Does coming to this site and reading these mind-boggling questions make us that are not philosophers more intelligent, or just more aware?

I have a little dilemma that I need serious advice on. I started studying philosophy for 2 years at a small college in California. However, I chose to put my education on hold after I got married and had a child. Now I am seriously debating on going back to school and finishing up my BA degree in philosophy and then applying for graduate school. Do you know of any school where one could finish a degree up as a working adult? That is, is there an accredited school out there where one could attend a long distance program for a BA degree in Philosophy? Furthermore, after one enters into a graduate program at a University, can one get paid for teaching graduate courses to undergrads? How do graduate student who are pursuing a PhD make money during the 4-7 years that they spend at a University? Your answer will be much appreciated.

Why is murder considered a crime when the person who was murdered was going to die whether or not that person killed him or her?

I seem compelled to subscribe to the somewhat Panglossian idea that as everything is as it is, and could not have been any other way (cos it isn't), then it is the best it can be. Therefore, we should just be happy with it and make the best of it. Am I being naive or stupid or is there a reasonable defence to this way of thinking?

A very popular view in academic philosophy is that knowledge of the history of philosophy is important for doing contemporary work in philosophy. But so much of the history of philosophy is filled with bad arguments and false theses, which serious people would never subscribe to. How does painstaking familiarity with ancient mistakes and false propositions help us do philosophy today? It seems to me that false claims cannot ground anything -- or add anything valuable to what we know now. They are false!

Hello I am an Australian and there is a lot of anger here at the moment: an Australian citizen was caught transporting drugs in a different country, where that offence carries the death penalty. The person in question is about to be hung. In Australia, the man would have faced a jail term, but here the death penalty seems far too excessive for the crime. The government of the country about to execute the man claims it is doing so in the interests of its citizens; seeking to protect them from illegal drug trafficking by showing strong intolerance to it. Many people here are angry because the man was only a drug mule: a naive person tricked (or blackmailed) into carrying a package of white powder for powerful drug organisations: key figures in which seem immune to law even though they seem to be the real villains. In another recent case, an Australian citizen travelled to another nearby country, with which Australia enjoys friendly relations. This man did something there that would be completely legal...

Most people believe they have a duty to help those that are closest to them such as families and friends. Many people also would agree that they have a duty to help those who are not that close to them but share the same nationality. But, sadly, few people would agree that they have an obligation to help those who are deeply in need but far removed from them. Can philosophy help convince us of a duty to help people in very poor countries that live far-removed from us?

What's the relationship of freedom to justice? Where is the balance between the two? Is freedom protecting the rights of individuals and justice protecting the rights of communities and societies against the wills of free individuals? Again, how can we find the balance and where is it?

What books are most important for a neophyte philosopher to read?

Is the sentence of death really a punishment? Yes, the man/woman who committed the act loses their life, but doesn't it also mean that the person in the end gets away with the act that he/she committed? Wouldn't it make more sense to punish this person with life in prison without the possibility of parole? It just seems to me that the death sentence is just a way to show sympathy or mercy towards criminals. It seems that this would be a harsher punishment; just sitting in your cell day by day, for the rest of the person's life.