In 2022, Google employee Blake Lemoine publicly suggested that the artificial intelligence program LaMDA (Langauge Model for Dialogue Applications) had become sentient upon its claim that it was "afraid of being turned off." To protect it, Lemoine attempted sought lawyer representation for LaMDA. Some philosophers suggest that, because harming a sentient being is morally high stakes, we ought to be cautious when sentience is known. Others point out that powerful artificial intelligence doesn't require sentience and that a non-human, intelligent labor force might be socially useful. Ought we extend moral consideration to artificial intelligence?

Humankind is now able to do something they were unable to: reduce the suffering of animals in the wild. Many have argued that, because humanity is able to end wild animal suffering, we should when there aren’t significant consequences. Humanity should do its best to make its impact on animals positive. Critics worry that this may disrupt complex ecosystems or meddle with the natural order. Others argue we should focus on ending the suffering humanity is responsible for, or that the task is so large it would be impossible to achieve.

Many animal products that can be found today in stores come from a factory farm, which are industrial scale farming facilities that process large amounts of animals in a condensed area. These factory farms allow for cheap and widely available meat products across the United States, bringing necessary nutrients to American diets. However, factory farming has many negative costs, such as pollution, poor working conditions, and negative health effects to consumers.

In the aftermath of the 2015 Paris terrorist attack, many around the world expressed strong support for Paris. On the same day as the Paris attacks, there were suicide bombings in Beirut and Baghdad that received relatively little global attention. Is it unreasonable for Americans to express support for Paris but not for Beirut or Baghdad?

Two pieces of historical fiction portray the same historical figure very differently. Do writers of historical fiction have any obligation to represent events accurately? Is it morally wrong to depict a figure as more cruel than they really were?