Many people (not all) who object to such things as torture, indefinite detention, or animal testing, object regardless of what the benefits of those things might be. Some of those people are liberals. That doesn't seem very coherent -isn't a lot of modern liberalism based on ideas about what the best outcome for everyone is? I know there are some social contract theories that might be an alternative to utilitarianism, but that doesn't work for the animal advocates, since presumably they don't believe that you have to be able to enter a social contract to have your rights respected. Is there some way for these people to have a coherent position?

If you know that your step son has committed child abuse, but you care for the well-being of the two (now adult) young women you know he abused and you feel that to pursue justice would cause not only the young women pain, but his father (who you also love) and his mother too, should you pursue justice anyway? Should you alert the child protection agencies in his area when you discover he has married and is expecting a child? If you discover that your much-loved brother abused your much-loved sisters many years ago when they were all children and the abuse has clearly caused deep emotional scarring and long term mental illness, should you punish your brother? Tell on him to his wife? Alert the social services to the potential danger his children might be in? Can you rationally forgive him? Or your step-son for that matter? And if you take steps to inform the authorities about them, how do you face your other family members who in both cases are vehemently opposed to this course of action? I know...

Scientists often say (rather diplomatically, I think) that science cannot rule on the question of whether God exists. But is this really true? I suppose that some people might hold God's existence to be evident a priori; but I don't think that most religious people actually think this way.

Should a political leader let his faith influence his decisions that he makes for the people he leads?

If it is rational to do X, does it follow that it is irrational not to do X?

a nice easy question: I love philosophy and consider it one of the most important of humanities interests, but is there a career path I could follow?

Suppose I bought a $80 ticket to highly anticipated concert. Two weeks later, the organizers announce they will allow any one to enter free. They do not offer me a refund. Do I have justified reason to be mad?

I was reading Stanford Encyclopedia's article on consciousness and the problem of "what it is like" to be a bat. I believe that there is something that it is like to be a bat, but I guess there is nothing that it is like to be a bacterium, an amoeba or even a worm or a flea. What do you think an organism has to have so that there is something that it is like to be it? Where's the divide between fleas and bats?

Suppose it's your birthday, and you get your Aunt (who has an infinite amount of money in the bank) to mail you a signed check with the dollar amount left blank. Your Aunt says you cash the check for any amount you want, provided it is finite. Assume that the check will always go through, and that each extra dollar you request gives you at least some marginal utility. It seems in this case, every possible course of action is irrational. You could enter a million dollars in the dollar amount, but wouldn't it be better to request a billion dollars? For any amount you enter in the check, it would be irrational not to ask for more. But surely you should enter some amount onto the check, as even cashing a check for $1 is better than letting it sit on your dresser. But any amount you put onto the check would be irrational, so it seems that you have no rational options. Does this mean that the concept of "infinite value" is self-contradictory? If so we have a rebuttal to Pascal's Wager.

I am in something of a quandary. My passion, my drive, my greatest zeal is for philosophy—for the pursuit of truth, for understanding, for learning. These things, and especially the philosophical pursuit of them, are what I consider to be most worthwhile in this life. To this end, I would like nothing more than to take part in the scholarly life of philosophical academia. I am now in a position to pursue this dream—to perhaps enroll at a prestigious philosophy graduate program. I hesitate, however. My reason is this: My mode of life has always been somewhat reclusive, and I must say I spend the greatest part of my time thinking about things which, I have found, the great majority of my peers simply do not care for. Due to this, and perhaps as well to my penchant for analyzing everything, not merely what is properly considered philosophical, I have earned what would be considered by most to be a handicap in this (American) culture: I have not learned how to interact, how to make friends—how to relate to...