Latest news with #values
Irish Times
4 days ago
- General
- Irish Times
‘My friend's affair with a married man is destroying our friendship'
Dear Roe, A close friend has been involved with a married man for two years. I was deeply uncomfortable with it from the start – my sister's marriage ended due to infidelity, so I know the damage it can cause. But I tried to support my friend, hoping this was a rare, genuine connection and that he would leave his wife respectfully. Two years on, nothing has changed. He always has reasons to delay. My friend no longer discusses it and avoids deeper conversations altogether. Our once-close friendship now feels distant and superficial. Some mutual friends know; others don't. The secrecy and tension are exhausting. I'm getting married this year, and as I addressed her invitation – including a plus-one I know won't be used – it really struck me how much this situation has isolated her. It made me feel both sad and frustrated: I want her there, but I also can't ignore the emotional distance that's opened up between us. I feel torn. I miss our friendship, but I'm also struggling with my own values. Am I enabling something I believe is wrong? Can I be a good friend while feeling increasingly judgmental? Saying anything might destroy the friendship, but staying silent feels dishonest. I don't know what's fair – to her, to myself, or even to the wife who has no idea. How do I navigate this? Navigating a situation like this, especially when it intertwines love, loyalty, personal values and long-held friendship, is one of the more painful and complex emotional crossroads we can encounter. Your heartache is understandable, not just because you're watching someone you care about shrink themselves for a relationship that brings them more secrecy than joy, but also because your own inner compass is being stretched between empathy and integrity. You are grieving a friendship that once thrived in openness and trust, and now exists behind a veil of avoidance, half-truths and unspoken things. You're allowed to want more, and to want to do more. Contrary to some current popular beliefs, being a good friend does not mean unconditional support for everything a person does, or silently watching someone self-destruct, or endorsing choices that go against your deepest values. Sometimes being a good friend is telling someone that you value them so much that you need to ask, 'With love, what the hell are you doing?' READ MORE [ 'My sister won't leave her bad relationship - and I'm pretty sure she's having an affair' Opens in new window ] I know you're scared to speak honestly to her, particularly because she has already pulled away. But remember that it's unlikely she has gone silent out of apathy for you, but due to shame. She probably fears what you'll say and the mirror you'll hold up to her. But friendship can't thrive in silence. You're right to name what this silence has started to cost you, and her, too. Ask for a conversation. A real one, not performative or polite, where you both show up with humility and courage, assuming each other's good intentions, and willing, as best you can, not to be defensive but to truly listen. You can't control how she'll receive honesty, but you can offer it with care. When you speak to her, begin with love. Tell her that you miss her. That you've noticed the distance, that you feel it, and that it hurts not because you're judging her from some high horse, but because she matters to you and you feel like you're losing her in slow motion. Tell her that talking honestly about this has felt dangerous, like you're risking your friendship – but that you believe your friendship deserves that risk. Tell her you're worried about her. About the life she's been living, hidden and small, about the way her relationship seems defined by loneliness and isolation, about the way it has slowly eroded her friendships, her openness, even the possibility of showing up in your life fully, like at your wedding, where she cannot even bring the person she's in love with. Tell her gently, but honestly, that it saddens you to see her world shrink this way. And if it feels right, you can tell her that you struggle with the fact that there's another woman, a wife, who has no idea her life is being altered behind her back, and that because you care about all women, that feels hard to carry. You could tell her that if the roles were reversed, if she were the one married and being lied to, you know you would be outraged on her behalf. Tell her that as you prepare to get married, you would hope she would be outraged and devastated for you if you were ever betrayed in your relationship. Tell her that part of what's painful here is realising that the same sense of care and outrage seems absent when it comes to another woman. Say this without blame, but with the quiet honesty of someone who still believes their friend can rise into something truer and stronger than this. You can express compassion for how difficult it must be to love someone who is already in a relationship; you can tell her you empathise with what she must have gone through the past two years being treated like a secret by the man she loves and that fearing judgment on top of that must feel hard. You can empathise with her and be generous – but you can also treat her like an adult who is capable of understanding that there are consequences to her actions, and that when she has an affair, that is going to create a big value divide between her and a lot of people. It's then her decision to stay with this man or to choose something different. She may need to walk through this entire chapter alone, for as long as it takes, before the lesson settles deep in her bones Invite her to ask herself some real questions – not rhetorical, not angry, but sincere. Is this enough? What does she want love to look like in her life? What kind of friendships does she want? Ask her if this man, not in his promises but in his actual actions, is helping her live the kind of life she wants. Ask her how long she's willing to keep sacrificing her joy, her openness, her community, for a love that keeps her hidden, and promises of a hypothetical future that never seems to arrive. You can, if it's true for you, end by telling her that while you don't understand her choices right now, you do still love her, and that if she ever chooses to walk away from this relationship, whether tomorrow or a year from now, you'll be right there, without judgment, with a bouquet of roses and arms wide open, ready to remind her of her strength and her worth. But also remind yourself: she is an adult. She may need to walk through this entire chapter alone, for as long as it takes, before the lesson settles deep in her bones. One day she will hopefully realise that she both deserves better and needs to do better, and she will walk away – and you want that moment to be completely hers, so that she feels more wise and empowered, so that she can believe that she saved herself, so that she can truly absorb the lesson and integrate it into her life. Sometimes the most loving thing we can do is not rescue, not condemn, but to speak our truth, set our boundaries, and let the other person choose their path, knowing we'll be there with grace, not shame, if and when they return to themselves. Speak to her. Speak with love, with honesty, with hope. Then, allow her the dignity of choosing what kind of life she wants to live, knowing that you chose to be honest in yours. Good luck. .form-group {width:100% !important;}
CBC
5 days ago
- Politics
- CBC
We're on a mission to understand Alberta. Take this quiz and put yourself on the map
Alberta. We're big. We're beautiful ... and complex! Our province is a great place to live, and if you've been here awhile, you know it's been changing. Our population is booming, we've gone through booms and busts. You might be new to Alberta, or a bunch of your neighbours are. The society is shifting, the economy is shifting, the politics are always shifting. So… what does it mean to be Albertan now? Right now. Today. What do we all have in common? Something? Nothing? What's our identity? What do we MEAN when we say we are Albertan? Well. We don't have the answers. But we're sure interested in asking the question. So…. CBC Calgary recently commissioned Janet Brown Opinion Research to do a poll. We asked 1,200 Albertans about their values, political positions and thoughts on Alberta. We reported on some of it here. Now we want to expand on what we heard. We want to hear from YOU. We're going to be at community events across Calgary talking with anyone and everyone. And if you don't see us, try this little questionnaire on your own. It's only eight questions. Then you can see where you are in relation to what our large survey found about Albertans. The results? Well, you may end up exactly where you thought you were, or, you could end up with a surprise. Anyway, it's fun to think about this stuff. If you want, you could do this with a class, or friends around a picnic table over a couple beers. What does it mean to be Albertan? Who are we? And because CBC is a broadcaster, we'd love to broadcast your thoughts. So, when you're finished the questionnaire, click on the video button below to share what you think, or just send an email to me, CBC producer Elise Stolte, at If you want to be sure not to miss the stories about what we learn, subscribe to Your Calgary Weekly. Step 1: Take the questionnaire Online questionnaire Paper version Feel free to print the paper version and use it with a group. Step 2: Reflection The answers in your quiz gave you a number on separatism (vertical axis) and political values (horizontal axis). Find where you are on the Alberta values graph below and read descriptions of each segment of Albertans. Then take some time to think through these questions: What does it mean to you to be Albertan? Or a Canadian? When it comes to being Albertan, what strength do you think being from this place gives you? What's one thing you'd like to change about what the rest of Canada thinks about Albertans and our story? If you moved here from somewhere else, at what moment did you realize you are an Albertan? Looking at that graph, if you had to give "Albertans like you" a cheeky group name, what would you say? Step 3: Tell us what you think On a phone or computer, click the video icon, listen to the prompt and record your key takeaway. There's no download required. And you can tell us in the app if your video response is just for our ears, or if we can share it. We'll give it a listen and get in touch. Understanding Alberta — a bit of a data dive Alberta is home to people with views from across the political spectrum, and there are groups of people who tend to answer these questions in a similar way. The data and statistical analysis below is based on the survey we mentioned run by pollster Janet Brown this spring. It might describe you; it might not — which could be just as interesting! And of course, any survey only captures a snapshot at a point in time. Find the survey details at the very bottom of this page, and scroll down to find out what else this survey is suggesting about the different segments. Non-separatist left This progressive-leaning core is almost uniformly against the idea of separatism. You can find more of them in Calgary (43%) than in Edmonton (39%) or the rest of the province (19%). Here are a few other stats to describe some particulars about this cluster: Non-separatist centre This group falls in the centre politically, and therefore tends to play an outsized role in determining the result of any election. You'll find a lot of them in Edmonton (40%). Even more than in Calgary (33%) or in the rest of the province (26%). Where they fall on a political scale: avg 5.2/10 Feel most attached to Canada, or equally attached to Canada and Alberta (44% CAN; 47% Equal) Provincial voting intention: NDP 53% Tend to disapprove of recent effort to reset Alta./Ottawa relations: 59% Would NOT vote to separate: 99% University educated: 47% Very or somewhat religious: 54% Likely to be women: 59% Split on if it's easy/difficult to meet monthly expenses: 50/50% Stressed about the state of Canada-U.S. relations: 75% Non-separatist right This group is right of centre on the political spectrum, but they are opposed to the idea of separating from Canada. Here are a few ways to describe them. Soft separatists It appears Alberta has virtually no left-leaning separatists. But there's a separatist cluster in the centre. They tend to like Premier Danielle Smith's efforts to get a new relationship with Ottawa and be a little less sure they would actually cast a vote to leave the country. Average political score is still right of centre: avg 6.8/10 Feel most attached to Alberta: 56% Provincial voting intention: UCP 83% Approve of recent efforts to reset Alta./Ottawa relationship: 85% Say they would vote to separate: 55% Many say it's difficult to meet monthly expenses: 64% About half say they are stressed about Canada-U.S. relations: 52% Many self-identify as working class: 51% University educated: 33% Likely to be men: 54% Very or somewhat religious: 62% Committed separatists This cluster describes the Albertans who are most committed to separatism. They tend to be farthest to the right on a political spectrum but it's a myth that they all live in rural areas. Actually, 39 per cent of them are in Calgary, 25 per cent in Edmonton and 26 per cent in other parts of the province. Here's what else the survey tells us. Tend to be solidly right: avg 7.7/10 Primarily identify as Albertan: 89% Provincial voting intention: UCP 96% The vast majority approve of Premier Danielle Smith's efforts to reset the Alta/Ottawa relationship: 95% Most would vote to separate: 89% Many say it's difficult to meet monthly expenses: 60% Many say they're not stressed about Canada-U.S. relations: 68% More likely to be men: 62% Have a university education: 29% Very or somewhat religious: 72% Survey details The CBC News random survey of 1,200 Albertans was conducted using a hybrid method between May 7 to 21, 2025, by Edmonton-based Trend Research under the direction of Janet Brown Opinion Research. The sample is representative of regional, age and gender factors. The margin of error is +/- 2.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. For subsets, the margin of error is larger. The survey used a hybrid methodology that involved contacting survey respondents by telephone and giving them the option of completing the survey at that time, at another more convenient time, or receiving an email link and completing the survey online. Trend Research contacted people using a random list of numbers, consisting of 40 per cent landlines and 60 per cent cellphone numbers. Telephone numbers were dialed up to five times at five different times of day before another telephone number was added to the sample. The response rate among valid numbers (i.e. residential and personal) was 12.8 per cent.
South China Morning Post
16-07-2025
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
Hong Kong minister calls for stronger moral education after AI porn case at HKU
Hong Kong universities should put more effort into instilling values and moral education among students, a minister has said, after an undergraduate was accused of using AI to generate pornographic images of his classmates and other women. Advertisement Secretary for Education Christine Choi Yuk-lin made her remarks on Wednesday, a day after the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data launched a criminal investigation into the law student, who had only received a warning from the University of Hong Kong. But she said the incident, which she believed was an isolated case, would not tarnish the reputation of HKU, whose name and achievements were built on 'the efforts of many generations'. 'I believe HKU has also noticed the expectations society has for universities. Universities should be held accountable in handling such behaviours in students, or in terms of curriculum and teaching,' she said. 'The development of AI has been rapid. Thus, we very much hope that universities can put more effort into strengthening the value and moral education among students.' Advertisement Choi said universities were responsible for nurturing students' values and moral character.
ABC News
15-07-2025
- Science
- ABC News
Why it's time to put ethics and humanity at the heart of engineering education - ABC Religion & Ethics
Ask someone what engineers do, and the answers are familiar. They build bridges, design systems, write code and fix problems. Engineering is seen as a discipline of precision — focused, technical, grounded in maths and physics. But ask what engineers stand for , what values they hold dearly, and the answers become vague and varied, if they come at all. We don't tend to think of engineers as moral agents. Not like doctors, whose duty is to care; or teachers, who shape society by shaping minds. Engineers, we assume, are neutral implementers, not ethicists. Their job is to deliver efficiency, safety, reliability. Having values is someone else's business. And their own values do not matter in this context. That's a comforting fiction. Engineering has never been value-free in its core, though we may just have started to take note of it. Every bridge, app, tunnel or energy grid encodes decisions about who benefits, who is left out, and what kind of world we're building. These choices are often invisible, but they shape everything: access to clean water, safe housing, fair transport, disaster protection, digital participation. If engineers are shaping the physical and digital world, then they're shaping our moral world too. It is time for engineers to question which values they hold and apply in their profession — and for society to challenge its engineers. The traditional model is no longer enough For much of the past century, engineering education has been built on a simple formula: master the science, learn the tools and apply them efficiently to solve real-world problems. The best engineers were those who could design faster trains, stronger longer-enduring bridges, cleaner circuits. There was no explicit need to ask for whom those trains ran, or who might be excluded by a new piece of infrastructure. That model worked, until it didn't. Today's challenges are no longer just technical. They're social, ecological and systemic: rising inequality, climate disruption, mass displacement, digital exclusion. These are not problems with clean equations or standard design manuals. They demand something more than technical brilliance. They demand judgement, empathy and a sense of justice. The tools of traditional engineering don't prepare students to navigate moral complexity. You can calculate fluid dynamics to three decimal places, but that won't tell you whether to prioritise flood defences in a wealthy suburb or a struggling regional town. This is why the traditional model must evolve. Because if engineers are still trained only to optimise systems, without asking who the system serves, we'll continue to build solutions that are efficient — but possibly unjust. Support for this call comes from the Archimedean Oath, which is intended as an equivalent to the Hippocratic Oath for the engineering profession. The oath addresses the ambivalent potential of technology and knowledge, and it reminds engineers of their responsibility to society as much as it enables society to call their engineers to account. The rise of 'humanitarian engineering' In recent years, a new phrase has begun to circulate in university corridors and professional circles — humanitarian engineering. At first glance, it sounds like a niche. Some think it means engineering for disaster zones, remote villages, or post-conflict reconstruction. Some think it is a new notion to be admired, perhaps, but seen as a specialised add-on, not the core of the discipline. But that's a mistake. Humanitarian engineering, if limited to a specialisation of engineering, would be just that: an application field of traditional engineering skills and practice. Engineers turning to crises or disaster response do that with their trained skills and mindset — no values asked. However, the notion can also be taken by its deeper meaning. Then humanitarian engineering becomes a mirror, held up to the blind spots of the field. It reminds us that engineering is never just about materials; it's about people. And if that is taken literally, it is not just people in abstract, and also not just a convenient selection of people — for example, the people the engineers have contracts with, clients or shareholders — but all of us, equally, and thus including those who are most at risk of being ignored: the displaced, the digitally excluded, the mobility-deprived, the climate-exposed. To call it 'humanitarian' is not to say it only matters in poor communities or far-off places. A disaster-stricken suburb of a wealthy city may need it just as much as a flood-prone village in the Global South. A community of aging residents with no access to digital infrastructure; a cohort of commuters living in public transport deserts: these are all examples of need — not necessarily defined by income or remoteness, but by exclusion. This is where the deeper potential of humanitarian engineering lies. Not in charitable fixes or feel-good projects, but in recognising that engineering is a tool of power, and choosing to wield that power with care, conscience and solidarity. Why this moment matters We're living through a time when the work of engineers touches almost every corner of life — often invisibly, but profoundly. Engineers design the systems that carry our water, shape our cities, move our data and increasingly make decisions for us. They write the code behind public algorithms. They build the infrastructure for climate adaptation. They influence how we evacuate in a fire, how we vote, how we move, what we breathe. And yet many of these decisions still unfold with little attention to justice, equity or long-term social consequences. When we talk about 'smart cities', for example, we celebrate efficiency and innovation — but 'smart' for whom? A city made digitalised (for the hope of gaining smartness) for some can be exclusionary for others. It can lead to widen the digital divide. When we roll out AI in public systems, whose values and what moral principles are embedded in the code? When we rush to decarbonise, are we paying attention to who bears the costs and who is left behind? This is why humanitarian engineering isn't a luxury or a niche. It's a necessity. Because if we fail to embed social values into technical design, we risk unintended consequences. We risk reproducing the very harms we claim to be solving. We risk failing as a generation in our responsibility to the next generation(s). From human error to human values This isn't the first time engineering has had to confront its blind spots. In the aftermath of the Second World War, a different realisation emerged: that engineers were designing systems used by people but often failed to account for the people using them. One of the most cited examples came from fighter jet design. Aircraft were technically sound, but pilots kept crashing. At first, the blame fell on the pilots. But over time, a deeper insight took hold: it wasn't the humans who were flawed, it was the design that did not account for human limitations. Cockpit layouts didn't align with human perception. Instruments were placed in ways that invited confusion. Buttons looked alike. Reaction times were misjudged. In short, the system had been engineered as if the user was flawless. This was a turning point. It gave rise to what we now call human factors engineering — the integration of psychology and human cognition into the design of systems. Today, it's a core part of aviation, automotive safety, road design and much more. Engineers no longer design despite human error; they design around it. But now we face a different reckoning — one not just about cognition, but about ethics. It's no longer enough to design for how people behave. We must design for what people need , value and deserve . That means asking whether a new system marginalises certain groups. Whether it serves one demographic while excluding another. Whether it serves shareholders more than society. Whether a community even wants the shiny, tech-heavy 'solution' we're proposing. Increasingly, we're learning that communities don't just want to be consulted after the design is done. They want to be part of it. In urban planning, transport infrastructure and climate adaptation, they are demanding to co-create the systems that shape their lives. This is where humanitarian engineering finds its true footing: not just as a technical discipline, but as the next chapter in engineering's evolving relationship with the social sciences. From cognition to conscience. From usability to equity. What must change in education If we want engineering to serve humanity, then we need to teach it differently. This doesn't mean making the curriculum softer or less rigorous. It means making it more relevant . Because today's engineering students aren't just future builders; they're future decision-makers, shaping systems that will define who gets to live safely, move freely and participate fully in society. We need to teach more than formulas and design codes. We need to teach questions and foster ethical perspectives. Who benefits from this design? Who might be harmed? Who wasn't in the room when it was conceived? What histories of exclusion does this infrastructure inherit, and how might it break from them? This is where humanitarian engineering can play a transformative role — not as an elective or side project, but as a thread woven through the entire educational experience. From first-year design to final-year capstones, from transport planning to software architecture, students should be asked to grapple with context, with complexity, with ethics. They should learn not just how to solve problems, but how to frame them. Not just how to optimise a solution, but how to co-create one — with humility, with communities, with a long view in mind. If we keep teaching engineering as if it exists in a vacuum, we'll keep graduating professionals who build systems that fail the people who need them most. Buzzword or building block? So, is 'humanitarian engineering' just another buzzword? Maybe. Buzzwords come easy in academia. They rise quickly, sit in strategy documents, decorate PowerPoint slides, and sometimes fade without a trace. But some buzzwords matter because they name something long overdue. They expose a gap in how we've been thinking. They prompt a shift in language, and sometimes, ultimately in culture. Humanitarian engineering is one of those. It names a necessary reorientation: from building things efficiently, to building justly . The real risk isn't in the term, but in how we use it. If humanitarian engineering becomes a badge — something we gesture at without changing how we teach, design, or decide — then it will be hollow. But if we treat it as a challenge — as a provocation to rethink the values we embed in every structure, every system, every syllabus — then it becomes something more. This is why an Archimedean Oath, taken at university graduation, can reshape the conscience of a profession. It could become a turning point. Because in the end, the question isn't whether engineers can change the world. They already do. The question is: what kind of world will they choose to help build? Milad Haghani is an Associate Professor of Urban Mobility at the University of Melbourne. Stephan Winter is a Professor of Spatial Information Science at the University of Melbourne. Abbas Rajabifard is a Professor of Geomatics at the University of Melbourne.
Bloomberg
03-07-2025
- General
- Bloomberg
To Restore America, Start With Honor
At the bottom of every test I took in college, I wrote: 'I pledge my honor that I have not violated the Honor Code during this examination,' and signed my name. I was used to making such promises. Since the ninth grade, an honor system had bound me and my classmates not to cheat or lie or help anyone else cheat or lie — and to report any 'suspected violation' to the school to be adjudicated by an Honor Council of students. We weren't just expected to tell the truth and act with integrity, but to stand up for what we believed to be right, even when doing so was costly. Both my high school and university saw it as their responsibility to instill a set of values along with knowledge. We relied on our institutions to shape us; as students and alumni, we also shaped them. These days, 'pledging your honor' sounds very old-fashioned. But the traditional definition of honor — living consistently according to a set of moral or ethical principles — is something we desperately need in America today.
