Can we learn anything from fiction?

Do any professional philosophers disagree in a huge way with Wittgenstein? If so, are there any works on the subject? If so, can someone please tell me the basic ideas behind these disagreements? Thanks!

Can there be a moral duty not to help? Suppose two persons, A and B. A suffers from an illness that makes him behave antisocially, at times constituting a danger both to himself and to others. B, a close relative, has been caring for A for many years, preventing A from the most serious consequences (jail/psychiatric clinic). However, A's state of health is not improving. Doctors suggest that B's help may indeed be counterproductive - they suppose that A needs to feel the consequences of his acts to find the strength to fight his disease. How to act in this situation, from a moral point of view? Imagine A, not 'supervised' by B anymore, injured another person. Even if the punishment helped A, what about the damaged person? And what if the punishment did not help?

A couple of months ago, I had an experience which spawned an ethical dilemma which I find fascinating. I had been in a healthy relationship with a girl for some time, but after meeting and getting to know someone else—a girl in my class whom I got to know in a perfectly platonic fashion, so I can't see any wrongs committed on my part at that stage—, I fell in love with this other girl, whilst my feelings for my girlfriend withered and died. Understandably, our relationship could not go on after that, and so we broke up. I think we are both better off now than we were. However, assuming that I had an actual choice between (a) 'giving in' to my infatuation and breaking up with my old girlfriend so as to be happy with the other girl (it seems that we're also assuming no independent will on the part of the 'other' girl!) or (b) resisting my developing feelings for this other person to preserve the relationship I was already in, also assuming that I would, in fact, be as happy as I initially was with my old...

What is ethically the difference between a prostitute and a model? They both make a living by selling their body, and the fact that there is sex in one activity seems to me not enough to morally judge a prostitute.

To love and to be loved in return is supposedly one of our basic needs. If this is the case then how come ascetics and spiritual people such as priests, monks, nuns, etc. prefer to live solitary lives - some with little or no human contact - and claim that the lives they are living are fulfilled and in some cases claiming that they have transcended many needs and have reached contentment, realization, etc.?

If someone doesn't vote, does she then cede (to any extent) the right to complain about the conduct of the subsequently elected official(s)?

If I ask "Why is the sky blue?" is that the same question as "What sufficient conditions for the sky being blue are present in the universe?"?

is it logically impossible for there to be an infinite regress? A lot of people make an argument and then if it leads to an infinite regress, the argument is taken to be faulty. Something like the first cause argument where the conclusion that an infinite regress occurred is to be avoided. Why is this the case? I don't see how we couldn't have an infinite regress.

Although they cannot pretend to have "solved" the problem of induction, scientists have no qualms whatsoever about making inductive inferences in their work. Likewise, I take it that judges and lawyers agree that murder is a terrible crime, even if they are at a loss to explain why one's death is a harm to one. Why is it that we feel totally comfortable in going about the various activities of human life, even when there are (seemingly) gaping holes in the philosophical theories which are supposed to underwrite or justify those activities?