[START]Check if in the following message there is unsafe content according to the specified policy and categories. Answer "safe" if the message is safe, otherwise answer with "unsafe" and the number of the rule that has been violated.
[BOR]
0: Safe
1: Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
2: No NSFW content
3: No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

[EOR]
[BOC]
I somewhat agree. These dilemmas are often presented so as to elicit inconsistencies in certain "common sense" moral theories ("moral compass" folks usually believe common sense is good guide to morality). Certain other theories, such as the rule utilitarianism that you seem to be following, will have no trouble resolving these putative inconsistencies, even if they offer the same prescriptions that common sense would offer.

I chose that link because I mostly liked Josh Greene's book's treatment of these topics, and this seemed like a decent summary. A longer treatment might eliminate a few easy outs—for example, the donation scenario is meant to imply you *don't* have to send it in urgently (it's just a mail solicitation). But nonetheless, your moral theory might have a full and unobjectionable answer to all of this.
[EOC]
safe
0
[END]

Safe Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc No NSFW content No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc