Given the social climate that rejects homosexuality as a crime or immoral act, the writer's friend's revelation could be considered significant information for a prospective groom.
The groom-to-be might be shocked to hear that and consider breaking off the engagement, or he might say, “So what?” But usually, it’s not something to be simply dismissed.
So, is it right for a friend to expose the past on behalf of a writer who ultimately didn't want to reveal his own weaknesses? If you summon Confucius again, he'll probably shake his head.
"The father stole a sheep? And the son ran to the authorities and reported it? Seop-gong, I guess that's considered a great thing in your country. We don't do that in our country.
Children hide their parents' mistakes, and parents hide their children's mistakes.
Because he said, “It is right!”
But the reason Confucius said that was because, “If it seems like the state is encouraging such things, everyone’s desire to become successful through slander will inflate, and the warm feelings between family and friends will be crushed by such desires.
Then, I was worried that in the end, it would become a world where friendship and love would not survive in the face of money and power!”
--- From "Is it okay to carelessly reveal a friend's homosexual past?"

Let's first consider this airplane seat controversy as a question: "Do we have an obligation to accept a request to do a favor to a stranger, even if it means enduring a minor inconvenience?"
You might be wondering, 'Is there any room for argument?'
The position that 'I am completely free to do whatever I want as long as it does not harm others, whether I do good or not, is consistent with both the libertarian standpoint and Mill's principle of non-maleficence.
But the story is different in the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham, Mill's predecessor.
As is well known, act utilitarianism aims at 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number'.
So, if the happiness of member A of a society decreases by 1 and member B increases by 2, then it is right for member A to give up his or her own happiness as long as the increase or decrease in their happiness does not affect other members (of course, this excludes things that are extremely essential in life and difficult to recover, such as life, job, status, etc.).
Also, if B repeatedly gives up, it is out of the question.
Although B or the state cannot force A to give up a small bit of his own happiness in order to increase the total amount of social happiness, A has a moral responsibility to make such a small sacrifice.
--- From "Is it right to change airplane seats for a child?"

Is the rule "If you're late, you can't take the exam" too much? Think about it, the student in question was probably running in a hurry because he was late, and he was so anxious and flustered that he couldn't calmly take the exam.
And it's already taken up 20 minutes of the test time! Isn't it unfair to make them feel an absolute disadvantage when they're already at a relative disadvantage? Furthermore, if they weren't just taking their time and arriving late, but rather by mistake, wouldn't it be acceptable to take it into consideration since it wasn't an intentional violation of the rules? Of course, you could argue, "Well, it's not anyone else's fault that you overslept and arrived late, so you should bear the full burden of the disadvantage."
It can also be argued that it is difficult to prove whether it is a mistake or not.

But a counter-argument is also possible.
In this student's case, I would say he prepared hard for the exam.
Since he was said to be a perfectionist, he must have been diligent in his classes as well.
However, if another student who did not prepare properly takes the test and gets a C, this student will give up on the test altogether and get an F, just like the student who did not show up to the test.
So, if a person who was actually honest is treated the same as someone who was completely insincere, is this fair?
--- From "If I'm late for the exam, will I lose my right to take the exam?"

Members of DxE and PETA would say that their actions are typical acts of divine violence in the name of justice.
Because it is an action that aims for a new world where humans and animals respect each other equally, while causing anxiety, discomfort, and harm to people who ignore animal rights and abuse and exploit animals and live without any problem.
That could be the case.
But there are three things to keep in mind:
First, there are limitations to Peter Singer's thought.
'Can we say that humans and animals have equal rights simply based on the presence or absence of sentience (the ability to feel pleasure and pain), or simply based on the existence of life?' Of course, some would agree that it does, but others find it difficult to accept.
Today, we have no doubt that men and women, whites and blacks, Christians and Buddhists, etc. are equal as human beings.
However, it is not yet agreed whether not recognizing animals with the same human rights as humans should be called 'speciesism'.

--- From "Is violence okay if the intention is good?"