Given the proclivity of animals to fight for both resources and territory as natural competition, is it not possible to justify nearly any war? Even as a "higher order" species, as the population increases so too will competition. How has the idea that the strong shall not take from the meek become reprehensible? Isn't it simply natural?

If you were molested and raped by several of your family members, how would you go about telling someone so you or no one else gets hurt. I don't wanna get anyone else involved but I just want it to stop.

If I am an atheist, should I try (while remaining civil) to convince religious people that they are wrong?

Let's say time machines exist. What would happen if you got into a time machine, went back in time, and stopped the invention of time machines? Larry 16, NJ

Much of philosophy is concerned with providing a rigorous foundation to truths which are otherwise intuitive and uncontroversial; think of philosophy of math, for instance. Do philosophers believe that, absent an appreciation of such foundational principles, laymen don't actually "know" such truths, e.g., that 1+1=2; and if laymen do know such truths, how do they know them?

At school we had a discussion about our motives to do certain things. The concrete example was Antigone. Antigone buries the corpse of her brother, which is against the law, and risks her own life by doing so. Finally she gets caught and is sentenced to death, but before that can happen, she kills herself. At first I thought this was the greatest love one can prove to another. But a classmate said everything we do has an egoistic motive. Antigone didn't bury her brother to give his soul rest, but to give herself a good feeling. My question is: What we experience as love, is it really caring about someone or just trying to feel better?

Why do most philosophers insist that ethical principles should be universal? Can't I have my own private ethical code, my own set of principles, which I don't expect anyone else to follow, although I would not be against the fact that others follow it, that is, I'm not trying to be a free-rider or harm anyone. One of my principles might be: don't preach.

Are there any reasons to think that any one language is better suited to reasoning than another? Are there ways in which we could change our language in order to make reasoning easier, or more effective, or to make us less prone to common reasoning errors?

My teacher said all violence ever does is create more violence, and that even if you use violence for good you're doing nothing long term. What do you think? Larry, 16, NJ

When philosophers pose theories of language, are they implicitly dealing with just human language, or are their theories meant to address all possible languages?