Hello, my question is around the nature of reality. Is it reasonable to say that our only view of reality can be via experience (which I take to mean through the physical senses that I as an individual possess)? If this is true it raises a number of questions: 1. When we have no experience of something should we deny its existence - I have never visited the Taj Mahal so do I as an individual deny its existence? 2. People with more astute senses have a view of reality that is more accurat than someone with less astute senses ? If it is false, then are we saying that reality is formed from our thoughts and ideas BUT could this mean I imagine I have won lottery and behold I have ! Thanks for any insights. David McConville

There has been a gread deal of debate in the news, of late, as to the application of torture under a so-called 'ticking time bomb' scenario. Is physical or mental torture ever justified in such an extreme event in a moral society?

Why do philosophers make seemingly simple questions completely complicated and confusing?

I was wondering, what is it (other than so called intelligence and communication) that separates humans from animals or everything else in the universe? Pico della Mirandola in the "Oration on the Dignity of Man" describes it as human nature being undetermined or the right to determine destiny and animals have a determined nature. However, in general it seems as though humans act predictably given their environment and experiences.

Can you recommend any introductions to aesthetics?

At the current Rubens exhibition at the National Gallery there is a painting called "Murder of the Innocents" which includes a figure of a man holding up a baby. He is about to smash its head on a stone that is already covered in blood. How can that painting be beautiful?

Why is it considered unethical for a doctor to have a relationship with a patient? I was wondering this after viewing "The Sopranos" and looking at how Dr. Melfi rebuffs Tony Soprano's attempts at courtship due to their previous doctor-patient relationship.

What exactly is the moral/ethical problem with a professional athlete taking performance enhancing drugs? I'm talking about a talented professional who carefully weighs the known risks and side effects of such drugs and decides their use is necessary for him/her in order to be competitive in their sport. Shouldn't this just be a personal decision? Aspiring beauty queens are allowed to get plastic surgery, and athletes are allowed to get "corrective" laser eye surgery (significantly improving their perfectly normal distance vision)...

Why is Utilitarianism rubbish? We are supposed to do an action which will create a net increase of welfare - how are we to judge if a particular action will increase welfare? If we are forced to make this decision, do we not have to rely on some 'internal moral' or integrities that we might hold, therefore making it quite impossible to judge correctly what will increase the general happiness? And doesn't utilitarianism require us to act as machines, not bothering about what we feel?

Would it ever be possible to achieve world peace? The only way that seems possible is to get everyone to believe the same thing. The only way that seems possible is if there were divine interference. Since this is highly unlikely how could there ever be world peace? ~Jordan~