I recently heard someone make an argument, something like- "if you accept that there is morality in sex, for example that a father having sex with his daughter is wrong, you can't say gay sex isn't immoral because people should be able to do whatever they want because it causes no harm to others" Is this argument or proof begging the question? Philosophically, what is wrong with this argument.

First, I want to clarify that indeterminism is there exists no fact to the matter about future events. It is different than saying that the future is extremely hard to predict. In other words, some say that a coin flip in indeterministic. However, assuming that all particles (atoms, and molecules, etc) behave in mathematically predictable ways, then an omniscient being, knowing the physical properties of all relevant matter (the coin, air current, force of flip, etc) should be able to predict the outcome. Therefore, a simple coin flip is not evidence of indeterminism, because its out come is theoretically (though not practically) possible to determine. Is this a correct way to interpret the view? Second, where do indeterminist think that indeterminism can come from, given the standard view that all matter follows predictable laws of physics?

Why don't analytic philosphers in the Anglosphere take a stronger stand against continental psychoanalysis which is divorced from medical findings?

Many people immediately dismiss the following claim: Either something lacks subjective experience, or it does not. Of course, I am talking about consciousness--but I am specifically referring to Nagel's wording, "something it is like to be." Intelligent zombies may not apply. Being such an unpopular claim, it should not be difficult to cite literature refuting it. What are the first two articles and the first two books I should look to in hopes of finding the refutation? Could you begin to refute the claim here? What literature might I read in defense of this claim?

If knowledge is defined as justified true belief, why is it necessary to include "justified" in that definition. If I have a belief that corresponds with an objective state of affairs, why doesn't that count as knowledge regardless of justification? In the Theaetetus, Socrates seems to consider it self-evident that if one forms a belief based on unreliable testimony, that belief is not knowledge even if it true. I don't see why this is the case. If a delusional person tells me it is going to rain tomorrow, and I form the belief (which happens to be true) that it is going to rain tomorrow, why would that not be considered knowledge? Especially if I can use that belief to successfully guide my activity in the world? One more clarification: I can understand why justification matters with respect to the psychological process of forming a belief. I am talking about the definition of knowledge, which is already presupposed to be true.

I used to always give money to the homeless who asked for it on the side of the road. One day a relative pointed out to me that nearly every time I give to one of the homeless, I or my family gets something beneficial in return at a later time. It's definitely possible it's all coincidence or confirmation bias, but my question is should I keep giving to them with this knowledge? Or should I not due to the fact that I involuntarily expect something in return now, defeating the purpose of the generosity? Thanks.

Is it immoral to keep an animal as a pet, or is this question not within the domain of ethical philosophy? My reasoning is this, there are other much more self-involved things to do than spend time taking care of a pet, such as reading philosophy or even asking questions on this site. Pets can cause all kinds of problems, especially for its owner, and perhaps do not reciprocate affection.

Are answers to political questions less concrete than answers to questions of epistemology? Does this mean that even if 100% of philosophers think that Israel has no right to exist, it is no more valid than if 30% of philosophers agreed to the problem of other minds?

I think for many people the experience of consciousness leads to an unshakable sense that there is something that exists which can be called consciousness and which is different from matter. Many philosophers deny this. For me the experience of existence leads to an unshakable sense that at least something exists but I can't say exactly what exists. I could say that my experiences must be caused by something but its conceivable that someone would deny that intuition. It wouldn't surprise me if some philosophers completely denied that anything at all exists. What is the name of that way of thinking? What philosophers have advocated that belief?

Hi, Is there a discipline within philosophy which deals with how to acquire and hold strong opinions and yet be emotionally detached from those options. This would make it easier to represent an opinion that is being attacked while keeping a calm open mind. Please forgive my philosophical ignorance. Thank you, Michael