Insurance

(Note: RSVPing here on meetup does NOT reserve your seat. To do that, you’ll need to register at our website, [HERE](https://www.coreerocks.com/Events.aspx?ID=2026-Central-Ohio-Real-Estate-Investing-Expo-14-5-5-2026).) We’re serious about helping you succeed in real estate. That means not just teaching you—but putting you in the room with the people who help you get deals done. Every deal depends on people. The agent or wholesaler. The lender. The contractor. The title company. The insurance agent. The problem is that most investors meet those people slowly. This event fixes that. One room full of: • Lenders • Contractors • Title companies • Insurance providers • Property managers • And active local investors A place where you can: • Build your team • Find funding • Solve real problems • Make connections that lead to deals If you’re serious about real estate, this is a smart room to be in. Members and non-members at any level of knowledge and experience are welcome. This event is free. Remember, to actually reserve your seat, you have to go [HERE](https://www.coreerocks.com/Events.aspx?ID=2026-Central-Ohio-Real-Estate-Investing-Expo-14-5-5-2026) and register on our website!

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

**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**!

It feels like we just saw each other 🤷. Join members of the local design and UX community for our monthly breakfast. For May we’re stopping in for Rooh’s popup breakfast/cafe concept. You know someone is getting the lobster yuzu croissant, and that’s not even the prettiest thing on the menu!.

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?