Recently, the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Los Angeles was made to pay $660 million to victims of sex crimes by priests. Why is money thought to be any remedy in such cases as these? I understand that nothing could ever really atone for such crimes, that any solution is likely to be imperfect, yet I have trouble thinking of how money has ANY value whatsoever here; what's the connection between sex abuse and cash?

The rulers of country X are dictators in every sense of the word. Due to their repressive policies, living conditions of the inhabitants of X have dropped to pathetic levels. The rulers of X, because they have the money and wealth, decide to send their children to a country C which has better living conditions than X. Is it just for the rulers of C to deport these children back to X?

Mathematicians use proofs in order to determine whether mathematical theorems are true. But how can the proof itself be justified? The theorem is justified by the proof. What is there to justify the proof itself?

As I understand it, people use the word "believe" when they are somewhat but not entirely sure of a proposition (e.g., "I believe that he likes cheese", as opposed to "I know that he likes cheese"). If a person "believes" a proposition p, does he KNOW that he BELIEVES that p? Is he absolutely certain that he believes a proposition of which he is just somewhat certain? Or does he BELIEVE that he BELIEVES that p? (Are there other possible formulations?) -ace

I'm engaged in a debate with a scientist over science and politics (I'm the political scientist). I'd like to know if the 'conduct' or 'process' of science is inherently 'political' or is it 'value-free'? Is science as a 'body of knowledge' political?

If you are someone who likes to help others, is helping them actually a selfish act that is only done to avoid feelings of guilt that would otherwise occur? Is it really any less selfish than a sadist who hurts others for personal enjoyment, despite the happiness that may be felt in those who are helped?

What's the METHOD in philosophic research? Don't tell me, please, that it's logic or the principle of inconsistency. The logic can be applied to all kinds of thinking: scientific, religious, philosophic, and even artistic. What I mean by METHOD is something like case-control or cohort methodology in scientific research. Is there any methodology in philosophic research? Do philosophers conduct any research for testing their propositions/hypotheses with some kinds of evidence? How? Which kind of evidence are they concerned about? How much evidence is enough for approving or refuting a hypothesis?

As I understand it, inductive reasoning is considered by most a posteriori; yet I had learned about induction in a statistics class similar to the way someone would understand a clearly a priori mathematical theory. Assuming one would consider some conclusions based on induction, is it a priori or a posterori? John

From a moral Christian point of view, I cannot understand the idea that we should punish anyone. In America, which is a highly Christian-dominated society, there is little resistance to capital punishment from the "right wing." My understanding is that Christians are not supposed to judge. God will judge everyone when their time comes. Isn't Christian morality about tolerance and acceptance, and not revenge? "Turning the other cheek?" "Love thy neighbor/enemy as thyself?" Are Christians simply turning a blind eye to this action?

What makes a statement (particularly one not factually-based, such as about society) true, and who decides? Not sure if this is more philosophy or sociology, but in studying for end-of-school exams my English class have a few problems unearthing the syllabus' meaning! We've read something of the basic theories about Truth, such as proof by correspondence, but we are completely confused by the need to discover (without help from our teacher who is determined to keep us away from philosophical debate) the 'processes by which statements come to be accepted as true', including who has the authority to make such statements and the ways in which statements are explored, tested, endorsed or refuted, etc. While we suspect that all the answer required is to mention something about the legal system (the focus of our text), it is still frustrating not being able to fight this out ourselves and we were hoping that you could help us by providing a few ideas as to what really does make statements true (the ...