How can one determine authenticity and authoritativeness? For example, how would you gauge the authenticity of the panelists' responses? Does studying philosophy give the panelists anymore authority to issues like abortion, love, or education than the "average" non-philosopher? Is there not a little ego in that notion?

I know it is considered an abuse of free speech to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. But, should it also be considered an abuse of free speech to shout "Satan!" in a crowded fundamentalist church (supposing, for argument's sake, that doing so would engender a similar response)? How much does the universality or non-universality of the mindset of the people affected determine the wrongness of this action? A similar, but more personal situation is that my father, a WWII veteran, suffered from "shell shock" (a type of post-traumatic stress), yet a neighbor thought it amusing to set of loud fireworks not far from our house on Independence Day even after being informed of the distress it caused, and cited his right (probably a speech-related right) to do so. Are we obligated to take into account non-universal mindsets when determining if the right to free speech applies? What properties of certain mindsets in such cases would give them priority over free speech rights? The Danish cartoon case is the...

I am in love (or as convinced of it as I've ever been), but the woman I love is my best friend. This situation leaves me in emotional ruin after every time we see each other. I am sure that she is not romantically interested in me. What I need to know is: to what extent am I obligated to make my feelings clear to her, even if doing so runs the risk of damaging our friendship?

I have responsibility for planning long range infrastructure at a state level. The subject continuously comes up of equity and fairness in the setting of priorities. If the most equitable and sustainable solution for the future of all citizens requires some citizens currently to have less equity or do with less now: is this temporal inequity justified or fair, for the superior sustainable equity for all in the future? On the other hand, if we are fair to all now, the future will definitely be unfair for all and worse for some.

According to Socrates "An unexamined life is not worth living." How do you examine your life? (I have examined some of my strongly held opinions and tried to make arguments for the opposite opinion and have had a modicum of success but I feel that there must be something more to the process of examining my life.)

Can the well-documented placebo effect in medicine be applied to the comfort religious belief gives many? In the case of religion, should such an affect be encouraged, discouraged, or dismissed? You could argue that none of us will ever know until we die, and if we were wrong in being religious we will never know we got it wrong. If various monks or nuns in various religions (to take an extreme example of devotion) got it wrong - and some would have to have had if you subscribe to the logical view that only one religion can assure you an afterlife, what possible advice can be given? If you feel someone is wasting their life on a misguided religious quest should you just preserve silence, salute the meaning it lends their life and leave well alone? What duty do we have here, if any? Philosophers understand the points involved better than most and can see through many misconceptions in religious belief that believers are unaware of. Each-to-his-own is surely a tragic cop-out.

Hi, I am interested in taking a post-graduate philosophy program (MA or Doctorate) in Vietnam. It has been nearly impossible to get any information about the programs, and sometimes the pages of the university don't translate into English. I do not speak Vietnamese. I was wondering if you can give me any advice into the English-language speaking philosophy programs that Vietnam offers? Can you direct me anywhere where I can find this information? Thanks for your help! -Nadia

To understand something you need to rely on your own experience and culture. Does this mean that it is impossible to have an objective knowledge?

Is it right to make glib statements such as "You must vote"? My elderly mother took this statement to heart and voted in a referendum although she was uncertain at the time which way to vote. After she had voted she was very unsettled because she felt that she might have made the wrong decision - but she voted because she felt that it would be more wrong not to vote than to make the wrong selection when voting. ("You must vote" signs posted throughout the country - at the behest of the Government.)

When there is no clear solution to an issue, it would seem to me that assessing risks would be the most reasonable way of dealing with it. In the case of abortion we risk a mother losing the civil right to address her pregnancy within her own moral reasoning, verses a child losing its fundamental right to live. The latter risk seems more pressing and with greater consequence. Can a struggle for justice be assessed upon risk?