Some acts become morally wrong only due to the victim's knowledge of them. (For example, in an answer on Feb. 16, Charles Taliaferro says "internet stalking" is wrong because "the people you are studying so closely would not want this, should they ever know about it.") What is the moral status of such an act if the victim doesn't find out about it? In case that sounds too obscure, here are two other examples (from real life): 1. Ogling: if a man looks at a woman and feels attracted to her (but does not say or do anything), and she finds him repulsive, she would feel that she had been wronged if she knew about his attraction, but has no way to know about it. 2. Jewish law requires a group of 10 Jews to worship (defined as people whose mothers were Jewish). I know a non-Jew (Jewish father only) who tricked a group of 9 orthodox Jews by claiming to be Jewish and praying with them. If they knew he wasn't Jewish by their standards, they would have been harmed, but they had no way to find out. In the ogling...

If we were able to create a computer that functions exactly like a human brain, when does this "artificial" intelligence stop being artificial? I suppose what I'm trying to say is that if this computer could truly learn, and be programmed in such a way as to develop emotions just as humans do, when does it become real? When is it not right to just plug it out and "kill" it? Many people would, I'm assuming, argue that a computer isn't living, or isn't biological. (As posed in an earlier answer, that's not particularly valid; we all weed our gardens.) It comes down to emotion as far as I'm concerned. I'm finding this question particularly difficult to phrase, and the more I type the more I think that the question is going to come across as all over the place, so I'm going to stop at that and hope for the best! If there is no response I will try again another time.

Is there such a thing as "emotional infidelity"?

Is a universe where absolutely nothing exists conceivable without contradiction?

I always wondered at Socrates' idea that if you know that a certain way to live or that certain actions are evil, you couldn't do them. I know people do things, and later regret them. And that means that have some knowledge after the fact that if they had had before would have made it impossible to do what they regret. And that we can rationalize almost anything to keep ourselves from knowing exactly what we are doing. But doesn't, say, Macbeth know that what he is doing is evil, and does it anyway? Are there any good arguments for Socrates?

If humans (or perhaps sentient beings) could be defined, what exactly are we? I have never studied philosphy, but when I studied media I was taught that we were 'automatons'(which seemed a little glib...though that shouldn't matter) and I've come across a few theories such as wavelengths etc. Is there an answer? I hope this isn't too scientific.

I graduated with a degree in math. I always had an interest in philosophy. I even took 5 classes beyond the requirement of my degree. After some years after graduation, I really want to be a philosopher. Since I obvious am not in good standing to apply to a PhD program, I need to get a masters degree. In order to apply to the master 's degree program, I simply don 't have the recommendation letters. What can I do to get the Rec letters for me to apply to a Master 's degree program?

What way of communicating is better? Is it a verbal communication or text communication? Why? I believe there are no different between them. Yet all girls say that better way of communicating is verbal communication.

Is there any value in "thinking for yourself" on subjects that have long been thought about before? Regarding whether God exists, for instance, lots of people far smarter and more knowledgeable than I have been unable to come to a consensus. If they can't figure it out, I have little hope of finding the truth myself. And if they did happen to come to consensus, it would be silly of me to try and prove them all wrong. So why should I think for myself if smarter people have already thought for me?

Is it true that before 2006 Pluto was a planet, and now it no longer is? Or was Pluto never a planet by IAU's post-2006 definition, and still is a planet by the pre-2006 definition? You can't change what something is just by changing a definition right?