HarryOru

I dont think so. Why would morality inhibit progress. Stale knowledge does prevent, but morals dont really change. By morals being flexible, I mean - "Killing is very bad, except in so and so situations, you have to".

You assume that what's considered "moral" or ethical hasn't changed multiple times throughout history and that it isn't subjective. Sorry to sound pedantic, but once again, it's right in the definition of the word:

a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.

And nowhere does it say that "morals" imply any degree of immutability. There are countless examples I could make. Just as a personal example, I never particularly paid mind to the suffering of animals until I adopted a pet. I never believed getting involved in political discourse was a duty until I realized how increasingly distorted it's becoming. Many people say similar things about having children, how the experience just changes the way you see the world, your perception of what is tolerable and what is not, and ultimately your perception of "right" and "wrong": your morals.

If we as humans didn't believe that we can actually influence other people's conceptions of what's right or wrong, there would be no point to education, history, politics, philosophy, law, religion, art, literature... culture as a whole. We wouldn't have communication or civilization.

My honest opinion is that what you're truly asking here isn't whether it's okay/possible for morals to be flexible, you're asking whether it's okay to stray from what you've always perceived to be the general consensus of what is "moral" and what isn't. And my answer is still yes.

Since you used media as an example, let me use another common trope to answer. Do you know when in horror or thriller movies a character momentarily gets the upper hand on the killer by knocking them unconscious and then just tries to run away without even making sure that the killer is dead or at least arming themselves? Does that EVER end well?

The reason that trope is so common is that it's very effective at eliciting the sort of instinctive emotional response that makes us as viewers want to yell "WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING?? KILL HIM!!" at the screen.

We have that instinct for a reason.

To answer your question more directly, yes, morals ARE inherently flexible. If they weren't, we would never learn anything or progress as a society or even as individuals. I don't know where the idea that someone's morals are supposed to be immutable even comes from. One of the core steps to psychological well-being is realizing that you have no direct control over your "environment", but you absolutely have direct control over the actions you take to influence it and the way you adapt and react to it, which includes letting go of standards and expectations you've set for yourself if you feel that it's necessary.

Absolutes are not applicable in reality. You've mentioned utopias too, and well, the fun thing about utopias is that they don't exist. They can't exist. It's the literal definition of the word: "an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect." Dystopia, on the other hand, is what happens when you try to force a utopia into existence.

Morals can't be absolute. Tolerance can't be absolute. Everything is flexible and eternally changing. It's scary and it's complex but people have to come to terms with it.

I personally think that everyone should be allowed to end their lives if they really deeply want it. But this should never be expected, actively promoted or pushed for. And I think it should involve at least a consultation with a medical professional to avoid hasty decisions due to a temporary crisis.

I mean, yes, but I really don't think anyone is arguing for the opposite when talking about legal euthanasia and I find it disingenuous to even suggest it. Let's not forget that almost anyone can commit suicide regardless of it being legal or medically assisted and this has been the case and will be the case for the entirety of human history. Look at Japan and similar countries/societies where the cultural and societal pressures already have the consequences you described without it being legal.

Arguing for legal euthanasia is really just saying that people should have a safer, more informed and more dignified option if they really intend to make that decision, and guaranteeing that even the people who currently can't end their lives on their own can still exercise that right if they want to. If you want to prevent pointless suicides the right way to do it isn't to take away the possibility entirely, it's making sure that society doesn't give people reasons to want to kill themselves.

EDIT: I've just realized that I initially misread OP's question which specifically asks about "voluntary" euthanasia. The comment I'm replying to is more relevant to the original discussion than my response. Still can't shake off the feeling that speaking about something like this even purely hypothetically can only do more harm than good in current times, as it's very easy to imagine that once the concept of "voluntary euthanasia" begins floating around, people who want to argue in bad faith against legal euthanasia will just conflate the two to make the rational side look like a death cult.

The whole point he's trying to prove is that he can do something like this with no consequences, including having to apologize. He hasn't apologized and he won't.

The reason he can do that with no consequences and you're left here wondering what the fuck just happened and why the response you normally would expect isn't coming, is that the western political environment has been artificially and methodically polarized for years in preparation for a stunt like this. Cognitive dissonance is an effective tool.

I absolutely think you've hit the nail on the head in terms of his personal reasoning for it and the way the left is being manipulated as always. The terrifying part isn't even the act itself but the lack of an appropriate response from the public and media, and all the blatant gaslighting that ensued. Ultimately he doesn't need to believe he is a Nazi to make all the self-aware ones feel empowered and validated regardless. He was trying to prove a point and he did.

He did the Nazi salute twice, intentionally.

He said "my heart goes out to you" because of plausible deniability. He was giving his followers an argument to deny that he did it intentionally, both to themselves and others.

He has not directly denied it nor apologized for it.

European leaders are acknowledging it for what it is. Neo-Nazis are acknowledging it for what it is, and they loved it.

People who are sincerely on the fence about this, admitted they actually exist, need to wake the fuck up.

I know this is a joke, but as someone fluent in two languages, trust me when I tell you that translating anything Trump says effectively is borderline impossible, and that's a huge problem. It plays in his favor because people in non-english speaking parts of the world don't get to fully see how ridiculously incoherent he actually is; they only get the sanitized version of his ramblings.

Personally, it's been REALLY hard these past few years hearing and seeing the shit coming out of his mouth in its original language and at the same time not being able to at least share my worries with other people in my country without sounding crazy. It's very easy to underestimate the gravity of the situation from the other side of the world if you can't grasp how low the standards have sunk and still believe DT is just an average Republican president, and not living proof that the actual meaning of words has no value anymore.

Then simple question, why not use First Gentleman? Kamala Harris' husband was Second Gentleman and would have been first if she had won.

Going by your logic, that would be offensive to me, as a gay man.

But this kind of hypersensitivity, especially when applied regardless of context or intent, is one of the main drivers of the reactionary sentiment that is allowing the right to win elections all over the world. It's one of the reasons why the "free speech" argument has worked so well in their favor.

Currently, the only ones benefitting from this "moral high-ground" stance are fragile little baby egos like Musk and Trump who can rest assured knowing their opposition would never stoop as low as them, while they get to freely spew as much intentionally evil shit as they want.

A society where no one is ever offended by anyone is a utopia. It's as desirable as it is unattainable. I think the best thing we can do at the moment is focus on fighting back, not fighting against each other.

Missing Teen's Friends Go On Tv To Plead For Her Release, Gossip About Ugly Classmates

or

Expert Wasted Entire Life Studying Anteaters

"I waste my time in the morning and evening
Caught in a feeling
I lose my mind looking up at the ceiling
It's just a feeling, it's just a feeling..."
Part III - Crumb

"It's not meant to be a strife
It's not meant to be a struggle uphill
If you're bleeding, undo
If you're sweating, undo
If you're crying, undo"
Undo - Björk

"Past love, come back to yourself
Don't keep reaching out to him
He can't help you now
It's a past life, so come back to the time
It's been far too many nights, and you still cry"
Past Love - Kimbra

I'm not sure what you mean. Flexible OLED displays have been around for a while and foldable devices are just an example of the technology in use, but we've had them in consumer products way before that (phones with curved edge displays, for example). The potential for flexibility has always been intrinsic to OLED displays because they don't need a backlight. The reason our phones don't bend and flex like the "device" in the video isn't because of the display, but because the battery, processors, ram, speakers, ports and all other components are not flexible and won't be for a while. The device in the video does not include those, there is a ribbon cable coming out of the bottom connecting the two screens to the actual hardware.