If I don't fly from London to my sister's wedding in New Zealand she will be upset, I will cause her pain and so that's morally bad. If I do fly to my sister's wedding in New Zealand I will put about four tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which will contribute to climate change, which, according to the World Health Organisation, already causes about 150,000 deaths every year. Clearly that's also morally bad. Which is the morally correct thing to do?

If one has the right not to be punished unless one is guilty, has one the right to the most complete and precise system of judgement, no matter how costful it might be?

Dear Philosopher(s), I would like to ask what would be Wittgenstein's view about sexuality? I'm not sure whether Wittgenstein would consider sexuality philosophically interesting. Note that I'm interested in what would be strictly Wittgenstein; NOT Wittgensteinian. Thank you for your time.

Is there a common human need for faith? If so, what alternatives are there to religion? Science? Ethics? Hugely interested by this aspect of human nature. Do we basically all need to believe in something & belong to something, however discerning and self-sufficient we may pride ourselves on being? Thank you.

My question is following: can we estimate how many validities (formulas that are always true) are there among all formulas of propositional logic? Is there a method of doing it?

Hello, I have reached a conclusion that is quite dangerous to my health and could lead to a lot of trouble. I need to ask someone and see if they come to the same conclusion. My question is: are you the same person you were 1 year ago or even 5 minutes ago? I figured that the self changes over time, regarding both personality and physical appearance. As you gain knowledge and change your opinion, your personality changes and you seem to be totally different then you were before. your physical appearance also changes over time, the cells in your body completely replace themselves in about 7 years (I think). Although your memory really doesnt change over time, only how you perceive this memory does, and how you perceive the world around you. To further define my question: because we are constantly changing and are becoming a new person (except for our memory which ties our life together and gives us the illusion that we are the same person) should I be living completely in the present and totally...

I have a bit of a problem. I don't know how to talk about stupidity, or how I should think about really stupid people. In fact, already I'm having problems asking this question, because the word 'stupid' is so loaded with negative meaning, and I can't help but feel like it's mostly true. But liberal democracy seems to depend on everyone being valued equally and their rights and opinions being respected. So, I know an extremely dumb guy in my town who's lonely. If I treated him as an equal, I probably wouldn't be friends with him because he's got various character flaws. But if I treat him like an unfortunate product of nature, of course I'd be more sympathetic. So, should I go see him or not?

Isn't a philosopher's adoption of a certain style of philosophy grounded more in the personal psychology of the philosopher than in a coolly-taken intellectual decision? So when philosophers debate, we are witnessing what is fundamentally, despite all the fine verbal distinctions, a battle of temperaments.

How do we know we are not a computer program? In other words, some kind of video game? I know of the the brain in a vat argument but why suppose we have a brain at all? What if our "mind" is a computer only running a "human program" or some such thing? What if all sensation is just data in a computer and all "WE" are is just data in a computer? Any problems with this argument?

Abigail and Brittany Hensel, born 1990, midwest USA A very rare, dicephalus pair, they have separate heads and necks, but share one torso and a pair of legs. Each has her own heart and stomach, and controls the limbs and feels sensation exclusively on her own side. They share three lungs and, below the waist, a single set of organs. Physically they move as one, in perfect co-ordination. Mentally they are independent, with different preferences and abilities. Their parents are opposed to separation, which would be highly dangerous. Even if successful, the girls would be left severely disabled, and unable to enjoy walking, running, swimming and bike riding which, together, they can do easily. I am a Cartesian Dualist - I think! Does this situation above not solve the Mind/Body, Mind/Brain problem?