Can it ever be legitimate to legally prohibit an action solely on the basis that it causes offense in a part of the population and nothing else? It is clear to me that some of these actions will be regarded as morally objectionable by almost all ethical theories. But can taboo breaking alone be sufficient to forbid something by law, or should such laws always require other justifications as well?

Can I use someone else as a "mere means" in Kant's words without coercing or deceiving them? Is the use of someone as mere means possible when there is consent? Some of the examples I have in mind are: (1) Prostitutes sell their bodies, hence "objectify" themselves even though they consent to this action. We could consider two sub-cases, one in which a prostitute is forced to prostitution due to poverty, the other in which she or he has other options. (2) Two people, even though they don't like each other, meet regularly to play tennis. The only reason they meet is to play tennis. In short, they "use" each other to play tennis.

I have a question which many grad students probably ponder: what's important when it comes to getting a job as a philosopher? Please can you rank, in order of importance, the following: Where you received your degrees from. Who your supervisors were. Who your references are. What area(s) you specialize in. How many publications you have (assume that they are not in obscure journals). How many professional (i.e., not grad) conferences you have spoken at. Results from BA and MA degrees. Teaching experience. Awards. Interpersonal skills. Activities (i.e., organizing conferences, founding societies). Who you know. Please include any other criteria which you think I may have failed to mention. If you are aware of any difference between what employers from the UK or USA may be looking for, please could you mention them.

"Unique" is surely an absolute. Something either is different to anything else or it isn't. So, suppose I have a collection of 100 CDs (and I'm referring to titles, rather than the physical objects). If someone else had 99 of the same CDs in their collection, then mine would only be 1% different, but it would still be unique (obviously assuming that no-one else had the exact same collection). However, if I again have a collection of 100 CDs and the closest anyone could get to having the exact same collection is to just match with one of my CDs - my collection would be 99% different, and would be unique. Both collections are unique, but is one *more* unique than the other? If so, surely being 'unique' isn't an absolute but a question of degree. If neither are more unique than the other, how can they both be equally unique if it would only take 1 changed CD to match someone elses collection (and lose the unique status), but with the other it would take 99 changed CDs to match another collection.

When considering abortion, the Roman Catholic Church uses the principle of double effect in order to allow abortion on the grounds that their primary intention was to save the life of the mother, e.g. in an ectopic pregnancy. However, surely the doctors (or whoever) know that the embryo will be aborted as a consequence of their action so how is the principal of double effect justified?

Is it possible to establish that dogs dream? If not, are there any possible future developments that could?

During a 'debate' with a friend about same sex marriage, he raised the issue of marriage being 'by definition union between a man and a woman', and appeared to hold that this was grounds for rejecting same sex marriage. My question does not relate to the ethics surrounding the issue, but rather to the fallacy I thought he had commited in saying this. It seemed to me as if he was stating the conclusion of an argument that had not been argued (at least, not by us either at or prior to that time) namely whether marriage is, in fact, the union as mentioned - is this what is known as 'begging the question' (i.e., stating a point that remains to be proven as foundation for another conclusion)? If not, then what is the formal term for this fallacy (if it is, indeed, fallacious)?

A few years ago I completed a masters degree; however, since that time I have been employed at a job that tends not to incorporate masters (and indeed undergrad) level philosophy. As a result, perhaps, of this I have found myself reading less and less intellectual work (and spending less and less time with literature in general). I long to get back into an intellectual mindset, but am having difficulty 'reading'. I have tried various different approaches - from attempting to get through Russell's History of Western Philosophy , to simply trying to read at least one text by each of the 'greats', but each time I find myself glancing at the texts for about half an hour and then losing concentration. Ideas that I would once understand quite quickly have become hieroglyphs that I cannot translate. Put simply, I am having trouble reading philosophy philosophically. I am not looking for a 'quick fix' solution to this problem (as I do not think that there exist such things) - however, do you have any...

What was the ethical way to handle the mountain-climber on Mt. Everest, David Sharp, who was passed over by 40 climbers as they left him for what they thought was dead?

I read somewhere years ago, and it was in my mind that Aristotle claimed that happiness is the by-product of engaging in activity; that happiness is not a thing that can be held in one's hand and it does not drop into our laps as we sit alone in a room. However, I have not found this specific idea in anything I have read of Aristotle on happiness. I remember being profoundly affected by this idea as it explained the need to choose rightly the activities that bring happiness. I want very much to share this perspective of happiness with a 17-year-old girl so she can benefit. Do you know whose idea of happiness this is?