The golden rule teaches that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto you. To what aspects of life does the golden rule apply to? If a person believes that they would never ask for charity no matter how dire their situation justified according to the golden rule in not giving money to charity? Is it possible that an exaggerated belief in ones self-sufficiency is simply a way to hypocritically evade the demands of the golden rule?

Aside from reading, learning, and getting good grades. What are the best things an undergraduate in philosophy can do to make their prospects for getting into grad school better?

I have a habit of "stalking" people I'm interested in on the internet. I'll Google their names for information about their past, ferret out photos of them on Facebook and other sites, and so on. I don't invade their privacy in any real sense, at least insofar as the pictures and information I seek out is publicly available. But I still feel bad about it, and I have this sense that what I'm doing is somehow disrespectful to the person I've become fixated on. (Relatedly, I'm sure that if others found me engaged in such activities, they'd find it at least a little off-putting or creepy.) At the same time, it isn't clear to me that anyone is actually getting hurt by any of this, so I have a hard time explaining my unease in any precise way. Is there anything morally wrong with the sort of thing I've described, and if so, what is it exactly?

Ralph Waldo Emerson is rarely mentioned in within the topic of academic philosophy while some non-academic thinkers such as Nietzsche are frequently mentioned. Why hasn't Emerson had a lasting influence? Does he have any relevant contributions to philosophy?

Why does giving authority to a sense of aesthetics sometimes lead to finding the wrong answer to a scientific question?

Dear philosophers, I have a question concerning politics and movies. Do people who boycott movies involving a certain actor/director/producer simply on the basis of the political views of that actor/director/producer acting reasonably? I wouldn't think so because a large part of how people decide whether to watch a movie or not is the history of the quality of the actor/director/producer's work and not that actor/director/producer's political views. What do you philosophers think?

Is stealing money stolen from me more ethical than stealing money justly owned? If it is, and I believe that the government or the upper classes have unjustly appropriated money belonging to my working class family for generations, am I justified morally in giving false information to the IRS in order to avoid paying taxes?

I recently graduated with a BA in philosophy. I recently applied to many Ph.D and MA program. I feel that with philosophy as competitive as it is, my record will place me in a MA program first. What can I do to distinguish myself in a MA program, for my later application to a PHD. My hope is for a top 20 school, in my area of interest, what special activities are looked for coming from an MA. The following have been suggested from a variety of sources. Please advise, did I miss anything here, are any of these wrong? Thank you for any comments you might have, 1. Maintain an good GPA 2. Publish, in both graduate and professional journals 3. Don't rely only on your own university; become involved with other nearby departments. 4. Get teaching experience. (TA, Tutoring, Teaching critical thinking) 5. Teach at a community college level (some programs allow this) 6. Gain research experience (indexing, editing etc..) 7. Directed readings in areas of study, (I'm not sure if this would help for an MA,...

I am often appalled by how sadistically Americans and people of other nations regard their criminals. I am appalled because that very sadism itself reduces people to the level of evil as the people we punish. But how does one go about confronting the absolutely wicked notion that because we dislike a persons behavior we should inflict pain on that person thereby perpetuating the evil. Perhaps it can be argued that on utilitarian grounds that some evil should be permitted if it allows less evil to result in total. But that seems to go against the instinct that their is something immoral about being the author of an evil action even if the ends supposedly justify the means. It seems like an ethical system that acknowledges the truth that punishment is nothing more than a perpetuation of evil is utterly impotent. Is there any way at all to resolve this fundamental contradiction between morality and reality?

Is it impossible that there be two recursive sets T and T* of axioms (in the same language) such that their closures under the same recursive set of recursive rules is identical and yet there is no recursive proof of this fact? It seems impossible but a simple proof of this fact would help elucidate matters!