Geldverwaltung

**Welcome to the Women’s Columbus Bogleheads® Sub-Group** This sub-group is for **women who want to learn and discuss finances in a safe, supportive space**. For those interested in moving towards financial independence and retirement by learning investment basics, choosing your 401(k) investments, minimizing taxes, and more. We’re a local chapter of **Bogleheads®**, following a long-term, practical investment philosophy: [Investment Philosophy](https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Bogleheads%C2%AE_investment_philosophy): https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Bogleheads%C2%AE_investment_philosophy [Bogleheads Forum](https://www.bogleheads.org/index.php): https://www.bogleheads.org/index.php No question is too small, and no experience is too simple. Share, ask, and learn — at your own pace, without judgment, in a group of like-minded women. Let’s build confidence and knowledge **together**!

Bienvenue! Columbus French Conversation group invites you to our Saturday morning French conversation club. Expect a casual and welcoming atmosphere in which to learn french! I will bring my laptop so we can look up new vocabulary as needed! The venue is a beautiful French restaurant so you can really get into the zone :)

If you are interested in selecting investment choices for your 401(k) or other workplace savings plan, minimizing your income tax liability, or identifying the most effective investments for your brokerage account, we are the group for you. We are a local chapter of Bogleheads, whose investment strategy can be found here: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Bogleheads%C2%AE_investment_philosophy Or you can peruse the Boglehead forum here: https://www.bogleheads.org/index.php I look forward to seeing you there. Mark Vonder Haar

Before the comedy crawl, we’re starting Tuesday with **Two for Tuesdays**: a casual **social walk** designed to get people off the couch, **out of the house,** and actually doing something. This is a relaxed group walk at a **social pace,** covering roughly **2–3 miles**. Nothing intense. No pressure. Just good conversation, a little movement, and a **better way to spend your Tuesday** than sitting at home **scrolling your phone.** Then **after the walk,** we roll right into the **comedy crawl.** This is what makes the night better: you don’t just show up for one event, awkwardly stand around, then leave. You actually get time to **meet people,** loosen up, and **feel part of something** before the comedy even starts. If you’re tired of wasting your weeknights at home, this is your sign. **Spots are limited.** **A paid ticket** helps us plan accurately, keep the group intentional, and make sure the people who RSVP actually show up. To avoid additional fees from meetup Please use **ticket Link in comments** Preferred Two for Tuesdays Walk **$2** Walk + Comedy Crawl **$5** **Ticket Link preferred.** As an option Venmo/Paypal @WiseUnlimitedLLC CashApp $WiseUnlimitedLLC

When judging morality, should we prioritize **intentions/duty** or **outcomes/results**? It introduces two influential philosophers as representatives of these approaches. * **Immanuel Kant (deontology):** An action is moral when it is done from **duty** and follows rational, universal principles (the **categorical imperative**). Certain acts—like lying—are wrong regardless of the consequences; you can’t do a wrong thing for a right reason. * **John Stuart Mill (utilitarian consequentialism):** The morality of an action is determined by its **effects**, specifically how much **happiness/well-being** it produces. Mill argues that some pleasures are “higher” than others, and that good intentions don’t redeem harmful outcomes. ## Discussion Questions 1. **The lying dilemma:** A murderer comes to your door and asks if your friend is hiding inside. Kant would say you must not lie. 2. **Can good intentions rescue a bad outcome?** 3. **The organ harvest problem:** A surgeon has five patients dying of organ failure and one healthy patient in for a checkup. Killing the one to harvest organs would save five lives, and the math works out for the utilitarian. Why does this feel so deeply wrong? Is that feeling a point in Kant's favor, or just a bias we should overcome? 4. **Do rules need exceptions?** Kant insists moral rules must be universal, with no exceptions. But most of us can imagine extreme scenarios where any rule seems like it should bend. Does the need for exceptions fatally undermine deontology, or is the strength of the system precisely that it refuses to bend? 5. **Who gets to calculate the consequences?** Utilitarianism asks us to maximize good outcomes, but we're notoriously bad at predicting consequences. If we can't reliably know the results of our actions, is it practical to base our entire moral system on outcomes? Does this uncertainty push us back toward rules and principles? 6. **Everyday morality:** Think about a real moral decision you've made recently, even a small one. Did you reason more like a Kantian (what's the right thing to do in principle?) or more like a utilitarian (what will produce the best result?)? Do most people naturally lean one way? 7. **Justice vs. the greater good:** A town can prevent a deadly plague by sacrificing one innocent person. The greater good is clearly served. But is it just? Can an action be morally right and deeply unjust at the same time? 8. **The big synthesis question:** Are these two systems actually opposed, or do they often arrive at the same answers by different paths? Is it possible that we need both: rules to guide us in the moment and consequences to evaluate systems and policies over time?