David Hume famously pointed out that there seems to be a logical gap that prevents us from concluding "ought" from "is". It seem to me that the truth of this general observation is still under discussion. Does deontic logic shine any light on this question, as one would expect it to, or does the problem morph into the question which form deontic logic should take?

Do children have duties towards their parents? If they do, do these arise as a result of the parents' efforts on the child's behalf, or are they in some way structurally required, regardless of the parents' "performance"?

Is Rawls's theory of social justice reducible to rule utilitarianism? Rawls says we should adhere to rules that rational, selfish people would create if they were behind a veil of ignorance. Such people would create rules that maximize will maximize their expected utility once they are born. This means they will create rules that will maximize the total amount utility in the world, since you can expect to enjoy more utility on average in world that has more total utility. Now, rule utilitarianism says we should adhere to rules that when followed, produce the most utility. In other words, rule utilitarianism demands accordance to the exact same rules that people behind the veil of ignorance would agree to. So is Rawls effectively a rule utilitarian?

It happens repeatedly to me that when I read a poem, I may come across a feeling that the poem has actually reflected some thoughts of mine that had been floating in my mind but hadn't actually been able to express it in terms of words. Does this phenomenon pave any grounds for the argument that we may not actually need words in order to think? Would be grateful for an answer. Thanks. óAli

How do you know if you are reasonable? I'm arguing with my boss when she says something stupid. I know in my gut it's stupid. But I also know that my emotions are elevated and that she might be right--maybe what I think is stupid is really just evidence that I haven't grasped her perspective. So I try opening my ears to figure out what she meant. I figure out her perspective, and suddenly she seems to be making perfect sense, and everything I'd said before was stupid. Fast forward an hour. The argument is over, and I'm trying to work on a project. But something is bugging me and I can't figure out what it is. Suddenly I realize I never made my argument clear to my boss. I adopted her perspective, figured out where she was coming from, and abandoned my perspective. But now I'm realizing that for one reason or another, I was right all along. Her perspective was more narrowly focused than mine. Mine was better the whole time. And dagnabbit, she walked away having won the argument despite it...

You can make an argument that a particular route to Yellowstone is the best one to take; and you can make an argument that a man should give up his lover and decide to remain with his wife. But doesn't that fact that in the second case there is no map, that in the end the man himself must decide, completely change the kind of argument being made and what it can do? A philosopher couldn't give that man the correct answer, could she, by improving the argument?

Is it ethical to live a lifestyle of luxury when that lifestyle relies on exploitation and unjust inequalities?

I am very interested in the concept of the Philosophical Zombie, though after doing some research, I see that it is an argument against Physicalism. This I don't understand. I can't seem to wrap my head around why this is so. Would someone be able to explain this better and more clearly than what I read on Wikipedia? Best, Aron G.

There are those who believe that morality consists of doing what you like as long as no one gets hurt, and no one's rights are infringed upon. However where does that central idea that hurting others or infringing on others' rights is wrong come from? Isn't that also a moral judgment? What morality is it based on? Thanks.

One popular take on religious belief is that it can only be arrived at through faith, rather than considerations of evidence or reasons. Even admitting there to be a paucity of evidence in favor of god's existence, we are to suppose that one may legitimately believe in him nonetheless. A theist who not only holds this view about, but claims to believe in god in precisely this way, would then seem to claim something like the following: "Although I recognize there to be insufficient evidence for the existence of god, I still believe in him." I want to ask whether we can really take this claim at face value. Set aside the question of whether religious belief is justified from an objective standpoint, and ask whether it is really coherent for someone to genuinely believe both (1) that X, and (2) that there is insufficient evidence for belief in X. To me this notion has a paradoxical flavor, and I wonder if what is really going on in here is something else entirely. That is, I wonder whether theists of the...