Concerning Public Property: Am I morally allowed to do whatever I want so long as it is on public property (and not harming others?) or since it's on public property, can I not do anything unless the public approves? For example, if I wanted to sing a song in public train would I be morally permitted to do so or must I request the 'permission' of everyone else in the train in case they find it annoying or etc? My question is basically how do we reason about public property?

Why is C.I. Lewis' strict implication not taken seriously in this day and age? Clarence Irving Lewis was known for criticizing material implication and for instead proposing strict implication. Why is he, his criticisms, and his proposed strict implication not taken seriously today? Many contemporary logic, philosophy, and mathematical texts refer to material implication rather than strict implication.

If I see somebody getting robbed on the street and, in order to help them, I confront the attacker, should I be worried ethically (and legally I suppose) about the result of my actions toward the perpetrator? For example, what if simply telling them off isn't enough and, in order to stop the robbery, I have to use force and that force causes the death of the criminal? (I guess, for example I could push the robber away from the victim and the robber might hit his/her head too hard on the ground, etc.) Should I stop and think about the best way to stop the robbery that would avoid potentially killing the criminal (and thus risk being too late to help or try something ineffective) or should I rush in to help but risk excessive harm to the assailant? Would I be morally responsible for the well-being of the perpetrator? Thanks so much!

Are there rules we ought to follow (in the absence of coercive institutions, such as the state or an employer) that are *not* ethical rules?

I wonder about the notion of a masochist as somebody who enjoys suffering. Is it possible, logically, to enjoy suffering? Doesn't suffering necessarily preclude enjoyment and vice-versa? Would it be more accurate to say that a masochist enjoys something that non-masochists consider suffering?

Just finished reading Thus Spoke Zarathustra by philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and I can't help but be completely and utterly confused. His format of hyperbolic and metaphoric employs were incredibly interesting, but didn't quite comprehend the overall message. Maybe this novel is a bit an over-reach of a pure understanding for me. Granted, I've only read rich language in holy books. What was the philosopher trying to gift a reader with his novel?

What's the philosophical response to Nietzsche's contention that all morality is merely a trick that the weak play upon the strong to get the strong to rein in their strength?

Let's say there is some crime committed and that only 5% of similar crimes are committed by someone like Person A (based on demographics, personality type, previous criminal record, etc.). If the police later find evidence suggesting that Person A is the perpetrator of a crime and that there is only a 10% chance that the evidence could exist if Person A is innocent, then does that mean there is a 90% chance that Person A is guilty? Or do we have to factor in the fact that there was only a 5% probability that A was guilty before the evidence was found? Thanks!

Can tautology be defined as "unnecessary repetition of information"? In other words, does tautology have the same sense as repetition? Thanks.

Do we have a duty to strive towards a life without contradiction? Can a person, for example, both eat meat and hold the belief that animals should not be willfully killed for private gain?