Many Americans make the assumption that a person cannot be moral unless he subscribes to a religion. But philosophy is replete with ethical systems other than divine-command theory, some of which have been around for thousands of years. Why haven't teachers of philosophy been able to teach or convince the public that being moral does not necessarily depend upon believing in a divine being?

Consider this scenario: I have been dating a woman for four months. Though, for medical reasons, she is currently a considerable distance (over one thousand miles, at the moment) from me at the moment, we see one another very often when she is near. We get along very well and have grown very close; she is quite precious to me. We connect on an intellectual, emotional, and spiritual level (she and I are atheists). In sum, I'm quite lucky to have someone like her. She is a rarity. There is a good chance that I will be transferring to a college roughly seven hundred miles from our current location. If I receive the scholarship required to attend the college, I would be a fool not to accept the offer. However, I would be leaving this person I have come to know, like, and admire so much. Committing to a long-distance relationship with this person would be difficult for both of us. I believe that I'm more than capable of doing this: my sense of honor would prohibit me from engaging in behavior that would...

My parents unnecessarily refer to people's race when narrating. When I tell them I find this offensive, they laugh it off, and say something like 'It's not like we're members of the KKK', or, 'people should be proud of their race, there's nothing wrong with us mentioning it', or a variation of the typical 'I have friends who are (whatever race it is)'. Of course, when I say "unnecessarily mention", I don't mean that the mentioning doesn't sometimes have a purpose, but it's usually a subtle and/or "unintended" one, like to emphasize the nature of a situation by relying on racial stereotypes. Something like "I was out late at night and I stopped at the gas station, and I was very nervous because there were all these homeless-looking black people around". What's going on with them, and how do I explain in a clear way why this is racist and offensive (they are 'offended' by my suggestion that they are racist or offensive)? As a final resort, my parents will sometimes respond with "well, that wasn't my...

If I wanted to construct my own philosophy, how would I go about it? What tools would I need? How should I structure the process? What steps would I follow? Think of an ordinary guy - not someone seeking a PhD. Thanks, Mike

How does our approach to knowledge about the past differ from our approach to knowledge about the future, keeping in mind that there is an element of uncertainty in both?

Socrates mentioned that some "philosophers" gave the subject of philosophy a bad name by not being "true philosophers" (who reach for all the wisdom). Today most people seem to regard philosophy as an esoteric or complicated subject and thus refrain from involving themselves with philosophy. What does AskPhilosophers have to say about this? Todd, Sweden

Does moral relativism claim that moral statements are descriptive or prescriptive? Anything I read on the topic never seems to make it clear! Surely if it claimed they were descriptive then moral relativism would be nothing more than saying that there is no right and wrong in the sense that we commonly think of it, it actually doesn't matter what we do. But alternatively, how could anyone genuinely believe that moral statements are prescriptive, in such a way that fundamental moral values are dependent on subjective circumstances, e.g. that if I (or my culture) believe murder is right then it is genuinely a good thing for me to do to murder someone? Basically I can't understand the point of the former interpretation and I don't understand how anyone could possibly believe the latter - so what is moral relativism?

When using an example to try and support some point you are trying to make, is it better to use a common example that your audience is familiar with, or an exotic thought experiment?

Can we blame someone for making irrational choices during emotionally intense situations? Suppose that John was deeply in love with Joyce while Joyce is really using John for his money. It's obvious to all of John's friends, he is being used but he won't listen to reason. Is John to blame or is it his biological makeup to blame (or his environment) ? One can say that there are plenty of people who are able to snap out of these types of situation so why can't John, but I don't think it's that simple.

How useful is it studying literature? The reason I ask is because (at least my high school) English courses seem to miss the target. Let me explain. We read the text. We find the "what's" of the work, what the author is trying to say. And then, instead of going on to evaluate the validity of the author's opinions on the topic we go backwards! We start describing how the author conveys their themes. My answer is: who cares. I'm sure that is not what the authors want us to look at. It's like evaluating how the frame of a painting accentuates such and such, rather than looking at the painting itself. Is it a fault with the nature of the subject of literary study, do I not understand the subject properly, or is it just not for me? Thanks for your time.