What the hell are morals anyway? Why *can't* I do whatever I want, to whomever I want? So what if I say "Screw the social contract!" I never signed anything. What's so great about morality anyway?

What are the most notable and the best books with the subject : "history of philosophy", that can be used as a reliable reference?

Obviously, some academic fields are considered more difficult than others - for instance, physics might be considered more difficult than geology. However, there must be people who find geology (and its fellow "easier" fields) to be much more difficult than "difficult" fields. Similarly, state tests tend to be curved so that they all end up with about the same grade spreads, even if it means making a test harder or more difficult from year to year, so it is hard to tell from these examples what is actually difficult. So, can an academic topic be objectively difficult?

Does it make sense to define atheism as "a lack of belief in a God" rather than as "a belief in the nonexistence of God?"

Is it irrational to desire or view as beneficial things which would, in effect, make one a different person? For example, take someone who has a great admiration for David Beckham. While there it might seem perfectly ordinary for this person to say things like "I wish I were just like David Beckham," it seems to me that this wish, if taken literally, is somehow incoherent.

Is it ever rational to be immoral?

I have listened to various recordings of Handel's Messiah recently. Each has different rendering of the original work. What is the difference between modifying musical works of art and "touching up" a classical painting or poem?

Do employers have some kind of ethical obligation to employ their countrymen (as opposed to outsourcing)?

What underpins acceptance of scientific theories by non-scientists? In a recent argument about climate change, I maintained that, as a non-specialist, I’m not in a position to judge the validity of theories or critiques of theories of anthropogenic climate change but I instead have to make a judgement about the reasonableness of believing in statements that a certain body of people make about the world. My point was that in the absence of any dramatic evidence to the contrary it’s much more reasonable to believe that the IPCC (and almost everyone else) is right than it is to believe either that there’s a huge con or a huge mistake. I think this is right but am I missing something more?

What does Kant mean by "intuition"? I've been reading a small book by Jaspers on Kant's whole philosophy, but he is so unclear about this word "intuition" and the word seem important in some way to what Kant is saying.