Great question! You are in a great position if you have the skills to do either pure or applied science. I am not sure about classifying black-hole research as "a very expensive hobby," but I think the answer to your question(s) depend on the urgency of the problems facing your community, family or nation. If you are in a political community that is facing urgent needs involving energy use, and there are few if any people as skilled as you in designing a badly needed solar cell, then I think you would have a prima facie obligation to pursue the relevant applied science. But assuming there are other well qualified scientists that can or are addressing urgent problems in technology, medicine, security and the like, then it seems that there is no such obligation. Besides some of what you might think of as "pure scientific research" may lead to some fruitful, important results in applied science.

Yes, the majority can be wrong about any number of issues from ethics to philosophy or religion. Perhaps only some form of conceptual or moral relativism (in which X is right is defined in terms of a society approving of X) or providential theology (e.g. God would not allow the majority of a people to fall into error) could make the majority of people a determinant of truth. There might, however, be a more modest principle worthy of consideration. If you are in a society in which the vast majority of people believe X, this may provide some reason for you to consider whether X is true. There has also been a movement in philosophy that had its heyday in the Scottish Enlightenment that celebrates the evidential value of common sense. Thomas Reid (1710-1796) was a leading figure, and a more recent representative of this position well worth reading is Roderick Chisholm. But your example of a Nazi society is an important one and should make us cautious about uncritically accepting any majority conviction...

Great question. In replying to a question on vulgarity earlier this week, I offered a minor defense of swearing, suggestiing that it might be essential in expressing the passionate nature of one's convictions (e.g. the classic case is the law case over whether wearing a shirt with the words "Fuck the draft" was protected under free speech) and using vulgarity might be more effective to get people's attention in an emergency (e.g. if you yelled out "Get out of the ^%$#@ building; it is on fire!" you might get a faster response than if you left out the swearing). But in trying to come up with a general account about why the use of profanity might be wrong in general, I think one would need to argue that it in some way debases language and offends human dignity. I write "offends" rather than some stronger word (like "violates"!) as if a wrong is involved, surely it is not a deep and profound wrong unless other factors are involved (you are using profanity to intimidate children). Degredation and offense...

Dear Lisa M: Great question! Without knowing the details, I think the answer to your question depends upon the kind of friendship you have. Some friendships are established with something like vows such as 'I will never lie to you' or 'I will always be your friend, no matter what!' If some kind of promise has been made, it seems that one would have some obligation to be disclosive, even if that involved hurting the other party. But if there has been no explicit promise, it does not seem that the person who is no longer interested in the friendship has a duty to tell the other person, especially if no evident harm will occur from the person not knowing. There is an old saying "A friendship that ends is no friendship." I don't know whether that is quite right or whether you agree or disagree. If it is right, then there was no friendship there at all. But let's say it is wrong (as I suspect it is) and you and the other person actually were genuine friends; there was an authentic, freely given...

This is such a profoundly personal question, my fellow panelists might want me shot for trying to respond, but I shall do my best. First, your role as caregiver for 6 years is an extraordinary act of fidelity and the fact that you have had children and children's children plus friendship for 37 years is a tremendous, profound achievement. And your hesitancy in seeking female companionship while still legally married is further testimony of the love you must have shared (and still share) with your wife. I have known husbands in your position who decided to seek female companionship under precisely those conditions and whose children and grandchildren approved. And in one case I know of, the husband waited until his wife died before marrying the woman whose companionship he enjoyed during his first wife's protracted suffering from Alzheimer's. The man and his new companion are now happily married, so the option you are considering has been carried out, without apparent injury or suffering to the...

Great question. Probably one of the other panelists will do a better job than me on this one, but here goes: I suggest that the key to determining the age of responsibility comes down to measuring the development of cognitive power and control. You ask about "what age a child should be held responsible for knowing the difference between right and wrong," which suggests that there might be a time when a child might NOT know such moral differences but that at some point the child SHOULD have such knowledge. For this reason, the key is knowing when a child has sufficient cognitive power to know the moral consequences of her/his acts and omissions. If, for example, the child simply lacks the power to put himself in the position of others (and thus fails, for example, to be able to grasp that hitting his sister hurts her), then the child is not a moral agent. Moreover, if the child lacks sufficient bodily and mental powers to control her body and thought, moral agency would also not be achieved. ...

I agree that there is ample evidence of obvious human bias, greed, violence, selfishness, but I suggest that there is also ample evidence of human impartiality, benevolence, love of others, unselfish compassion. Though I am not a neo-Darwinian or a great fan of Darwin's ethics (especially his views on human races in On the Descent of Man), Darwin does make a good case that human violence, selfishness and so on cannot (if there is to be evolution) be unbridled. Given more time, I would like to develop an argument for you that in fact some form on non-violent goodness is an essential precondition for any human life, but I will cut to the chase. I suggest that one of the reasons why many of today are reluctant to simply say (to use your vivid language!): "Screw the slug, humanity is more important" is because we have seen some rather ugly results from (more or less) adopting the view that it is permissible for us (again, using one of your terms) "Screw the other species and the natural world itself,...

Wow. I am also 57 and I admire your candor and your question(s), but I am troubled by your situation. Your mention of the social contract brings to mind one of the problems with political and ethical contractarian theories. They are usually based on some form of psychological or ethical egoism or at least self-interest (Hobbes assumes we all wish to avoid premature violent death and the best way to avoid this is to form a community of mutual restraint). But once the culture or community ceases to serve our self-interest or, worse, it actively undermines our welfare, the motivation for conforming to laws, etc, seems to vanish. From the standpoint of Hobbesian contract theory, you are not being a bad person, but acting in accord with rational self-interest. Some forms of natural law might also cut you some slack: unjust contracts are not inforceable. If you are currently being preyed upon by unjust institutions, they may have waived some of their rights --just as if you are held up by a thief and you...

Great question, though "create" may not be the best term when you might refer to giving birth to a child. It seems that without considerable details, it would be very difficult indeed to answer your question. Still, one can identify some of the values that are in play. In adopting a child, it seems that you are exercising your voluntary will (it would be odd or unusual to adopt a child by accident or be compelled to do so) whereas in some cases getting pregnant may not be a choice or a voluntary one. In adoption you also may be acting to prevent harm (e.g. if the child is not adopted, perhaps she would remain in an orphanage until she comes of age) and bring about good to someone who (in most cases) already exists, whereas the child you have would not exist unless you and your partner had intercourse and the pregnancy came to term. In some respects, I suggest that giving birth to a child is the primary good. Every person, whether they will be adopted or remain with their birth family, has been, is...

Following up on Heck: The church I attend (Episcopal) is quite welcoming to gays. The associate pastor (and for many years my confessor) is a Lesbian priest. There are substantial support groups for homosexual Christians in different denominations. While Richard Swinburne is a Christian philosopher who has serious reservations on the merits of homosexuality, his book Revelation provides a goof philosophical framework within which to take Dr. Heck's advice and see the meaning of the Bible / revelation as something that is on-going and progressive.