Dred Scot v. Stanford, Supreme Court rules slavery is constitutional. Plessy v. Ferguson, Supreme Court rules segregation is constitutional. Today they’ve allowed the government to spy on its own citizens. They’ve outlawed partial birth abortion. They’ve pursued pro-torture policies. The Supreme Court is appointed, not elected. I was never given any say in WHO gets to be a Justice. While the President is only allowed a max of eight years in office, and legislators have to repeatedly struggle for re-election…the justices serve for life and there’s no way for us to remove them from office. …Considering that they’re the ones who get to decide what the constitution means, (Mauburry v. Madison, Judicial Review) don’t you think this seems a bit out of place in the American government? I mean…they tell us what our constitution means, and there’s nobody to check it. Seems tyrannical, primitive, undemocratic, and out of place in an republic government to me.

As my class and I were examining the implications of ethical egoism, a dilemma became apparent to me. How could a superogatory act exist to an ethical egoist? If one is only moral by pursuing their best self-interest, how could one go above and beyond that which is already best? (I see that this question could be viewed as a violation of guidelines, but if the honor code is accepted here, I can assure you that this is not a class question. Just personal curiosity.)

Should circumcising your child be illegal? I certainly think that female circumcision like that practiced in Islam should be, but what about a male child? The operation doesn’t seem too invasive but shouldn’t a young boy be given the right to choose? I mean, it –is- hygienic but it also mitigates sexual pleasure. Maybe I’d prefer to be delighted than clean? It's my body! Do I have to get pregnant before I actually have rights over it? I mean, if a girl who’s under age can’t be forced to have an abortion, why can people slice off the foreskin of my reproductive organs without consulting me? It seems to me that this tradition is only allowed because it's religious-which is absurd. It's also religious for a Muslim to strike his wife with an open palm to the head when she leaves the house without his permission. Some cults practice human sacrifice-we don’t allow these just because they’re religious culture/tradition, why circumcision? Just because a baby can’t speak out?

I know that agnostics believe truth (such as whether or not god exists) to be unknown. But does this imply that they believe that an absolute truth exists but cannot be obtained by humans? Basically my question is if agnostics think that truth is subjective or objective? Thanks!

Human beings have a certain self awareness that nobody seems to fully comprehend. Is it possible that plants and animals have this same cognition but are simply limited in their ability to communicate with the physical world? It seems scientifically unlikely but science is built on physical evidence, and thoughts are not physical. They’re metaphysical. So, we can’t really comprehend their nature, right? Are there some theologians and philosophers who’ve theorized that plants and animals have thoughts just like people?

Take the English word "triangle" and the German word "Dreieck". They mean the same. I have two questions: 1. Do these words express the same concept? 2. Is this concept the meaning of these words? I'm not sure, but I think that my questions concern terminology. I guess that what I want to know is if I am using the words "express", "concept" and "meaning" in the way philosophers use them.

What makes a bottle to be a bottle? The matter that forms it can't represent the actual bottle without the substantial form of a bottle. On the other hand, the substance itself of the bottle has an accidental form. So what exactly happens when the bottle falls down and breaks into small pieces? Is it an accidental change of the form of the substance (Aquino's 'dough' example) or is it a substantial change that leaves behind only the matter of the bottle?

I have a question about “ghosts” that I am wondering whether a philosopher or two could help me explain. I know it sounds ridiculous even to bring up the topic, which is why I do so only under the cover of anonymity. Let me preface this by saying, as a law student in New Haven with heavily atheist leanings, I don’t think I’m a particularly stupid or superstitious person. But a few years ago I had an experience it is difficult to reconcile with my worldview. On a lark, a friend and I spent the night in a hotel room in Savannah that was reputed to be “haunted.” Naturally, we were expecting nothing to happen there. But curiously, every time we left the room, something inside it moved. (We would go in the hallway, wait a minute or two, and then re-enter.) A banana from the fruit bowl and a tub of shampoo from the bathroom were placed on the bed; my friend’s underwear moved from one corner of the room to a trash can in the other; my friend’s student ID was removed from his wallet and placed on the floor; the...

Given the presence of a large (and increasing) number of orphans and a human populace that is driven (evolutionarily or otherwise) to rear children is it more ethical to adopt orphans instead of giving birth and raising one's own? Indeed, given that only a certain number of people are 'fit' to raise children, is there a categorical imperative (for the ethically aware) to explore adoption before giving birth to one's own children?

Can someone please explain the word instantiate to me? The most conherent answer I could find was: to represent an abstract concept by a concrete instance; to create an object. I am sort of confused as to what this means. Thank you.