The issue of immortality is a tricky one, ethically speaking, since death has a stabilizing effect on our population and for everyone to be immortal would result in overcrowding and shortages far faster than would happen otherwise. However, if one were to look past the simple economics of immortality (say immortality is only possible for those who have no children, and that it implies permanent sterility), are there any other ethical problems related to it? What other ethical issues would crop up if we were to gain the ability to halt the aging process?

It seems that many philosophers use the "socrates" argument to explain a simple deductive argument. This argument is P1: All men are mortal P2: Socrates is a man C: Therefore, Socrates is mortal. However, is this not begging the question because P1 assumes that Socrates is mortal?

I have been working on a theory of aesthetics and wished to have the input of someone more well versed in the philosophical literature. I have mostly centered upon music, as in: what makes one form of music, e.g. Classical, superior than another, e.g. Pop? Using Nietzsche's idea of genealogy, I determined that Rock and Roll could never be truly great art because of its development from slavery, much as Nietzsche attacked the Christian religion due to its association as a slave religion. The main quality that defines great art, I argue, is nobility. And this is a quality which servitude, or a spirit of art arising from servitude, cannot comprehend. Also, would it be possible to recommend reading that might aid me? Currently I am reading Hegel's Introductory Lectures in Aesthetics, and Kant's Critique of Judgment.

I believe we do something unethical by leading children to believe in a grossly simplified version of the world where right and wrong actions are clearly marked, and good and bad people similarly so. We tell them nothing of good intentions leading to evil actions through stupidity, the every day small compromises to our integrity and the submission to authority that people make every day at their jobs, etc. Do you agree that there is something unethical in this, and if so, are there any forums out there where this is voiced? Any books to recommend? Any remedy available?

Is identity determined by your physical appearance or something like a "soul"? If someone was to receive a brain transplant and be inside another body, would they really be the same person they were before even if they had the same thoughts, ideas, and memories? Would the new body with the same brain just be a fake duplicate?

I have heard that undergraduate philosophy majors are some of the most imbalanced university programs when it comes to gender, being a bastion of male enrollment even though most universities now have more women than men, and other traditionally male fields are seeing near-equal enrollement, and even female majorities. First off, is it true that a disproportionate majority of undergraduate philosophy majors are men? Where might I find such figures? And second and more interestingly, if this is the case, why do you think things have turned out this way?

Theists often claim that the complexities of nature and the tiny details that allow human life to exist are evidence of god, as nothing so intricate and unlikely could happen without a designer. I believe that this is not the case as the universe is infinitely massive, and there are thousands, probably even millions of different planets. Logically, it is inevitable that at least one of those randomly created planets would have the required characteristics for life to survive. Can anybody provide a convincing counter argument to this?

Hello, what do you think of this argument? If a woman has an abortion, then maybe a fetus is immorally killed. If this woman doesn't have an abortion, then a fetus is definitely not immorally killed. It is better to choose an option where a fetus is definitely not immorally killed, rather than an option where a fetus maybe is immorally killed. Therefore the woman should chose the option where the fetus is definitely not immorally killed. Therefore the woman should not have the abortion.

Many philosophers who specialise in religion are atheists. How can they speak about the fundamentals of a religion without believing in those fundamentals? Won't this inevitable lead to condescension?

When investigating the relationship between works of fiction (literature, film, TV shows, etc) and social issues like racism and particularly sexism, it seems to me that much debate involves judging the work in question based on *possible* interpretations, rather than those interpretations favored by the author or the average member of the public, which can lead to the work being both praised and scorned by people from the same camp. For example, one critic might say a story presents a strong feminist message because that story tells of a woman in the traditionally male role of a warrior using sword and stake to combat, say, evil male creatures emerging from a cave under the town, showing that a woman is equally capable of being a hero and in control of her life. Another critic might, of the same story, say that it is anti-feminist and sexist because it implies that the female warrior is only powerful because she wields a phallic symbol, and that violence is being justified against beings emerging from...