I have recently been reading about Neanderthals who apparently buried their dead, cared for their sick, hunted with fairly sophisticated tools, made fire, made an instrument out of a bone (this is disputed), and certainly had the physical capacity for language (also much debated - hyoid bone etc). Can they be called "human" for want of a better word? Is language the key in defining us and them? Clearly they are a far cry from chimps so what criteria should we use? It is impossible to establish their thoughts but there was compassion and empathy surely at our level if they cared for their sick - one old skeleton with no teeth lived to an age which would have been impossible without him being "spoonfed". Does this imply a moral sense? From reconstructions they looked almost identical to us. So what, if anything, would set us apart?

Complex language would seem to be beneficial to the survival of other species, so why are humans the only species with this trait?

Is it possible to prove the existence of ghosts? By prove I mean that the best explanation for such and such an occurrence would be that it was caused by a disembodied spirit. Am I right in thinking that this would be impossible in principle, and that there would always be a more rational explanation?

If Hitler in 1941 had the right to send vast numbers of German men to their deaths in Russia and to cause there the deaths of vast numbers of Russians, did he not also have the right to send to their deaths vast numbers of German Jews, whom he viewed as Germany's enemies?

I believe that speciesism is correct. However I am confused about how I should feel about campaigns to kill pests like possums, rats, stoats etc which destroy native and often endangered birds, animals and plants. I understand that speciesism doesn't say that you can never kill an animal, you merely have to give it equal consideration. In this sense killing the pest could be justified if doing so produced a better outcome. But then I arrive at the problem of humans, which (I assume) would in many situations be a greater threat to our native birds, animals and plants. I can't help but feel that the answer may lie in the fact that we can do something about humans which destroy the environment by convincing them we shouldn't, it's not as easy to reason with the average possum. However this seems inadequate given the fact that these people are very, very unlikely to ever be convinced. How can we justify killing pests in moral terms in light of speciesism?

I suffer from an inheritable condition which might shorten my life span if left untreated. My doctor has prescribed me a drug which, as it happens, might have adverse effects on my mental capacity; for instance, it might bring about amnesia and mild cognitive impairment. The minutiae of my particuar situation are not significant; what is interesting is the ethical question the general situation raises: Are we obligated to do what we can to stay alive for as long as possible, or may we—if the prior option necessitates potentially adverse effects on an aspect of life we hold dear—choose not to? And if the latter is true, does this translate to all other situations of this kind? As an example, consider the case of a smoker who refuses to give up smoking, regardless of the risk involved, because of the pleasure the act of smoking confers upon her. Her family and friends naturally wish for her to stay alive and remain healthy for as long as is possible—do their concern outweigh the pleasure she takes in the...

If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into ?

I am wondering if it is ethical to own a gun? There is this attitude that keeps popping up when I raise this question, that a gun is an object just like any other and that the intent of the individual is what matters most. I can't help and think about situations where the user who owns the gun could be in a situation that gets out of his control or if an accidental discharge happens. I also wonder about the self fulfilling prophecy aspect and the law of attraction. Does owning a gun and thinking that it is a cool device contribute to the inevitability of having to use it. There is also the reality that many of the people who own guns end up using the gun to commit suicide. (I can't find the statistic but it is a staggering number.) Should Vegetarians abstain from owning guns?

I have a question that is really intriguing me as I watch news analysis and read Op-Ed pieces over the past several years. So, here is my question: There is a tendency to make a sort or analytical or "expert" or general claim that "IF such-and-such a thing (could be an activity, an obligation, a process, or an institution, etc.) fails or does badly often enough (10%, 25%, 50% of the time, etc.), THEN the conclusion is that such-and-such a thing is not worthy, not sacred - or, e.g., is a failure as an activity, obligation, process, or institution - simply because it is done poorly or mishandled some, most, or all of the time." Yet, due to human flaws and human mis-handling or misapplication or simply due to bad behavior - it is not reasonable to assume that the original, standard (or "ideal") is "bad" just because it has come to be handled or done badly by humans. Is that a basic fallacy of reasoning? Is it not reasonable to claim that? Does the argument that this position is faulty or unreasonable...

Do you consider it ethical, and hence decorous, to use cash when tipping restaurant servers with the express purpose of helping the server avoid paying income tax on the gratuity?