They are responsible for putting themselves in that drunken state in which they may have very little control over themselves.

What a rich question! Could a person without empathy be a morally good person? I suppose the old moralist Kant would say so. Hume, of course, would go in the opposite direction. It is, I guess, conceivable that such an individual might avoid all forms of transgressions, maybe even lead a saintly life. But conceivable is about it. I would think there was something wrong with an individual who could witness say the slaughter of Rwanda and not feel anything. Such an individual would certainly be classified as suffering from a psychological disorder. Putting the "morally" good life aside, we might press, could a person devoid of fellow feeling lead a good life? I don't think so. They would be missing out on what it means to be a human being. As for the dark side of empathy, it is true that empathy might lead us to unjust deeds and judgements, but the misuse of empathy is no argument against empathy itself.

I suspect that the parent would not agree with the assumption that the only way for the teenager to achieve high grades was to skip chores and read on the couch.

It depends upon what you mean by wrong. It certainly would not be a sign that you were a virtuous individual if a hurricane struck and you were filled with glee because of some of the products that you could sell them. A few decades ago, I was working as a Fuller Brush salesman in Florida. After a hurricane hit us, my supervisor was all pumped up about all the sales we could make. I found that attitude a mite sickening. And expecting people to pay in full for something when their home and life savings may have literally been washed away would seem a little stone hearted. On the other hand, I can imagine circumstances in which you were helping disaster victims and making a buck at the same time and there would not seem to be anything immoral about. Suppose you were re-building roads that had been washed out. As is often the case, it would all depend on the particulars and the individuals atttitude - unless, of course, you have been persuaded by Utilitarianism. Thanks. GM

I don't think it is morally acceptable to joke about tragedies. While I know that it is part of the orthodoxy amongst comics to try and be edgy, perhaps even to try and shock, cracking jokes about thousands of people being killed and thousands upon thousands more losing their homes certainly evinces a lack of compassion and humanity. I don't have a syllogism to proof this but I think that finding entertainment in tsunamis, or maybe next, the holocaust, makes us more indifferent to others and is bad for the soul.

I suppose you could go the "it depends on what you mean by ethical route", but I would prefer a simple - of course not . And yet over the course of American history the robber barons and hall of fame exploiters inevitably become major philanthropists. They destroy lives to build their fortunes and then are pinned with medals for endowing universities and founding museums. But the virtuoso of money making who uses others to fill his or her coffers is not a morally virtuous individual, even when they have streets and buildings named in their honor.

If a friend were to tell you the poignant story that you relate I doubt that you would tell them that there ought to be no end to their guilt, that getting spooked by marriage and backing out is a sin that can never be forgiven. Think of yourself as a friend. You apologized many times. You have suffered.You did not by any means destroy your former fiance. Truly, it would be irrational to keep torturing yourself and if it is irrational no amount of reason is going to assuage the guilt. Perhaps though it isn't all guilt. Emotions are not as easy to individuate as things in the world. Perhaps there is a strong admixture of regret for not being with her, of missing her and feeling alone, maybe that is what you need to deal with the most and that could be very hard and painful. I hope very much that you get your soul back- it sure sounds as though you have a lot of it.

There are different forms of violence- some physical, some verbal. It has been my experience that there are some angry and aggressive people whom you need to stand up to - if only to help them control themselves. I suggest that you get you future child involved in the practice of one or another martial arts from the beginning. People who feel like they can defend themselves, who feel grounded in themselves are less defensive, less easily threatened than others-- and as a result much less inclined to anger and violence. So, if your aim is to raise a non-violent, loving kid, be loving and nurturing, and get him or her boxing from an early age.

A very good question - how can we happy in this world of seemingly boundless suffering? Of course, we could always get into the "it all depends what you mean by happiness" semantics game but lets not go there. Whatever the good life is, it will have to include a connection with other humans and a real feeling for their suffering. Maybe part of the good life would involve letting that suffering into your heart and making you a more compassionate person. Sinking into depression or despair over it would be rather narcisstic. A few random points, I think it is important of recognize that there are psychological as well as physical limitations in life-- on our capacity to care. It might also be important to remember to address the pain of the people sitting right next to you. In every class that I teach I find that about 20 percent of students are going through some very very hard stuff- parents dieing that kind of thing. So don't forget the person next to you in the face of world hunger. Finally, don't...

I don't know that I would come down with the same moral judgment that you do but I strongly agree that we do not do enough to prepare people for the ambiguities in life. And you are on the mark with your small compromises. One of the greatest impediments to the moral life is our "ability" to pull the wool over our own eyes- to deceive ourselves - and we do little to address this issue in our ethics education. Thanks for your astute observation - formulated, of course, as a question