This story appeared in Today, Explained, a daily newsletter that helps you understand the most compelling news and stories of the day. Subscribe here.

Four beluga whales have died in a month at one of America’s top-rated aquariums — a tragic development and, arguably, a reason to revisit the ethics of zoos. (More on that in just a minute.)

The latest cetacean casualty, a 26-year-old female named Osiris, died at Chicago’s Shedd Aquarium yesterday. She follows 34-year-old Beethoven, a longtime resident of the aquarium, as well as 20-year-old Rain and 23-year-old Peekachu, who died in late August and early September.   

Osiris, Rain and Peekachu were all part of the Marineland diaspora: a group of four dolphins and 30 beluga whales that rescuers have worked to relocate since the 2024 closure of a scandal-plagued theme park in Niagara Falls, Canada. This summer, the animals were successfully transferred to aquariums and marine parks in the US and Spain. That was a frankly incredible undertaking involving padded shipping containers, a police-escorted convoy and a chartered plane. 

But in some regards, the international flight wasn’t even the hardest part of the whales’ journeys. Some of the animals have struggled to thrive in their new environments — even when those environments are state-of-the-art, like Shedd. 

In a blog post announcing Osiris’s death, the aquarium noted that its rescued whales had been under 24-hour supervision and receiving intensive, specialized care. The aquarium is still investigating the cause of death for all four whales. 

Go a little deeper

Believe me when I tell you that it gives me no pleasure to write the following paragraphs. I really love aquariums. In fact, as a kid, I grew up visiting the now-shuttered and much-maligned Marineland. 

But incidents like these back-to-back deaths should prompt us all to ask ourselves who aquariums and zoos are actually for. And the answer, I regret to tell you, is frequently not “the animals” — though zoos and aquariums have, since the mid-20th century, marketed themselves as both tourist attractions and important players in wildlife education and conservation.  

As my colleague Kenny Torrella writes, these institutions and their defenders argue they protect animals in three ways: first, by raising money for wildlife conservation projects; second, by helping to reintroduce vulnerable species back into the wild; and third, by inspiring visitors to take an interest in the environment. The Shedd Aquarium’s motto, for instance, is “For Love of Waterkind.” 

It’s worth scrutinizing those purported virtues, however — even when prestigious and reputable institutions like Shedd are making them. On one hand, there is merit to the claim that zoos and aquariums fundraise for wildlife conservation: In 2022, the latest year for which data is available, one group of accredited zoos and aquariums spent more than a quarter of a billion dollars on habitat projects. 

The evidence is thinner on the other points, though. It’s incredibly rare for aquariums and zoos to reintroduce endangered species back into the wild — that’s very difficult to do. And surveys of zoo and aquarium visitors show that merely seeing a wild animal in a tourist setting doesn’t generally galvanize people on matters of welfare or stewardship. Living in captivity in that tourist setting, however, can be stressful (or worse) for the animals themselves. 

But what would a humane alternative look like? Even if zoos and aquariums stopped catching animals in the wild, that would still leave many thousands who are injured, orphaned, born in captivity, or otherwise accustomed to human care. 

When it comes to whales, one nonprofit advocacy organization is already working on an alternative: a 110-acre coastal sanctuary for “retired” whales. That project, however, is still a long way from completion. And in the meantime, it’s up to consumers to decide whether the stated benefits of zoos and aquariums outweigh the potential harms to the animals they exhibit.

One link for later

➨ Beware the trap of “moral perfection.” We should all endeavor to live lives that embody our values, sure. But if you never board a plane because you care about the climate, or you never take your kid to zoos because you read the arguments above, then you might end up with a smaller, less-lived life. And that’s no good, either. 

Before you go…

• Did you know…that there have been “revolutionary” advancements in Alzheimer’s treatments in just the past five years? Two new drugs both markedly slow the progress of dementia.
• Today’s trivia: Geography time! What country is bordered by Chad to the east and Mali to the west? Hint: It is the second-largest landlocked African nation. (You can find this and other brain puzzles in Vox’s daily crossword. Look for the answer in tomorrow’s edition.)
• Yesterday’s trivia: Yesterday we asked you for the classic Broadway star who first sang hits, including “There’s No Business Like Show Business.” That would be Ethel Merman, whom one biographer dubbed “the most successful musical comedy performer of her generation.” 

Who gets to tell the military “no”?

That question has become even more important after the Pentagon pushed AI companies to loosen limits on how their technology may be used in war — including how much human control must remain over autonomous weapons. When Anthropic said no, it lost a major government deal. OpenAI stepped in, embracing the Pentagon’s more flexible standard instead. Now, thanks to new reporting from The Intercept, we’re getting a better look at what those negotiations actually entailed.

The OpenAI-Pentagon agreement included specific language on the type of AI models the DOD would receive: “OpenAI models that are designed for national security use cases and have minimal refusal rates.” That phrase — “minimal refusal rates” — means that the Pentagon is seeking models that rarely, if ever, tell it no. (According to The Intercept, a Justice Department lawyer representing the Pentagon confirmed this language, before backtracking only a few hours later.)

On the surface, that provision might seem reasonable. The military is a strictly hierarchical institution. When your senior gives you an order, you do it. Leaders generally have more battlefield wisdom and experience than their subordinates, so the rank and file can usually assume that their commanders know what they’re doing and follow along. Plus, in the high-stress, time-sensitive environments of most military operations, there is little room for discussion, explanation, or alternative proposals. 

So, if soldiers can’t refuse an order, why would a machine be allowed to? Who is a robot to tell its commander no?

There’s just one issue. Soldiers can refuse an order — when the order is illegal. In fact, they are legally required to. But by introducing technologies with a limited ability to challenge commands, the military may be making it harder to stop war crimes before they are committed.  

Humans have a duty to disobey

As outlined in US domestic, military, and international law, soldiers are only obligated to follow lawful orders, and they have a duty to refuse unlawful ones. 

The Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual is unambiguous: “Each member of the armed services has a duty to: (1) comply with the law of war in good faith; and (2) refuse to comply with clearly illegal orders to commit violations of the law of war.” Obeying an illegal order — as in a directive that violates the Constitution, US laws, international law, or directs one to commit a crime — can expose a service member, as well as their commander, to criminal liability. 

This “duty to disobey” has foundations in early British and American common law, but it achieved international recognition after the Nuremberg Trials against Nazi soldiers after WWII. 

In those trials, many Nazi soldiers argued they were not liable for crimes they committed during the Holocaust because they were simply following their superiors’ orders. Rudolf Hoess, the commander at the largest Nazi concentration camp, Auschwitz, himself explained: “In Germany it was understood that if something went wrong, then the man who gave the orders was responsible. So I didn’t think that I would ever have to answer for it myself.”

These defenses were unequivocally rejected by the court.

The tribunal held that obedience is not without limits, especially when a wartime act would be clearly illegal to the subordinate or any person of “ordinary sense and understanding.” If “I was just following orders” was an absolute defense, everyone involved in a crime would escape accountability, with the exception of the single highest-ranking officer. Instead, the court determined that individual moral and legal responsibility supersedes national or military chains of command for illegal acts.

Obedience is not without limits, especially when a wartime act would be clearly illegal to the subordinate or any person of “ordinary sense and understanding.”

But, when it comes to agentic AI systems or AI-assisted weapons, increasingly being used in place of human soldiers, does the same logic apply? And, perhaps more importantly, should it?

…But do machines?

When you use an AI chatbot, it does not simply reject queries it may not “agree” with. It does not say no to requests it doesn’t “like.” Instead, it follows a set of established protocols, much as a soldier should follow the law of war: It refuses requests that violate its terms of service. 

The military is using AI for far more consequential applications than a layperson using ChatGPT to, say, build a travel itinerary. So, what kind of world is created by the Pentagon’s request for AI that “minimally refuses” its directives, many of which may bear grave ethical, moral, or legal implications?

Rebecca Crootof, an expert on technology law and professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, told Vox that while the language could easily be read as increasing the likelihood of compliance with unlawful orders, or at least reducing the friction around them, “Minimal refusal doesn’t mean no refusal.”

“I both want to say it’s not definitely going to mean compliance with unlawful orders,” Crootof said, “but also acknowledge that identifying and evaluating what constitutes an unlawful order in the moment can be incredibly difficult.”

Even for human soldiers, disobeying illegal orders is neither simple nor easy. To the contrary, it doesn’t even happen that frequently. In fact, some legal scholars have argued that giving illegal directives in and of itself is an act of abuse against subordinates, who are not thoroughly trained in legal nuances, are conditioned to obey, and face prosecution if they make the wrong choice. 

Still, the mere fact that soldiers can disobey is an important constraint on commanders who might let battlefield conditions, or even commands coming from their own superiors, erode their ethics and commitment to the law.

Still, the mere fact that soldiers can disobey is an important constraint on commanders who might let battlefield conditions, or even commands coming from their own superiors, erode their ethics and commitment to the law.

Those who are optimistic about AI often argue that machines could be better at interpreting and applying the law than human soldiers. Machines can be trained on the law itself — drawing on a repository of legal cases, rulings, and battlefield data — which might make them more “knowledgeable” than an average soldier. And machines do not face the same pressures as soldiers facing prosecution for making mistakes, since they can’t exactly be held accountable; a problem to unpack another time. That, in turn, might make it easier for them to refuse illegal orders in the proper conditions. 

So, is the answer as simple as letting the machines decide? Not exactly. “This has been a desire and a drive by technologists for ages,” Crootof said. “What if we just put the law in the system and have it only do things that are lawful? Isn’t that going to solve things?” 

Interpreting and applying the law, though, is not a simple legal-illegal binary. “It’s very context-specific,” Crootof told me, “and honestly, that’s the kind of thing humans generally find difficult and AI decision-making systems are even worse at.” Often, determining the legality of an act comes down to subtle nuances you can’t program for: You’re allowed to target a combatant; you’re not allowed to target a wounded or surrendering combatant. You’re not allowed to target a civilian; you are allowed to target a civilian directly participating in hostilities. The difference between a legal target and an illegal one may come down to body language, clothing choices, or even battlefield intuition. 

As Crootof explained, “These are not the kinds of contextual analyses AI is good for.”

So what’s the solution?

Where human soldiers’ power to disobey would traditionally serve as an important check on the power of military commanders, if an imperfect one, replacing soldiers with machines that don’t have such safeguards removes one last layer of judgment over the use of force. And yet, machines themselves are not always capable of making the judgment calls that go into interpreting the law, so it may not be appropriate to let AI have the final say either.

So what’s the solution? Given the way AI technology has already been thoroughly integrated into the military, Crootof told me it may be somewhere in the middle. 

Rather than programming AI to refuse commands it interprets as illegal, Crootof said, “what it could be designed to do is flag those indeterminate zones, those gray-zone analyses, for human review or for a higher authority.” When a system picks up conflicting signals — an enemy soldier who looks like he may be surrendering, for example — it could prompt the commander to confirm their selection or remind them of applicable law. 

In this way, a check on commanders’ battlefield authority could be preserved without fully ceding judgment over the use of force to the machine. 

We don’t know yet whether OpenAI has equipped its “minimal refusal” models with such capabilities. But as those technologies become increasingly central to military decision-making, the public deserves answers sooner rather than later. 

Editor’s note, September 20, 8 am ET: We’re bringing you some of our best-loved Your Mileage May Vary columns while Sigal Samuel is on parental leave. The one below was originally published last September.

This unconventional advice column offers you a unique framework for thinking through moral dilemmas. It’s based on value pluralism: the idea that each of us has multiple values that are equally valid but that often conflict with each other. Submit your own question here.

---

The Jewish High Holidays are coming up, and that includes Yom Kippur. It’s a holiday that encourages people to reflect on their behavior and make amends. That’s all well and good, but I’m someone who struggles with scrupulosity — constantly worrying about my morality and if I’m doing The Most Possible Good™.

In practice this is far more paralyzing than motivating. Fixating on the ethical implications of all possible decisions makes it harder to take any action, and I’ve lost hours scouring my memories of my past behavior for immorality like a football player watching footage of their games to analyze what they could do differently. Guilt simply isn’t serving me, but I worry that saying to hell with all that means I’ll stop striving to be a better person and become morally complacent.

I’ve observed Yom Kippur for decades, and don’t want to simply avoid the day. But the holiday is a moral scrupulosity trigger. How do you think I should approach this? I want to stop feeling guilty for letting guilt get in my own way.

Dear Scrupulous, 

Have you ever heard the story about what happened when God decided to give the Bible to flesh-and-blood human beings? According to the ancient rabbis, the angels hated the idea. They argued that humans were deeply flawed mortals who didn’t deserve such a holy scripture; only angels could be worthy of it, so it should stay up in heaven. 

It fell to Moses to rebut the angels’ argument. He asked them: What do you angels need the Bible for? The Bible says not to murder, not to commit adultery, not to steal — do you have jealousy or other emotions that could lead you to do those things? The Bible says to honor your father and mother — but you don’t have parents, so how could you ever do that? And the Bible says to sanctify the Sabbath — but you never do any work, so how could you even honor the Sabbath by resting? 

The angels saw that Moses was right. Angels are really great at one thing: being perfect. But perfect creatures are static. They don’t experience painful challenges, they don’t grow, and they don’t make choices that add beauty to the world. We humans do those things. God gives the Bible to humans not to make them into angels — but to make them better at being the unique thing they are: human animals, with feelings, flaws, and all, that can learn to use their capabilities in more beautiful ways.

I think there’s a lot of wisdom in this story. And I want you to notice how far it is from demanding that humans do “The Most Possible Good™.” That language suggests a maximizing ethical theory like utilitarianism, which says that we have to do the action that produces the greatest good for the greatest number. In other words, we have to optimize. 

Moral optimization may be possible for angels, but not for humans. We each hold multiple values, and sometimes those values are in tension with each other, forcing us to strike a balance as best we can. We’re not omniscient beings who can know with certainty how best to strike the balance. 

What’s more, sometimes different kinds of moral good straight-up conflict with each other. Think of a woman who faces a trade-off: She wants to become a nun but also wants to become a mother. She can’t balance between those options — she has to choose. And what’s the better choice? We can’t say because the options are incommensurable. There’s no single yardstick by which to measure them so we can’t compare them to find out which is greater.

Given that this complexity is baked into the human condition, it’s impossible to be a perfect optimizing machine. And the more you try to force yourself to be that, the harder it’ll be for you to actually help others, because you’ll just be so burned out. As you’ve already discovered, the optimizing mindset is exhausting — you end up expending a lot of precious mental resources that you could be spending on something else. It can even lead to paralysis. And a lot of the time, there’s no knowably best decision.

So instead of trying to optimize everything, you can adopt a goal that’s humbler but more realistic: to live in line with your values as best you can. 

I know that can feel scary. Optimizing makes being human feel less risky. It provides a sense of control, and therefore a sense of safety. The unspoken premise is that if you optimize, you’ll never have to ask yourself: How could I screw up that badly? 

But there’s another way to feel safe. It’s about leaning into the fact that we are imperfect and vulnerable creatures and that even when we’re trying our hardest there will be some things that we do not do optimally.

Of course, we should still try to live in line with our values. But in those moments when we fall short, we shouldn’t berate ourselves, thinking, “I sinned!” In Hebrew, the word we typically translate as “to sin” (lachto) actually means “to miss the mark.” It’s the same word we’d use to describe someone with a bow and arrow who’s targeting the bullseye but misses it slightly. This is a useful image, because it reminds us just how normal it is to miss the mark. Just as the archer’s arrow is buffeted around by the wind, we’re buffeted around by all the physical and psychological conditions acting upon us — naturally we won’t always hit the bullseye! And when we do miss the mark, we deserve compassion.

I know what you’re thinking: What if adopting this mindset means you’ll become morally complacent and let yourself off the hook too easily? This is one of the most common objections to practicing self-compassion. But research shows it’s not well-founded. In fact, psychologists have found that more self-compassionate people are better able to acknowledge when they’ve made a mistake. They’re more likely to want to apologize and make amends to others when they mess up. And they try to do better the next time around. Why? Because, to them, mistakes don’t feel so psychologically damning. That allows them to take more — not less — responsibility for their actions.

Yom Kippur can feel terrifying when any mistake you’ve made over the past year seems damning. But according to the ancient rabbis, Yom Kippur is not meant to be a somber day — it’s one of the happiest days of the year! After all, it was on Yom Kippur that Moses descended from Mount Sinai carrying the second set of tablets inscribed with the Ten Commandments, ready to gift them to the people. 

You probably know what happened to the first set of tablets: Moses shattered them after seeing the Israelites engaged in idol worship. What’s less known is that, according to one rabbinic story, God’s response to the shattering of those tablets was to actually congratulate Moses. Why did God think breaking them was the right move? And what was different about the second set? 

While the first tablets had been fashioned by God and God alone, the second tablets were a human-divine collaboration: Moses carved the stone and God inscribed the words. And while the first tablets contained only the words of the Ten Commandments — a black-and-white, rule-based morality — the rabbis tell us that the second tablets contained within them all the stories and interpretations that Jewish sages would later develop.

In other words, God recognized that you can’t just give humans a list of moral rules and call it a day. Maybe that would work for angels, who live in a simplified, disembodied world, but our ethical life is just too messy and multifaceted to be captured by any single set of universally binding moral principles. Yet God chose people over angels anyway, inviting us into the collaboration and embracing our humanness rather than rejecting it.

So, to the rabbis, Yom Kippur was a happy day because they fully expected that God would accept and embrace messy humans. 

Please, don’t try to be more zealous than God.

When you’re taking action, by all means, aim your arrows as true as you can — try to hit the bullseye, the place that captures as much of what you value as possible. But once you’ve released the arrow from your bow, let it be. 

If it turns out that you missed the mark, that you acted suboptimally, I put it to you that that is okay. You are not an angel. You are not a perfect optimizing machine. You do not have access to a magical mathematical formula that can consider countless incommensurable variables and spit out the very best move with certainty. You are human and you do the best you can with what you’ve got. 

The wisdom of these millennia-old stories is that that’s good enough for God. Let it be good enough for you, too. 

Bonus: What I’m reading

• Writing this column reminded me of The Mindful Self-Compassion Workbook, written by the psychologists Kristin Neff and Chris Germer. It really helped me develop a self-compassion practice, which has in turn helped me get a grip on my own scrupulosity. I also strongly recommend the eight-week self-compassion course run out of Neff and Germer’s nonprofit, the Center for Mindful Self-Compassion.

• I’ve always associated the philosopher Thomas Nagel with questions about consciousness, but I recently learned that he’s also super interested in questions about religion. In a great essay called “Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament,” Nagel asks: What, if anything, does secular philosophy have to put in the place of religion? More specifically, can it answer the question: What is the underlying nature of the universe, and how can the human individual live in harmony with it? 

• In this Aeon essay, philosopher Elad Uzan argues that AI will not be able to solve ethics for us, despite what some people hope. Drawing on the mathematician Kurt Gödel’s famous incompleteness theorems, Uzan writes, “just as mathematics will always contain truths that lie beyond formal proof, morality will always contain complexities that defy algorithmic resolution.”