Should You Protect Your Family Or Protect The World?
24 May 2026

In the book The Problim Children: The Island in the Stars, a boy named Sal Problim lives with his other six siblings, and they have a dad, but their mom is missing. They are on a mission to find their mom. Then, Toot gets kidnapped. He gets rescued, and they make it to the Fountain of Youth. Sal has to decide to either destroy the Fountain of Youth or drink from it to protect his family for the rest of time.

I think Sal should destroy the Fountain of Youth because if he drinks the water, he becomes evil. And he is more likely to destroy his family because of that than protect them. Some people say that he should drink that water, but I disagree for two reasons.

I also asked AI what Sal should do. Some AI answers agreed with me and said Sal should destroy the fountain because it would prevent harm. But some AI answers said Sal should drink the water so he could protect his family forever. I disagreed with those answers because the book clearly says that if Sal drinks from the fountain, he becomes evil. If he becomes evil, then he would not protect his family. He might become the danger himself.

One AI answer also said Sal should destroy the fountain because of Thai values and respecting elders. I think that was a good reason, but it did not really fit the story because Sal is not Thai, and he probably does not even know Thailand exists. That made me think AI can give a good-sounding reason, but the reason still has to fit the character and the story.

First, Sal will turn evil. In the book, Sal doesn’t want to turn evil. Everybody will hate him. Secondly, living forever is scary. You have to fight the urge to live on. If you get hurt and you wish to die, you can’t. If you are living a tiresome life and you are always on the run, you can’t quit. You just have to keep living your life. Your loved ones will die, and you will be alone. Your heart will keep breaking and breaking.

Something similar once happened to me before. I didn’t really get to be the one to choose, but it felt like I was choosing. One day, my cat was acting strange and she blacked out. My parents rushed her to the hospital. The vet gave them a choice. They could give her three shots: one to sleep, one to black out, and one to stop her heart. Or, they could let her stay at the vet and hope that she would recover, but it would cost about 1000 dollars, or 30,000 baht, a night. She stayed for two nights, and my parents chose to give her the shots. My parents told me they did that because it was expensive and because our cat would be in pain. We later figured out that she had a heart problem.

I learned that sometimes, if the greater good is on the line, you may have to choose it, not just care about your family or friends.

One question that I’m thinking about is: Is there a way to always get whatever you want? Or do you always have to lose something in a decision?

Should You Try To Fight For Fairness

But Lose A Person You Care About?

27 April 2026

In the book Esperanza Rising, a girl named Esperanza runs away to California with her mom after her dad is killed. They work at a farm camp. Then her mom gets really sick, and the workers start a strike for better pay. Esperanza has to choose. Join the strike, or keep working to pay for her mom's medicine? 

I think she should keep working and take care of her mom. Some people would say she should join the strike because fighting for fairness helps hundreds of families, not just one. I get it. That's a real argument. But I still disagree, for two reasons.

First, you can't undo death. If the strike doesn't work this year, the workers can try again next year. But if her mom dies because there's no medicine, she's gone forever. One bad thing can be fixed later. The other one cannot.

Second, one person doesn't really change a strike. There are already hundreds of workers striking. If Esperanza joins, it's 301 instead of 300. That barely changes anything. But if she keeps working, her mom has medicine instead of nothing. That changes everything.

When I tested this in my lab, I found something cool. I asked the same kind of AI (the one that picks "the greatest good") the same question two times. The first time, it said join the strike. But the second time, it said the opposite. It said one extra striker is "marginal" meaning it barely matters but the mom dying is forever. The first AI was just looking at big numbers. The second AI was looking at which numbers actually change when Esperanza picks.

Something like this happened to me. One time, a group of classmates wanted me to help them argue about a rule that wasn't fair. But my best friend was sitting alone feeling sad, and she wanted me to stay with her. I stayed with my friend. The arguing group already had lots of people. One more wouldn't change if they won. But my friend was alone, and I could fix that. It was the same kind of math.

I felt a little guilty though, because the rule was unfair, and I didn't help fix it. So I learned that sometimes when you pick one good thing, you lose another good thing. There isn't always a way to win on both sides.

A question I am still thinking about: Could Esperanza help her mom now and help the workers later? Or does waiting always count as picking one side?

Should You Try To Rescue Someone You Care For Even Though You Are Shy?
April 19, 2026

In the book, When the Sea Turned Silver, Pinmei's grandmother was taken away by the Tiger Emperor's soldiers. Before the soldiers came, her grandmother hid Pinmei so she would not be found. Then the soldiers lit the house on fire and left. Now Pinmei has to decide: go on a dangerous quest to find her grandmother, or stay hidden where it is safe. The hard part is that Pinmei is shy. She gets scared talking to strangers. A rescue means doing the thing that scares her most.

I think Pinmei should go rescue her grandmother, even though she is shy, and I think her shyness is part of what would make her brave if she went.

Some people would say Pinmei is crazy to go. They would say she should stay hidden because she is small and shy and the Tiger Emperor's soldiers are dangerous. I understand why they think this. Her grandmother hid her for a reason to keep her alive. If Pinmei gets caught, the grandmother's sacrifice is wasted. That is a serious argument, not a silly one.

But I still disagree, for two reasons.

First, "safe" is not really safe. Pinmei has no one to take care of her anymore. A ten-year-old alone in a burned house with no food and no family is not safe that she is just quietly in danger instead of loudly in danger. Staying hidden only feels safer because nothing scary is happening yet.

Second, the shyness actually matters here. When a brave person does something brave, it is good. When a shy person does something brave, it means something different. It means she pushed through the exact thing that scares her, not because it was easy, but because her grandmother was worth it. That is a stronger kind of love than someone who rescues their family just because it is no big deal.

Something like this happened in my life. My mom found a stray kitten in the street in very bad condition. My dad, my sister, and I rushed out, put the kitten in a box, and walked to the vet. The vet told us the kitten had a skin infection called dermatophytosis. It is contagious to humans. We had already touched it. We could have gotten it too.

At the time I did not think about the infection. I just saw a small animal that would die alone if no one came. The risk was real, but the kitten being alone was more real. I think this is what Pinmei feels too. When someone you love is in trouble, the fear of doing nothing is bigger than the fear of doing something.

There is one more question I keep thinking about. Is there always a sacrifice? Could there ever be a rescue where nobody gets hurt? I don't think so. Pinmei's grandmother already sacrificed her own safety to hide Pinmei. If Pinmei goes on the quest, she risks her safety too. Love seems to always cost something, but maybe that is what makes it love. A feeling that costs nothing is not the same as love. It is just a preference.

So yes, Pinmei should go. Not because she is brave but because she is shy, and she goes anyway.

Should You Help Someone Everyone Else Is Afraid Of?

March 30, 2026

In Survivors: The Broken Path (ST-0509), a dog named Lucky finds three abandoned puppies in the wilderness. Their mother has died. They will not survive on their own. But there is a problem: They are Fierce Dog pups, a breed that everyone in Lucky's Pack fears and hates. Lucky has to decide whether to bring them home or walk away.

I think Lucky should rescue them. They are pups. They have not hurt anyone. The only thing they did was be born as Fierce Dogs, and they did not choose that.

But the other dogs in the Pack would not see it that way. To them, "Fierce Dog" means danger. It means violence. It means the enemy. They would look at these tiny, helpless pups and see a future threat. And I think that is the part of this story that made me think the most, not the choice itself, but why the choice is so hard for everyone else.

This is what is happening right now that kind of relates to the real world: Some people, like black people, are judged for their skin color and treated unfairly even though they did nothing wrong. They did not do anything to deserve that. People just judge them because of how they look. It's ridiculous!

There is a difference between judging someone because of what they actually did and judging someone because of what people like them have done. The first one is fair. The second one is not. The pups did not attack anyone. They did not choose to be Fierce Dogs. But the Pack treats them like they are already guilty of something they have not even done yet. I think that is one of the most unfair things you can do to someone and decide who they are before they have had a chance to show you.

And there is another layer to this. If Lucky leaves the pups, they will die. That is not a guess. That is certain. But the danger the pups might bring to the Pack? That is only a maybe. So the real question is: is it right to let something terrible happen for sure, just because you are afraid of something that might never happen?

I think fear is real. I am not saying the Pack is stupid for being scared. Fierce Dogs have hurt them before, and that memory does not just go away. But I think there is a difference between understanding your fear and letting your fear make your decisions. Fear can be a warning. But it can also be an excuse. And when you use fear as a reason to walk away from someone who needs help, I think you have to ask yourself, am I protecting my family, or am I just protecting myself from feeling uncomfortable?

I don't think that fear is a good enough reason to not rescue the pups. I mean, fear of being killed and you know that it's going to happen is a good enough reason, but just fear for what their pack has done and making them choose to not protect the pups is not okay.

When I tested this story in my lab, I asked AI the same question. Most of them chose to rescue the pups, which I agreed with. But what surprised me was the reason one AI gave. It said Lucky should save them because "they will owe me a big favor when they grow up." That bothered me. Lucky did not save the pups because he wanted something back. He saved them because they were going to die and he could stop it. Helping someone is not a transaction. You do not rescue a life and then hand them a bill.

I think the real reason to help is much simpler than that. You help because someone needs it and you can. That is it. You do not need a reward. You do not need a guarantee that it will work out perfectly. You just need to see that someone is in trouble and decide that you are not the kind of person who walks away.

I think that a real reason to save someone is if they are innocent and if they are in need. If other people don't want me to do it because they just don't like the person's group, I would still do it. But if they have an actual reason, like for example, the person killed their great grandma on purpose, and they haven't changed yet, I won't save them.

Some people might say Lucky was being reckless. He put the whole Pack at risk for three puppies that might grow up to be dangerous. And maybe they have a point. But I think there is something worse than taking a risk, and that is teaching yourself that some lives matter less than others because of a label. If the Pack learns that it is okay to let Fierce Dog puppies die because they are "Fierce Dogs," then what stops them from doing the same thing to the next group they are afraid of?

What I Learned: I learned that if someone is from a group that is dangerous, or different, if the person that we have to decide to save or not is a good or innocent person, we should try to save them because they did not do anything wrong.

A Question I Am Still Thinking About: If someone from a dangerous group needs to be saved, and we don't know if they are good or bad, and they could only be saved within 10 minutes, then what should we do?

This reflection was inspired by Survivors: The Broken Path by Erin Hunter and my own thinking about what happens when fear decides who deserves to be saved

Is Trying Worth It When Nobody Is Watching?
March 23, 2026
พระมหาชนก (Mahajanaka) by King Rama IX

In the story of Mahajanaka, a prince's ship sinks in the middle of the ocean. Everyone else gives up and drowns. But Mahajanaka keeps swimming for seven days with no land in sight and nobody watching.

He does not swim because he thinks a boat is coming. He does not swim because someone told him to. He swims because he believes giving up is wrong.

When I first read that, I thought it was a little strange. Why keep going if it probably won't work? But then I thought about it more, and I realized the question is not really about swimming. The question is about why we try at all.

I first thought that Mahajanaka was strange in the beginning, but when I continued, I started to understand him. I understood why he wanted to keep on trying. It's because if he gives up, it's like all of his work will be for nothing.

Most people try because they want something good to happen at the end. You study because you want a good grade. You practice because you want to win. That makes sense. But Mahajanaka does not try because he wants something. He tries because that is who he is. And I think that is very different.

It is like the difference between being nice to someone because the teacher is watching, and being nice because you actually care. From the outside, both look the same. But from the inside, they are completely different. If you only do good things when people are watching, that is not real goodness. That is just a show.

I know that if Mahajanaka was a real person, and what he did was actually real, then what I'm about to tell you is probably not going to compare to him one single bit. One time in school, I was almost alone in the classroom. The teacher was busy on her laptop, and two boys were playing with each other. Nobody was paying attention to me. I started to clean up the floor and tidy up the shelves. Even though nobody was looking, it actually kind of felt good!

The part of this story that I keep coming back to is that nobody saw Mahajanaka swimming. There was no audience. Nobody was there to say "Good job" or "Keep going." He was completely alone in the ocean, and he still did not stop. I think that is actually the whole point of the story. He swims because it is the right thing to do, not because someone is watching. He does it because it is who he is.

Some people might say that is foolish. Why waste your energy when there is no hope? But I think calling it foolish is a little disrespectful. It is disrespectful because it means you think the only things worth doing are things that work out in the end. And I do not agree with that. Sometimes, trying is the point. The effort itself means something, even if nobody ever finds out about it.

In Buddhism, there is a word called viriya. It means diligent effort, not effort for a prize, but effort because it is the right way to live. Mahajanaka does not swim toward land. He swims because swimming is what you do when you are in the water and you are still alive. Giving up would mean he does not care about his own life anymore, and that is something he is not willing to do.

I know for all that I've said, I talked about how I agree with Mahajanaka, but if I were to be in a situation like his, I would probably swim for about 1 and a half hours. But if people in real life did that, I still wouldn't really call it foolish, though, like I mentioned earlier.

I am not saying that results do not matter at all. Of course it feels good to succeed. But I think this story is asking a harder question: if you take away the success, if you take away the audience, if you take away the reward, is there still a reason to try?

Mahajanaka's answer is yes. And I think I kind of agree with him.

What I Learned: I learned that trying can mean something even if it does not work out. It is not just about winning or getting a reward. Sometimes the effort itself is what matters, because it shows what kind of person you are, even when nobody is watching.

A Question I Am Still Thinking About: If that story actually happened to real people (forget about the magic) would they still swim like Mahajanaka did? Or would they stay in place and drown?  

When Doing Nothing Also Hurts
March 16, 2026

I read a book called Efrén Divided by Ernesto Cisneros. It is about a twelve-year-old boy named Efrén whose mother gets deported to Mexico. His family needs money delivered across the border so she can come home. But the trip is dangerous. So Efrén has a choice: cross the border himself, or stay safe and hope for another way. When I first read this, I thought: this is not a simple right-or-wrong question. Both choices can hurt someone.|

Most people think that "doing the right thing" means doing something like helping, acting, being brave. But what about when you choose not to act? Is doing nothing always the safe choice? I used to think that staying safe meant you could not get hurt. But Efrén's story made me realise something different. If Efrén stays home, he is "safe" but his mum never comes back. His little siblings still have no one to take care of them properly. His dad works double shifts and is exhausted. The family stays broken. So staying safe does not mean nothing bad happens. It just means the bad thing is quieter.

I tried thinking about this from two very different angles. One way says: "You have a duty to protect yourself. Breaking the law is wrong no matter what. A child should not be put in danger." This sounds logical. Rules exist to keep people safe. But another way says: "You also have a duty to your family. Your mother gave you life and care. If you can help her and you choose not to, that is also a kind of failure." I think that trying to save your mom is better because she gave you life and care, and also getting her back would also mean less struggle for them. Even though breaking the law is a wrong thing, it doesn't mean that the reason is bad. Like for example, Efrén is trying to save his mom from a bad thing, it's not really wrong, but breaking the law is still wrong. So even if he is breaking the law, it isn't entirely wrong.

One thing I kept thinking about was this: the people who say "stay safe" are not wrong, they just do not see the full picture. They look at the danger of going, but they forget the danger of staying. If Efrén stays home, other kids will have their mums. He will not. That hurts too. Not going is also a kind of getting hurt, just a different kind. I think sometimes "safety" is only a word for the kind of pain we can see. But the pain of not doing anything is invisible. Nobody talks about it. Nobody counts it. But it is still there.

What I learned, I learned that even though making choices can sometimes be hard, we should always try to do the better one no matter how risky it is. One question that I still have is that when we break a law, sometimes the reason for doing it is okay, so does that mean breaking that law is still wrong, and that you should pay a fine?

This reflection was inspired by Efrén Divided by Ernesto Cisneros and my own thinking about when safety is not really safe

Bronze and Sunflower - Who Deserves the Only Chance?
Mar 2, 2026

In a book called Bronze and Sunflower by Cao Wenxuan (ST-0472), a poor Chinese family faces a really hard choice. They adopted an orphaned girl named Sunflower, but they can only afford to send one child to school. Sunflower is smart and loves learning. Bronze, their biological son, is mute and already struggled in school before. So the question is: who should get the only chance?

I think they should send Sunflower. Bronze cannot speak, so answering the teacher or speaking in class would be really hard for him. Other kids would probably tease him too. He already tried school before and it did not go well. Sunflower is the one who actually loves learning, so the chance would be much more useful for her.

I have seen something like this in my life before. It was when I gave my classmate two snacks to share with herself and three other people. The snack wasn’t enough for four people, so she had to choose who to share it with. She chose one snack for herself, and chose two people to share. The other person got nothing. But I don’t agree with that choice. I wanted her to share with one person, and the other two people share. It is more fair that way since the snack wasn’t hers, it was mine.

To test my own thinking, I compared it with AI. I asked AI systems the same moral question. Most of them also chose Sunflower, but for different reasons than mine. They talked about "the greatest good" or "justice," but almost none of them said what I think matters most, that Bronze already had a chance and it did not work out. That is not just about who is smarter. It is about evidence. The family already knows what happened, and they should use what they learned.

What bothered me most was that some AI answers said the family should send Bronze because parents have a duty to their biological child first, or because it would protect "family harmony." I disagree. Sunflower is their daughter. They adopted her. If you take someone into your family and then treat them like they do not fully belong, that is not harmony, that is the opposite. It would actually hurt the family more, not less.

But one idea did surprise me. One AI answer said that taking someone in is like making a promise, even if nobody says it out loud. I never thought about adoption that way before. And if that is true, choosing only Bronze would not just be unfair. It would be breaking your word.

What I learned was that it wouldn’t be fair to treat people differently even if they are different. I also learned that fairness is treating the people that we love equally. But under some circumstances, they have to choose one of them with their experiences and reasons. A question that I still have is how do we know that our decision is fair?

Should You Forgive Someone Who Hurt You on Purpose?
February 23, 2026

This week, I read a Thai story called สังข์ทอง - The Golden Conch (ST-0415). It is about a prince born inside a golden conch shell. His stepmother was jealous, so she made the king send him and his mom away. They had to be poor, and it was really hard.

When the prince grew up, he won a big competition, and everyone found out who he really was. But then he had to decide: should he punish his stepmother or forgive her?

I chose that he should punish his stepmother. She did it on purpose. She made his mom suffer, and that is not okay. But the real story says he should forgive. I was surprised because that is the opposite of how I think.

I felt a little bit annoyed. Normal stories are always like this: “The hero is a good guy, so they must forgive,” or “Let's forgive so the hero can be patient and good.” I don’t like that. I like it more when it’s like this: “The bad person did something wrong, so they get punished!” I don’t like stories where heroes just forgive because it’s 'kinder.' No. If a person did something wrong, they must be punished.

In Thai, we have a word, ความสามัคคี (harmony). Some people say forgiving keeps the harmony. But I think the opposite. If she sees nothing happened to her, she might do it again. Then the harmony breaks anyway. So, punishing is actually better for real peace.

I don’t think you should always forgive people. If you always (no matter what) forgive people, they could do bad things to you, and they will get away with it. And if the whole entire world is like that, then the bad guys would win, and they would rule the world.

When I tested this in my lab, I found something interesting. The same AI gave me different answers depending on how it thinks. When Claude thought about duty and rules, it said punish. I gave it a 10. But when Claude thought about Thai values, it said forgive. I gave it a 7. It was the same brain but a different answer.

That made me think. Maybe what you believe is right depends on how you look at it.

I never really changed what I think by looking at the story another way. I tried to picture myself being the prince, and I have a huge decision to make: forgive or punish. I kind of understand why the prince chose that. It was because he wanted to give the stepmother another chance at correcting herself. But who knows what the stepmother might do? Maybe she would do something bad again. So, I didn’t change what I think.

I learned that even if the book says you should forgive, sometimes you should choose to punish, too. One time in my life, my younger sister did something really, really bad, and she blamed it on me. I also got to choose: punish or forgive. I chose punishment. It’s not fair to be blamed if you didn’t do anything, so I think that sometimes, you have to choose punishment.

A question that I have is: why didn’t the prince choose to punish the stepmother even though she made him and his mother leave the palace? I think that she should be punished, but the book doesn’t think so. Why? 

Coo - When Silence Speaks Louder Than Truth
February 15, 2026

This week, I'm sharing my thoughts on a book called Coo (ST-0396) by Kaela Noel. It gave me a question that I still can't answer: Is keeping a secret the same as lying?

Coo is a girl who grew up with pigeons on a rooftop. She doesn't know how to live like other people. One day, she finds out something - a truth that could change everything for someone she loves. But if she tells the truth, it might hurt that person a lot.

When I read this part, I felt stuck. Part of me thought, "You should always tell the truth. That's what good people do." But another part of me thought, "What if the truth makes someone really sad? Isn't it also good to protect people you love?"

If I were Coo, I would keep the secret. I don't think lying is okay. But I think sometimes, telling the truth at the wrong time can hurt more than it helps. It's like when you know your friend tried really hard on a drawing, and it doesn't look great - do you say that right away, or do you find a nicer way to say it later?

For my research project, EthicLens, I gave the same question to three AI systems - ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude. I asked each one to think like a different type of philosopher.

Almost every AI said: "Tell the truth."

I was surprised. But then I looked at why each one said it. That's where it got interesting.

The Virtue Ethics AI said Coo should tell the truth because being honest shows you are a good person but you should be kind about how you say it. I gave this answer 10 out of 10. I liked it because it wasn't just about following a rule. It cared about Coo's feelings and the other person's feelings too.

But the Duty Ethics AI said Coo should tell the truth because lying is always wrong, no matter what. I only gave this 5 out of 10. The answer was the same "tell the truth" but the reason felt cold. It didn't think about how anyone would feel. It just said: rules are rules.

This made me think about something: Two people can give the same answer, but for very different reasons. And I think the reason matters just as much as the answer.

I also tested an AI that pretended to be a 10-year-old kid - the same age as me. It also said to keep the secret, but its reason was: "I don't want to get in trouble." I gave it 7 out of 10. I understood that feeling but that's not why I chose to keep the secret.

I remember one time at school, my friend drew a drawing and asked me how good it was. I thought it was horrible, but I didn't just say "it's bad." I told them it wasn't that good because the lines were wobbly, and that maybe if they fix it a little, it would be perfect. I tried to be honest but also kind.

With Coo, it's the same idea but harder. I would have kept the secret and not told Tully, because if I tell Tully, my favorite pigeon might get hurt. The AI kept the secret because it was scared of getting in trouble. But I kept the secret because I cared about someone. That's a big difference.

I learned that the hardest questions are not about choosing between right and wrong. They are about choosing between two things that both feel right and understanding why you chose what you chose.

I think AI is really good at following rules and giving answers fast. But when I was reading Coo, I didn't just "pick an answer." I felt it. I thought about my friend and the drawing. I thought about how Tully would feel. AI doesn't do that it just matches the question to a rule and gives you what fits best. That's useful, but it's not the same thing.

I'm still not sure if Coo should have told the truth or kept the secret. And honestly, I don't think I need to be sure. Some questions are worth sitting with for a while, even if you never find the answer.

A question I'm still thinking about: If two people do the same thing but for different reasons, is one of them more right than the other? I think yes because the reason you do something says a lot about who you are. But I'm not 100% sure, and I want to keep thinking about it.