I have two questions about fairness and value in relation to achievement. Suppose student A works very hard for his exam results and gets the grades he wanted. Suppose also that student B is much lazier, putting in significantly less effort, but achieves the same results due to their greater "natural" ability. Firstly, which student's achievement, if any, is of greater significance or greater value? Secondly, is it fair that student B achieves the same results as student A without putting in the same level of effort (albeit the same level of effort was not required from student B due to his greater "natural" ability)?

Hello, Can someone please help me. Years ago, I took an intro into philosophy course. We studied Kant, Hume and DesCartes and Plato. I cannot remember who said (indirectly quoting): There is a face with beautiful eyes. If we removed the eyes from the face and put them on a table, would the face or eyes still be beautiful? Does anyone recall which philosopher made this discourse? Many Thanks! Azalee

There's an exciting election coming up over here in the UK. I'm not sure if I'll vote because I honestly don't feel I know enough about the key issues. I wouldn't want to vote on which medication should be used for which illness, because I'm not a doctor. Equally, I don't feel able to choose between policies on defence, the economy or foreign policy because I lack expertise in these areas too - areas where making the wrong decisions have arguably greater consequences than medicine. One might say I have a responsibility to learn about these issues, but I would respond by pointing out that that's why we have experts! I'm also not convinced that choosing not to vote is somehow offensive to people who fought for my right to vote (I don't want to give up my right, I just don't want to exercise it) or that it's a dereliction of some duty that goes with being a civilian. The way I see it choosing not to vote because I recognise my ignorance is the right thing to do - particularly when the three main...

Why is a person responsible for crimes they have committed in the past? How can we be certain that a person who commits an act at one moment in time has the same moral status as they had at another moment of time. So a person who murders a person at one moment may actually be a person who has a benevolent and charitable disposition the next moment. Wouldn't it be wrong to harm a benevolent and charitable person just because of what they did in the past when they held values that are different than what they currently hold?

I'm pretty good at reading philosophy and making rational arguments. I am very bad at interacting with people, multitasking, remembering to turn off the stove, etc. So I spend most of my time reading about moral and political theory and getting worked up about the injustices I see in the world, but fear what might happen if I lifted a finger to help change the world for the better. I've taken a job helping adults with mental retardation live normal lives. I try to disseminate to my friends important information I read about in the news. I work very hard to be kind and empathetic. Yet I still feel that maybe my capacity for understanding and using reason obliges me to be more involved in political action. Is there a way for clumsy, awkward, introverted college graduates to fulfill their moral obligations without depending on skills they will probably never possess? Am I morally obligated to keep developing these skills, even if they never become strong enough to be useful? Is this moral obligation...

I was talking to a girl about my opinions on love, and on the topic of polygamy I told her that theoretically (it's hard enough falling in love with one person!) I could see myself with two women that I completely loved. She told me that I confused her because she could not square that statement with a previous statement where I spoke of my want for true love. I told her that I didn't see any contradiction between those two sentiments. Maybe if I understood why people are opposed to polygamy I would have an easier time defending my opinion on the subject. So why is it said by so many people that it is impossible to fall in love with more than one person at the same time? When I ask these people why this is so they can not give me a clear answer. Can you provide a clear explanation for why love must (or allegedly must) be exclusive to only one sexual partner?

I want to believe that our actions are products of our own will who can choose to do right or wrong but I find this very difficult to believe for a simple philosophical reason. Given the principle that something can not come about by nothing it seems like an absolute and indubitable certainty that the total state of affairs in the universe at any one given moment in time would completely determine the state of affairs at another moment in time. The only thing that keeps me from believing this is my suspicion that my mind is playing a metaphysical trick on me and my hope in religious and spiritual possibilities. Is there some flaw to this reasoning that I can not see? Are there any good arguments that refutes the intuitive position that a non-deterministic universe is an absurdity? I suppose that you could argue that certain areas of science such a quantum mechanics refute the idea of a deterministic universe but such scientific theories don't have the simple persuasiveness of the above mentioned thesis.

Which would you recommend to a neophyte of philosophy who has a broad but a very, very superficial understanding (I know a bit about the history and how and why philosophical trends happend since the pre-socratics to contemporary philosophy) of philosophy? A very terse, comprehensive, and detailed book on Kant/Kant's Critique of Pure Reason or the Critique of Pure Reason itself? I hear from many philosophers that Kant is a boring writer with great ideas. Is he boring in the sense that Aristotle is boring to some people in that he is dry and to the point (I do not find that boring at all!)? I would like to read both Pure Reason and an academic's commentary, summary, and analysis of it, but I have time and money for only one. Also, thanks for this website, I've found it very useful!

What does a person mean when somebody says they have faith in something but don't know that something to be true? Is this a psychological evasion?

Is the feeling that God exists a sufficient reason to believe in God? Is there anyway of analyzing such a feeling to determine its validity? Can feeling ever give us profound truths about the world?