#practical ethics

[prouvaireafterdark]

please do you have any PE headcanons about louis and lestat and claudia to share? I think we all need some right now after this new episode

Oh for SURE, here's a bunch.

Lestat was originally reluctant to adopt Claudia because he thought he'd be too much like his own father as a father and always told himself he would "break the cycle" by not having kids.

Louis on the other hand, who also had a difficult childhood with his mother's emotional abuse, sees having kids as more of a way to heal his own inner child. He feels he and Lestat can do better for Claudia in a way no one did better for them.

Ultimately, Lestat said yes not only because he loves Louis and would do anything for him, but also because he was taken in by Louis' idea that this would make them a "real family," which is something he's always yearned for.

THAT BEING SAID, once Lestat saw Claudia in Louis' arms he fell totally in love with her. That's his baby girl, goddamn it.

They adopted her from an abusive home when she was about 9 months old, so they're really the only family she's ever known.

She calls Louis "Daddy" and Lestat "Papa."

They're raising her to be bilingual in English and French. When she's old enough, Lestat wants to send her to a local French immersion school, but Louis isn't sold on that yet.

They have a division of labor when it comes to taking care of her. Louis is the one in charge of bath time and changing her diapers (Lestat does it if he must but I fear he's also the type to complain about it the whole time). Louis also reads to her all the time, especially when he puts her to bed, and gives her lots of cuddles.

Lestat is responsible for feeding her when she's not at daycare. On his nights putting her to bed, he sings to her instead of reading a story.

Lestat actually shops and cooks for the whole household, really, until Louis decided to become a vegan one day and then he was like "If you don't want to eat my food, then you cook for yourself" because you simply cannot ask a French man to cook without butter. After Louis' malnutrition-assisted accident, Lestat walked this back super hard and started cooking high iron nutrient-rich vegetarian food for him until Louis started reintroducing meat into his diet.

They also both play with Claudia. Quality time with Louis is usually more chill, like bouncing her on his knee, playing with toys, reading to her etc., whereas Lestat is like swinging her around and tossing her in the air and carrying her over his shoulder by her ankles while she giggles (which may or may not give Louis a minor heart attack every time he sees him do it). Lestat in particular enjoys playing make believe and is always in attendance at her fake tea parties, which she holds with a set of real china Lestat had imported (under supervision only, per Louis' rule, since she might hurt herself if it shatters).

Lestat went back to work at the theatre a few weeks after adopting her so Louis was her primary caretaker for those foundational first few months. Claudia loves her Papa, but the bond she shares with Louis is different because of this.

I have, like, so many more lol

[bilestat]

practical ethics chapter 10 moodboard

[the-ephemeral-ethereal]

Equality is a basic ethical principle, not an assertion of fact.

from Practical Ethics by Peter Singer

[exhaled-spirals]

Arguments for preservation based on the beauty of wilderness are sometimes treated as if they were of little weight because they are "merely aesthetic". That is a mistake. We go to great lengths to preserve the artistic treasures of earlier human civilisations. It is difficult to imagine any economic gain that we would be prepared to accept as adequate compensation for, for instance, the destruction of the paintings in the Louvre. How should we compare the aesthetic value of wilderness with that of the paintings in the Louvre? Here, perhaps, judgment does become inescapably subjective; so I shall report my own experiences. I have looked at the paintings in the Louvre, and in many of the other great galleries of Europe and the United States. I think I have a reasonable sense of appreciation of the fine arts; yet I have not had, in any museum, experiences that have filled my aesthetic senses in the way that they are filled when I walk in a natural setting and pause to survey the view from a rocky peak overlooking a forested valley, or by a stream tumbling over moss-covered boulders set amongst tall tree-ferns, growing in the shade of the forest canopy, I do not think I am alone in this; for many people, wilderness is the source of the greatest feelings of aesthetic appreciation, rising to an almost mystical intensity.

Peter Singer, Practical Ethics

[scientificphilosopher]

The circle of altruism has broadened from the family and tribe to the nation and race, and we are beginning to recognize that our obligations extend to all human beings. The process should not stop there…The only justifiable stopping place for the expansion of altruism is the point at which all whose welfare can be affected by our actions are included within the circle of altruism. This means that all beings with the capacity to feel pleasure or pain should be included; we can improve their welfare by increasing their pleasures and diminishing their pains.

Peter Singer

[principleofplenitude]

The psychiatrist Hugh Series, in a book edited by me, Jonathan Herring, and Issi Doron observes that there is a dearth of research on the views of people with dementia.[2]It seems to have been assumed that the fact of the diagnosis made it inappropriate to ask dementia patients what they thought of their own lives. But when they are asked, the results are interesting and perhaps surprising. Let’s start with some evidence that tends to support the traditional picture of dementia as a relentlessly awful disease for everyone touched by it. Aggarwal et al (2003), in a study of 27 patients with dementia and 28 relatives, that 100% of the patients described feelings of loss of independence, 56% frustration or anger, 48% sadness or depression, and 96% problems with communication. They tended to be very critical of residential homes, on the grounds that there were few activities, and choices were restricted. These criticisms weren’t universal. Two residents said that they were relatively happy. And, interestingly, comments about day care were much more positive. Which brings me to the study of Cahill et al (2004), which investigated the views of 98 dementia patients living in their own homes. Most of Cahill’s respondents reported positive feelings very often, often, or sometimes. More than 70% said that they enjoyed a good, very good, or excellent quality of life: only 15% said that their quality of life was bad. Of course the two samples are not medically comparable. The patients in residential care tended to be there precisely because they were more impaired by their dementia than those living in their own homes. But one should not necessarily conclude from this that quality of life deteriorates as the dementia progresses. Banerjee et al (2006), in a study of 101 dementia patients, 99 of whom had family carers, concluded that quality of life did not correlate with the severity of the dementia or the functional limitations resulting from the dementia. The social environment seems to be more important than the neurology.

“In praise of dementia” from Practical Ethics

[unillustratedadventures]

Bad Responses to an Accidental Harm

Suppose that you accidentally bump into someone, which causes her to fall and sustain a deep cut. There’s a lot of blood. The situation’s serious, and you’re the only one who’s in a position to help. Putting aside the question of your possible negligence, your lack of a bad intention absolves you of any wrongdoing with respect to this injury—you have not yet done anything wrong. However, you might still wrong the injured person by what you do next. E.g. to respond in any of the following ways would be to do something wrong:

A. You don’t want to get blood on you, or you’re running late to meet up with friends, so you ignore the person’s pleas for help and walk away. (Psychopathic/antisocial/narcissistic response.)

B. You feel guilty, ashamed, or embarrassed for having caused the injury. Rather than accept these feelings and deal with them by helping in any way you can, you push the bad feelings aside by ignoring the person’s pleas for help, walking away, and pretending that none of it ever happened. (Narcissistic response.)

C. You think the injury is her own fault, because she wasn’t looking where she was going. It’s not your problem. Since it’s her fault, she should have to deal with the injury on her own. After all, when has anyone ever helped you? Perhaps you even feel contempt or disgust for the injured person, for being so stupid and fragile as to fall over and be cut in the first place. With no hint of guilt, you ignore her pleas and walk away. As you do so, perhaps you also tell her to shut the fuck up, have some dignity, or quit her insufferable whinging. (Psychopathic/antisocial/ narcissistic response.)

D. You think the person’s somehow faking the injury, just to make you feel bad about yourself, or to control you or interfere with your plans in some way. You think that you’ve seen through this deception, so you ignore the person’s pleas and walk away. Perhaps you shame her or lash out at her as you do so. (Narcissistic and/or paranoid response. If the response is paranoid in a fully psychotic manner, then it might not constitute a wrong.)

E. In addition to A or B, you also threaten the person, gag and bind her, knock her unconscious, or kill her so that no one will learn of your involvement or of your subsequent refusal to help. (Psychopathic/antisocial/narcissistic response.)

F. In addition to A or B, you launch a smear campaign by spreading misinformation about the injured person, or by lying about the nature of the event, either so that no one will believe that you contributed to causing the injury, so that no one will believe that you subsequently refused to help, so that your refusal to help appears justified or understandable, or so that your overall involvement in the situation is otherwise viewed in a more favourable light. (Narcissistic response.)