If cause suffering is bad and life is in part suffering, procreate is inherently bad?

Is there a rule or a thing in philosophy that names the philosophical state of believing in something and acting/following those beliefs, (simply because they were taught to you in school, by your friends, and/or by your family), (perhaps most people around you still believing in this thing), automatically sometimes even if your personal views are against it and even when large amounts of evidence are against it or pile up against it? "Teachism" is what I fan-named it. Since I used to be a fan of the paranormal, this would be nice to know.

Having the opportunity to learn and discover philosophy is in my mind a privilege. Learning and understanding philosophical matters can be enlightening, clarifying, reassuring and ultimately life-changing. Although this may appear as a personal issue but relevant to all those who are interested in philosophy, my question is why might someone feel inadequate or not worthy of gaining such knowledge? I'm very interested and want to expand on the knowledge I already have but I feel guilty at the same time. Why should I get this and not someone else? I think philosophy should be taught in all schools and branched out to all corners of the world.

What does allow scientist to make moral and ethical judgements? I always thought that science is purely neutral and objective(yes I know this is an illusion, even if we destroy all bias and all string pullers(government, private/commercial sector) still even scientists unconsciousness can make the objectivity of his work biased without him even being aware of it), yet I see scientists making moral and ethical(which seem purely subjective to me[based on belief or opinion]) judgements nearly everywhere...

I'm willing to donate about $100 a year, out of my pocket, to help relieve worldwide hunger. But, If I had the opportunity to vote on a proposed new tax in my country that would collect an average of $1000 from each citizen (based on their income) and use all that money to relieve world hunger, I would be happy to vote for this new law. My family income is above average so I'd end up paying more than $1000. But this seems strange, ethically. I'm willing to have myself and my fellow citizens coerced by the state to pay far more towards a good cause than I'm willing to just pay on my own. Is my position defensible in a moral sense?

I am confused about Aristotle's virtue ethics as it applies to Aesop's fable of the boy who cried wolf. Since he was telling the truth the second time, is it actually the townspeople who are behaving immorally by ignoring him? Just because the townspeople could not instantly verify the veracity of his testimony (which can be independently verified), is that really a sufficient reason to let the sheep die? By Aristotle's reasoning, is the boy (an occasional liar) just as immoral as the townspeople (by negligence)?

In theory of relativity all relations are derived based on one observer in a moving frame relative to another frame. How statistically relevant it is to make conclusions based on just one observer? Who told it is valid?

I'm starting a philosophy club at my university and I need a good name! Get creative and let me know what cool names you guys can give me for this club. Hope to hear from you.

In his "Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason", Kant argues that it is possible for people to become moral by following the example of Jesus Christ. How then would he comment on Abraham's actions during the Binding of Isaac? Isn't Abraham treating Isaac as a means to an end, even if that commandment is from God during a time when Jesus was not yet born? In other words, is Jesus just one example of moral guidance out of many and there is no one true religion; that is, anyone else can serve the same role?

It seems all philosophical arguments for the existence of God all result in having nothing to say about the conception of God, God's attributes or religion. If someone accepts that God exists, how does that belief entail in accepting a particular religion over another, if at all? And if that entailment is accepted does that mean all of the articles of faith of that religion (i.e. ethics, rituals, afterlife) MUST be accepted given that God exists, by coherentism?