I found the following statement on a website, along with many other radical philosophies, and just wondered what the panel thought of it. "The state (society) shouldn't outlaw activities like drug use/sale, prostitution, pornography, gambling, euthanasia, and abortion (the traditional "victimless crimes") -- or indeed even old-skool duelling, killer game shows, and consensual cannibalism. No matter how stupid, dangerous, "shocking", or "perverted", as long as it doesn't actually harm anyone against his will, it shouldn't be illegal, period. One has every (moral) right to ignore any law that violates the above-mentioned principle (at one's own risk, of course). Or, in the words of St. Thomas Aquinas: "Lex malla, lex nulla"; a bad law is no law."

I've been reading some online articles on the concept of "function", but I'm not very sure about it. An ashtray, according to my dictionary, is a "container for cigarette ash", but I don't know what this "for" means. It can't mean that people ought to put ashes in the ashtray, because there are other places where we may put it. And it can't mean that people may put there the ashes, since, once again, we may put the ashes in places which are not ashtrays. It can't either mean that the ashtray was made "with the purpose" of serving as a container for the ashes, because an object may be an ashtray now but haven't been made to be an ashtray. So, what is an ashtray?

Can people be held responsible for their emotions? Or, why can't people be held responsible for their emotions?

In ethics, philosophers spend much time trying to figure out what is moral and immoral. My question is, why should we necessarily be moral? Where does this obligation to be moral come from or why do we have this obligation?

Socrates said "It is better to suffer evil than to do it". I am trying to work out if a consequentialist could make good sense of this claim, if anyone can!

Since all science is inductive (based on limited observation of patterns), to what extent does science prove anything? Are all scientific conclusions ultimately reducible to theoretical speculation? If so, how can we ever speak of causes in nature?

I have a question about sexual ethics and "informed consent". Just what does it mean to be informed about sex such that you can give informed consent?? It seems that it shouldn't be a matter of age but a matter of information. A fifteen year old can take a health class and/or read materials about the consequences of sex, and it seems this 15 year old could be better informed than an 18 year old who grew up in, say, a very traditional society wherein sex was a taboo subject. Also, doesn't being informed about something as physical as sex depend on having had it? I can't imagine being truly informed if you've never experienced it, can you? But if one could, and the law considers it can be gained without actually experiencing it, then couldn't you just "inform" a minor about sex, then have sex with that person, then argue that they gave informed consent. I mean, why does the law harp so much on the age of the minor? Is the true motivation really that they're "informed", or is it something else?

What are the strongest arguments which suggest that morality truly exists? Couldn't all actions just be rational and self-motivated and "morality" merely be a term we place on these actions to make ourselves feel good, when in fact it doesn't actually exist? Thank you =)

I’m a little ashamed for asking this question but I feel I’m in need of some guidance regarding politics. I reached the age where I’m allowed to vote quite some time ago, but to be honest feel if I did it would be more like filling in a lottery ticket rather than voting so I haven’t. There’s much of politics and our political system that I don’t understand. With all the rhetoric involved in the media it’s hard to know who to believe. Politicians could make these promises and break them as soon as they’re in. There seems to be so many variables involved and the whole thing’s a bit overwhelming. For example, maybe one particular policy sounds like a good idea and addresses an issue that’s close to me. But then what if the money used for this could be put to better use elsewhere? What if this solution helps in the short term, but puts us right up the creek after a decade? What the heck do I know about economics?? Should people like me (and I suspect there are many) leave the voting to those with the...

It was suggested (http://www.amherst.edu/questions/1368/) that, among other criteria, an incestuous couple would have to be infertile in order for their relationship to be considered morally permissible. This is presumably because inbreeding allows for the heightened expression of recessive, deleterious genes. What is the significant difference, however, between an incestuous couple, and a couple of unrelated individuals both of whom have family histories (i.e., genetic predispositions) to chronic illnesses?