over, but the idea of Steve "insist[ing] that his alt-self remain in the ice, so that whatever threats this version of the earth's future faces, a version of him will be there to help" seems more like something Hydra!Steve would do. I don't think Steve would treat anyone, even another him, as a resource or commodity to be literally put on ice until useful. The idea kinda makes me sick to my stomach.

[(Anonymous)]

It is literally an ethically neutral thing to do. I just-- Huh. I don't where you're coming from on this at all.

[(Anonymous)]

I have a degree in philosophy and wrote my thesis on ethics. It's absolute not. It's a morally reprehensible thing to do. The Steve of the present is NOT the Steve of the past, anymore than the you of now is the same you in elementary school. You have different goals and desires and make different choices. Steve does not get to choose anything for anyone other than himself. To treat a different him as a resource to be used is morally bankrupt.

[(Anonymous)]

I have a degree in philosophy.

You too? Cool! As someone who has a degree in philosophy, I'm a little taken aback that you're out here insisting there is one right way to evaluate the ethical implications of this hypothetical scenario. I was too hasty when I stated that it is, for a fact, ethically neutral. That's not the only valid way of evaluating the situation. But neither is yours, and I think you know that.

[(Anonymous)]

I have to wonder about your implicit assumption of identity persistence. It assumes a whole lot of baggage along with it, including determinism, personhood, consent and then clashes very strikingly with continuity. I have no idea how you would square that circle other than saying you like it that way.

Philosophy is not a field of just opinions to be defended. There are answers to moral questions and we've basically all agreed since Kant that people are ends in and of themselves, not means. You don't treat people like things.