How are we to define colors? I have two suggestions, but I don’t know where to go from here: (1) they could be defined based on the particular subjective experiences (particular qualia) themselves or they could be defined based on the descriptor or color attribute that one applies to an object. For example: does the sky appear blue to me if and only if the sky gives rise to a particular color experience or does the sky appear blue to me just in case I (or a society) attribute “blue” to the sky regardless of the actual experience that I (we) have? Under the first definition, we only agree that the sky is blue if we actually share the same color experience whereas the second definition does not require this subjective similarity.

In The Stone column on the New York Times Site, there is an article about the issue of moral responsibility, in light of the notion that we are what we are because of such factors as genetics, environment, or perhaps determinism and/or chance. In the end the author stoically concludes, that despite it all in some sense we can choose to take responsibility for our actions. While I respect the author's sense of duty, can we fairly extend that same responsibility to other people? For example, could there still be any defense of punishment that isn't consequentalist. For that matter how can any nonconsequentialist ethical theory hold up against this argument?

Why is it that when a white person says a racial slur, such as "nigger" it is thought to be the most heinous crime. However, when a non-white, in particular blacks call whites "crackers" it is dismissed as nothing. Why is there such a double standard in American society? Why is reverse racism rampant more than ever? Whites have to fear of being shunned for voicing their injustices, because if they do, they will be called a racist. If a white is mistreated due to race in the work place nothing occurs. On the other hand, if it happens to a black it gets mass media coverage. The politics are backwards, the NAACP, pushes racial equality for blacks, yet they are immersed with racism towards whites; not all are but it has been displayed. If a white were to make an Organization for the advancement of their race it would be an outcry for its dismantle. Shouldn't all race Organizations be abolished since we're under the same umbrella, the Human race? I too often experienced this firsthand, being of black decent. I...

In ZFC the primitive "membership" usually has the statement "x is an element of the set y". My question is "is the element 'x'" of a set ever not a set within ZFC?

Do humans have a greater right to live than other animals? If so, would beings of much greater intelligence and perception hold that same right over humans?

My question is in part about language and in part about the nature of causality. I have noticed that some persons use the phrases "at random" or "by chance" in ways that make no sense to me. For instance, someone might claim that a coin which is flipped lands heads up "by chance" or that complex weather phenomena occur "at random." When pressed on what this means, they usually respond that the coin landed heads up for no reason; it just as easily have been tails up. Surely this isn't true nor is it what they genuinely mean, is it? The side on which coins land is due to weight distribution, pressure, wind, and a handful of simple mechanical principles and weather phenomena are highly complex systems that operate by way of long causal chains, but neither of them happen without any reason at all. Do these phrases really just mean, "this outcome could not be predicted because I don't have the data?" Nothing really occurs *by way of chance*, but we simply look back on outcomes that couldn't be anticipated...

I find it hard to arrive at a conclusion for the following problem: suppose I live in country where my constitution upholds my right to practice my religion (I mean a secular country), how justified is another person when he tells me that my children are not welcome in a school that is run under some other religious guidelines ? I mean the religious foundation on which the school was found is different from the religion I (and my children) practice at home. Does this person have a right to say that I cannot practice my religion in his premises ? Even though we both live in the same (secular) country. Isn't my constitutional right being violated ? I also want to bring to light the recent proposal by France to ban burqua, which has gathered a lot of unwanted attention. Also, does being secular mean freedom from religion or freedom of religion ?

I'd like some help for a panel discussion next week on "What makes a good doctor". My weekly reading of the BMJ online (which I access through a university library) yields a spate of articles, and over 70 criteria and still counting. An epidemiologist proposed "a doctor who is interested not only in the individual patient but also in the likely health of other relevant people. This of course recalls the poem of the 6 blind Hindoo scholars describing an elephant (qg, which is shorthand for "google this for more", similar to qv). A coffee-time discussion today foussed on whether a doctor should be "touchy-feely" or not. The answer is, of course, it all depends. No for an intensivist at the bedside of a gravely ill patient, yes when s/he is talking to the relatives about possible outcomes of proposed treatments or withholding them. There is of course William Osler's Aequanimitas, which advises emotional detachment. Are there other useful talking points like "touchy-feely" to convince or suggest to other...

We all wish that we die before a person we love a LOT (our parents is an example), because we think that we'll be very sad and cry all the time. But, isn't it more moral to wish that this beloved person dies before us, so we would support the extreme sadness and not them ?

I am firm believer that life human or animal should be preserved whenever possible. I would also like to believe that had I lived in Nazi Germany I would have stood up for the persecuted. So how can I reconcile my strong moral convictions with my inaction regarding the mass murder of animals everyday. Ironically enough I feel guilty for letting the law and the disappointment of my family stand in the way of stopping the massacre. This guilt is causing me great pain. Please enlighten me on what I should do.