You raise a lot of issues here, but let me say something about the fiat iustitia, ruat caelum principle, the idea that you must pursue justice though the heavens fall, which you certainly touch on in an interesting way. There are clearly circumstances when righting past wrongs judicially seems besides the point, since it would be in no one's interests to do so, or so it seems. It might not be in the interests of the parties concerned anymore, but on the other hand the deterrent effect on other potential criminals is an important consideration, the fact that even after a long time a court can punish someone for his past egregious behaviour may give a potential child abuser pause for thought. And that may help vulnerable people in the future. On the other hand, there are your relationships with family members which will be irretrievably damaged by bringing such a charge, and the suffering that that would cause, which certainly needs to be taken into consideration. Only you can say where you...

I am not sure you should accept what your friend suggests, that God creates something that has to be imperfect. We normally expect someone who is good at something to infuse their product with their skill, so why should we not expect God to create something perfect? Philosophers sometimes say his product is imperfect because the material he works with, matter, is imperfect, but then there is an English saying, I believe, that a poor workman always blames his tools.

The first problem is in knowing whether being "cured" would make them unhappier or otherwise, and how one would find out. Then there is the issue of autonomy, which we value even if it makes someone miserable, or more miserable than they might be otherwise. After the "cure", presumably the individual has greater ability to take their own decisions etc. and this can lead to problems of one sort or another. It is the old question of whether it would be better to be a contented pig or an unhappy Socrates, although it seems to me that Socrates often appeared to be rather cheerful, and pigs do occasionally look rather mournful, especially when something tasty is out of reach. Your question does raise the issue of how important happiness should be to us, as opposed to other valuable human aims such as freedom of choice, knowledge, a variety of experence and so on. What sorts of life are worth living, and more worth living than alternatives? These are the issues that are relevant here.

Annoyingly I suppose they do, since their behaviour may only be temporary, and may have been caused by something that really interferes with their autonomy in any case. On the other hand, they can certainly be treated less well than other people, in the sense that their behaviour can be taken into account, and will be, in how we respond to them. If someone offends us we are entitled to bear that in mind in how we treat that person, unless we deserved to be offended, of course, albeit in only a limited manner. A dangerous driver fails to show sufficient respect to other road users, but we are not entitled to drive him off the road, however much fun that would be!

I think it depends on the significance of the action. Some actions we regard as immoral but not terribly important. The person sitting next to me in the library on the computer is annoying me giggling at Facebook with her companion, and I suppose this is immoral, since she has a duty not to disturb others in a public space in this way, but hardly something that should be illegal, although the idea of her being hauled away by the police is not an unpleasant one to me. For liberals it is the notion of harm that is significant. If you think that abortion causes harm then it would be difficult to argue that the law should not be involved. Of course, marital infidelity also causes harm and there are countries where it is harshly punishable. Another highly relevant issue is whether one thinks that punishing behaviour will be effective in controlling it. So one may think an action is immoral and should be punished by the state, but it is not likely to be effective to try to do so. Which means there is no...

No, not unless he or she commits them or directs that they be committed. When one joins an organization one does not necessarily agree with everything that the organization does. Soldiers should not follow orders that are immoral, and if it is widely believed by them that the enterprise on which they are engaged is immoral or is full of immoral actions, then they should not be a part of it. But in my experience most of the military are not engaged in anything that could be described as immoral or as involving atrocities, and so there is no reason for their non-participation in the war. It is a principle of living in a country where the military is independent of the government that a soldier sometimes is obliged to do things which he personally voted against, although he should never do anything he considers immoral, however many people voted for it or the party that supports it. That is why in America a sharp distinction is made between those who support the war and those who don't but still...

It might be argued that it is wrong to contemplate favourably doing evil things, even if one does not actually do them. Perhaps that is what Jesus had in mind when he condemned adulterous thoughts, and equated them with adulterous actions. There is of course a connection between thinking and acting in general, even if it does not occur in a specific instance, and it is not improbable that the more one thinks about doing wrong things, the more likely one is eventually to do them, or at least to view their performance with equanimity. But I think you are right, someone could argue plausibly that he enjoyed having particular thoughts of actions which he would never actually carry out, and would be ashamed to carry out, and there is nothing obviously wrong with that. I remember working with a man who in private expressed feelings of great hostility to certain ethnic groups, but when in his professional life he had to deal with them he was the model of fairness and politeness. In such cases these negative...

No, Occam's Razor is not an especially priviliged principle and going for the simplest explanation of something is not, as the distinguished thinker Sherlock Holmes knew well, always the best. Religious people sometimes tend to argue anyway that God's existence represents the simplest explanation of the phenomena. In that case, Occam's Razor would represent an excellent reason for being a believer.

I would not be that worried about the situation, however hard parents try to influence children there are always opportunities for them to work things out for themselves eventually. There are plenty of influences coming to them from elsewhere that will surely give them pause for thought in the future on this sort of topic. In some ways one might welcome the fact that they are being brought up by one parent in such an unusual and distinct manner, as compared with the majority of their peers. Many of my students tell me quite frankly that it makes them sad that I am going to hell, according to their lights, since I am not a member of their religion, and I often reply that one day we shall know, and I may have some surprising company there. The most effective way of resisting the narrow message of a particular faith is not to oppose it fiercely, this only fans the flames, in my view.

I think you hit the nail on the head at the end where you acknowledge that an excellent way of being happy is not to try to be happy, but just to do what you find fulfilling. Once you start asking questions about what makes you happy it is difficult to feel content with any particular state of affairs, especially if you see happiness as a reward in the future for hard work in the present. I would get out of the library and spend more time doing things you enjoy doing right now, and that will make your academic work much more productive and enjoyable.