When someone says "That seems(or does not seem) logical" it is not always easy to know how they define "logical". Is it meaningful at all? I guess the question relates to the use of something that seems to be a looser term than e.g. "deductively valid" or the like, which refers to a particular system of inference and specific rules for determining truth or falsehood of propositions. Do you have any idea as to what the term commonly refers to?

Concerning the ethics of self-defense: If a convict, about to be executed, finds and seizes the opportunity to kill one of his executioners, is this ethically permissible self-defense? (Of course, even if it was, that wouldn't benefit him in any way. I still find the question interesting.)

I've heard it asserted several times in quite different contexts that "people make decisions primarily using emotional criteria, and only after the fact do they then use reason to justify this decision." I'm curious both to hear your response(s) in general, and perhaps also in a more specific context. If I understand Karl Marx' economic theory correctly, he asserts that the foundation of all social relationships is technology, or economic relationships, or how people earn a living. Social, political, religious, and governmental structures then develop as a justification of the fundamental underlying economic relationships. I'm curious on philosophical responses to this assertion, because it seems to me that it is the basis for the crucial argument that then follows. He then asserts that, because technology is constantly evolving, while bureaucratic structures are static, that a "dissonance" develops over time, which must eventually result in a re-balancing. so that the other structures are then in...

I would like to be introduced to the theory of Action. Considering that I have a general philosophical knowledge, what should I read first, which concepts should I have in mind when readeing about theory of action? How can I go from the general concerns of theory of action to the specific sides of the discussion? Thank you very much.

Many of those who favor online piracy (or who oppose restrictive laws meant to combat piracy, at least), argue that piracy does not actually hurt movie and music producers. They claim that most pirates would be unlikely to buy the products in question even if they were unable to download them for free. In restricting piracy, we aren't actually restoring revenue to the producers or anything of the sort. Those producers would be just as successful or unsuccessful whether piracy were allowed or not. Is this sensible? Let's say that I download a movie. If it is really true that I would not buy the movie in any case, does that make downloading it okay?

I am a student thinking about career choice. My parents say that I should focus on getting a job that will make a lot of money but without too many hours. But other people have told me that doing something I really believe in is good and having pleasant co-workers are equally as important. My priest says I should do work that I believe glorifies God, but I don't really understand how that translates into a concrete job choice. What answers does philosophy offer for thinking about what kind of job is worthwhile to pursue?

what exactly is existential nihilism? I have found different sources and from my understanding it is the belief that you can't create any meaning. The meaning an individual creates, even though they may change their mind and create a new meaning, and the meaning from a transcended source. An Example is from god. Is this correct summary of existential nihilism? I understand how someone reaches the conclusion that meaning is created by the self and not from some higher authority but I can't seem to understand why an individual could not give themselves meaning. Could you explain this to me very very simply? Also how would someone refute existential nihilism using atheism and not a religious answer? Does existentialism allow for you to believe in a determined universe? What I mean is a universe where science can predict everything. Thanks for your help I am not advanced in philosophy so I need an easy to understand answer

Is it considered possible to be consciously aware of an object or thought without experiencing feelings, or is "feelings" just another word for conscious awareness?. If this question can't be dismissed, which philosophers have explored it?

To what extent are our actions in virtual reality (by which I mean virtual representations of physical worlds, and not the Internet) subject to ethical criteria?

Is it wrong for little children to play "cops and robbers," wherein they simulate crime and violence?