Philadelphia 76ers

Start your week the right way with Manic Mondays. Giving you an enjoyable Bachata lesson with a push of cool moves. The second hour has Beginner/Intermediate Salsa on 1. You must understand basic Salsa skills to participate. 730pm-830pm Bachata Cool Moves 830pm-930pm Salsa On 1 (Beginner/Intermediate) $15 for One Class $20 for Both Free Parking & Plenty of Dance Space.

Join me for a small, mindful photography walk in nature. (**NOTE Time is 9:00 AM EST(Meetup is having technical Issue))** This is a slow, intentional gathering — not focused on fitness or perfect photography — but on simply pausing, observing, and being present. We’ll walk at a gentle pace, with moments of quiet, and a few light prompts to help you notice details you might normally miss. 📷 You don’t need any photography experience — a phone camera is enough. This is also not a business networking event. It’s a calm space to connect with nature and, if it feels natural, with like-minded people. 🌿 What to expect: • A slow-paced, relaxed walk • Moments of silence and observation • Simple reflection prompts 📍 Location: [ Red Trabue Nature Preserve] ⏱ Duration: \~60 minutes This is a small, initial gathering as I begin creating this space through WellGratiVibes — a blend of mindfulness, nature, and quiet connection. If this resonates with you, you’re welcome to join.

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?