I'm a print designer. Knowing how much waste is caused by my work and how it precludes several industries causing harm to the environment in different ways, and considering that I am concerned about having a healthy environment, is it unethical for me to continue my practice? If I stop, others will still continue, and they will be joined by more; and there are plenty of other industries with even more environmentally harmful practices. Although there is a definite environmental impact from my work, there is a social acceptance of, and potential humanistic need for, my work. Does the latter override the former due to its immediacy?

In today's society, there are certain conceptual frameworks which change the way people perceive others in their everyday life. For example, history, since the times of slavery in America, has dictated that blacks are "irrational", or "incompetent", and that they are subordinate. This is obviously not true, if you perceive people in an intrinsic manner. There are many frameworks for other groups, such as women, homosexuals, etc. My question is, how are we to rid ourselves of this framework? Is there any way to do so, or are they too ingrained into our society?

Sometimes I feel like my life would be easier if one day, I just got on the bus and went away somewhere and left everything behind - my family, my friends, my belongings, my identity, everything. It's not that my life is bad - on the contrary - it's a perfectly good life that in many ways I am extremely grateful for. But apart from the impracticalities of that action (I would most probably not be able to create a new identity successfully or be capable of supporting myself and would end up homeless), what is stopping me? What stops me from taking huge risks and following impulses? Why should I stick to what is normal, or proper, or expected? I'm not asking a psychological question - I am curious to know the philosophical elements, if there are any. Why don't most humans follow their urges?

I was watching the movie 'Mona Lisa' and was wondering, what is the purpose of a college education for women who were all to become housewives and never use this knowledge to accomplish anything? Coco, 16.

Why can't I remove my emotions (such as falling in love) by rationality?

Some would consider mathematical patterns found in nature, such as the Fibonacci Sequence and the Golden Ratio, as indications of a higher deity, God if you will. Is this a sound belief?

What obligations do we have to our parents and families? I guess this is really a range of questions: because they cared for us in the formative years of our lives, how obliged are we to continue to accept their advice and care and offer the same back later on? Can being borne to two people bind you to them forever? What right do we have to criticise the methods they used to bring us up: should we just be thankful that they raised us at all? If someone looks after you, do you always owe them something?

I think that one of the coolest things about intellectual projects dealing with the "big" questions is that different disciplines can all bring something to the discussion (for example you might invoke quantum mechanics in talking about free will and determinism, or you might talk about the anthropric principle having something to say about religion). As philosophers, do you spend much time (or feel that you should or want to spend time) studying disciplines other than philosophy (physics, biology, pscyhology, economics) in order to bring different sorts of insight to bear on your work? Do you ever worry that if you don't reach outside your specialty, you might be handicapping yourself? Is it troubling to think that philosophy, in this way, might not be self-sufficient, so to speak? -j. santana

Isn't it more morally acceptable that we use consenting, informed adults in scientific tests rather than animals? The adults would at least know what they were being tested for and the possible benefits. Added to which the tests are likely to be safer as scientists would be more likely to value a human life rather than that of an animal. Plus this way would fulfil the moral criterion for both utilitarianism as it decreases suffering for the reasons aforementioned and Kantianism but using no one as a mere means, human or animal (although Kant himself argued that an animal cannot be used as a mere means I will ignore this as it is arguable and that if we can avoid using them as a mere means then we should). Could it also be argued that testing on animals is even worse when no consenting, informed adult volunteered? And that such tests shouldn't be done under any circumstances? Many thanks :)

This afternoon I experienced the following: while driving home through busy traffic I passed under a railway bridge, at which point traffic from another lane attempted to filter into mine. I had the opportunity to wait, and allow a car to filter in. However, I kept driving, and the car behind me waited, allowing the other driver into the main lane. Then I began wondering about whether providing someone else with the opportunity to perform a 'good' act (good here understood as referring to an act that is arguably beneficial to at least one other person, and does not cause harm to anyone) is itself a good act. Put more generally (and in the form of a question), if in performing an act that is detrimental to another we allow a third person the opportunity to perform a beneficial act where they would not otherwise have been able, can our first act be seen in a more positive light, or is still to be considered negatively?