I claim to be a pacifist (or: like the idea of it and have not yet had the chance to express it), and honestly do not care for violence or confrontation. I have also been thinking of moments where violence would provide me with a safe route out of a situation: Let's say I am walking the streets with my girlfriend, everything is fine and the sun is just setting. All of a sudden a crook runs up and tries to rob me and my girlfriend. Now, being that I claim pacifism, I would think not to take any physical action towards the crook, but being a good boyfriend I would think to protect my girlfriend with my fists if need be. What would be my options to a situation like this? Would fighting the crook off with violence make me a hypocrite? Would not fighting off the crook make me a bad person/boyfriend for not protecting my girlfriend? I understand that what Mohandas Gandhi did throughout his life would make many consider him a true pacifist, but if he were to be in this type of position and he just sat...

If every life results in death, then what is the meaning of life?

If Cheese is made of bacteria culture, and bacteria is alive, is it wrong to eat cheese and yogurt? Or plants and anything else that is alive? If so, why do we have laws to protect people, animals, and other multi-organism beings, but not bacteria, which plays just as inportant, or even a more important role, than say a cat?

I am having trouble with the classic problem of free choice vs. determinism specifically in the sphere of human responsibility. While I often recognise that there are external factors that can and do bring people to act in various ways, I also find myself impatient with those who are unwilling to admit to a certain degree of responsibility. My problem seems to be that I recognise both not just as possible, but true simultaneously. Philosophically speaking, can this be so?

Rape is unwanted sex. Why playing in sexy films or sexy scenes as a professional obligation (i.e., being obliged to have sex with another actor/actress who is NOT necessarily beloved already) is not considered as rape? I mean, being raped by the director or producer, not by the other actor/actress who is him/herself the other victim of this rape? And why this job is considered different from prostitution? What's the position of Human Rights in these regards?

I have been ill since 1993 so much so that I now have 20 documented medical disorders, including depression, psychosis and schizophrenia. In the past 13 months I almost died twice of acute renal failure and digestive system poisoning. I was hospitalised five times during this period. I am now taking 26 tablets per day plus weekly hormone injection. I am in severe pain 24 hours per day. Since I cannot eat what I want to eat, cannot do what I want to do and cannot go where I want to go, is euthanasia justified for my specific case?

Let's say John hears from others that he seems perfect for some job/field, or a natural at that job/field. "You really ought to do this or that." Further, John is aware that he is very skilled at that activity, and would be a natural at it (in other words, it's not just mom's wishful thinking that her son should be a doctor). However, John has no interest in pursuing this field, and would rather do something else. Does he owe it to the world at large to follow the unwanted path and do great things for humanity?

Why is it ok to kill for your country no matter what the reason, but not ok to kill someone just because you don't like them? What is the difference?

Hello, I was reading the answer to question 726, where Jay L. Garfield discusses Andrea Dworkin's argument about whether a woman can consent to a man's sexual advances: "The person most associated with this claim was Andrea Dworkin, though she was not alone in asserting it. The claim was a bit hyperbolic, but reflected an interesting, controversial claim. Consent, she argued, presupposes rough equality. If you are a violent person holding a gun, and ask me politely for all of my money, even if you don't threaten me, my handing it over is nonconsensual. And that is the case, on this view, even if, had you not had the gun, I would have consented, out of generosity, to give you the cash you wanted. The presence of an unequal power relationship, and the background of potential violence renders consent conceptually impossible." That may be so, but consider that I am on very friendly terms with the violent person holding a gun - that is, I have a good history with her or him and that I know he or she won't...

What is philosophical intuition? How is it different from common sense?