I accept that one does not need a religious belief to be 'moral'. But is there any good reason, in the absence of religious belief, why one should want, need or have to be 'moral' as opposed to being immoral? In case this should lead to a debate about the meaning of the word 'moral' or a diversion into the law, neither of which are behind my question, may I arbitrarily focus on morality being confined to the single simple example of not stealing and that the being (or the fear of being) caught be ignored.

What is a definition of good and also what would a definition of evil or bad be?

Recently, my stepsons' mother told my husband and me that her husband has been hurting her children (my stepsons). The last incident (the worst, she said) involved him "spanking" the youngest hard enough to leave a long bruise and picking them both up by the head, shaking them and screaming into their faces. He has a long history with CPS and I have spoken with his ex-wife who believes he has been molesting her daughter, as well as abusing her daughter and son (the reason she divorced him). The boys' mother seemed very concerned at first, using terms like "It's a deal-breaker. He can't beat my kids," but has changed her tune to "God made marriage first and children second, so I have to stand by my husband. Children leave you, a spouse is forever." My husband and I have contacted CPS and all have been interviewed. CPS said that they have determined abuse has taken place, but it doesn't look like they are going to do much about it. All that has been done so far is the boys' mother and stepfather have...

To accuse someone of lying what evidence must one have? Let us assume that someone argued that Saddam Hussein had WMD. We now know that to be incorrect. What is the missing element to evidence that s/he was lying other than a personal statement from her/him to that effect?

I believe that Kant defended the "law of cause and effect" by stating this argument: (P) If we didn't understand or acknowledge the law of cause and effect, we couldn't have any knowledge. (Q) We have knowledge. Therefore: (P) we acknowledge the law of cause and effect. Isn't this line of reasoning a fallacy? P implies Q, Q, : P

My first question on this site: What questions should we put to philosphers? One of Kalynne's suggestions: You might ask what makes an answer to a given question a good one. Thanks, Kalynne! My question now: Are there some common parameters by which the "correctness" of an answer can be judged? I mean apart from logical coherence and factual accuracy, what else? I have a feeling that there is some textbook/weblink which has the answer for this. If yes, pls direct me to it.

I've noticed a difference between some eastern and western approaches to philosophy. Some eastern traditions seem to emphasize personal serenity and enlightenment through meditation, while some western traditions emphasize wisdom through curiosity, questioning, and thinking. My question is, which is the higher human good: serenity or wisdom? More concretely, which image represents the best in humanity: Buddha meditating or Socrates thinking and conversing on philosophic questions?

Can you please give me the prominent scholars of Immanuel Kant especially with regard to his concept of person?

Dear Philosophers, I often hear philosophers say William Shakespeare, Thomas Paine, Robert Ingersoll, Einstein, etc. are not philosophers, but great thinkers. All of these people have done work, or presented ideas that have deep philosophical meaning that changed the way we view the world. Why are they not philosophers?

Is explanation factive? On the one hand it seems very explanatory to be told that the Butler did it in the kitchen with the axe, because the Butler always seemed a nasty character and harboured a grudge against the victim, even if the Butler is innocent. But on the other hand it would seem false to say that the murder had been explained in such an instance. Thanks.