These days, you often hear about criminal trials in which genetic predispositions to violence are invoked as factors mitigating moral culpability. Strictly speaking, though, isn't all our behavior -- good and bad -- dictated by an interaction of our genes and environment? If genes direct us in any case and at all times, does it really make sense to cite genetic determination in the instance of bad acts, as if these were exceptional cases?

1.) Would you label free market/vanilla capitalism (however you choose to answer) as moral or immoral? Now, is it more or less moral in comparison to its alternatives, such as socialism and all its variations? 2.) Is it moral/immoral to infringe upon property rights in the name of the "common good"? Thank you for your time. I am a student with a strong interest in governmental philosophy and appreciate the concise answers your website provides. Sincerely, Alexander C. R.

How can anybody, including myself, be sure that what is seen is real? My right eye was scratched, and I can see this scratch-mark before "reality", as one would see their right hand before their left if they arranged the two that way. I wonder if this proves the external to be an actual place within something (the universe?), like it has an absolute position within my (a sentient being) perception. This brings me to my final question: How can I prove the distance between my two hands? When I look at my right hand in front of my left hand, I see them as two objects apart from each other, but I sometimes see a flat picture, like a movie screen: it is manifestly flat but produces 3-dimensional pictures. Does this mean that my eyes create reality to be other than what it is, like how they create depth to be where it really is not? Or does this mean that my eyes are perceiving reality as it should be perceived? Ugh! And the thought that those who cannot "see things" in ink-blots on white paper have learning...

Reading through the questions posted on this site gives the impression that it is almost impossible to escape philosophical problems in the course of day-to-day life. Why is it that some (reasonably intelligent) people seem to have no interest in philosophy at all?

How come pain is in the hand, an arm distance away, but the pain processing is in the brain? I don't feel my hand in the brain, I feel it at 40cms away from my eyes, on the keyboard.

This is a question about the pertinence and legitimacy of the approach towards contemporary philosophy. Increasingly it seems that philosophy has become divorced from common culture, which is sad as the subject has offered so much insight on, and for the sake of, society throughout the ages. Since the advent of the 'new realism' philosophers do not, as I understand, attempt to build systems of philosophy but rather try to answer small and well-defined questions with consistency and through giving a justification for their own notions. However, there seems to be several problems with this approach which I will present: (a) One can be consistently false. In particular, if one focuses on small questions, chances are one is just not including anything within the remit which will challenge one's argument. (b) If one begins from the standpoint of one's own intuitive notions, this is effectively reinforcing one's own opinion and bias. If two people give an argument justifying their opinion, this will not...

Today in English class we were shown a list of "moral developments" that seemed to progress linearly - how people determine what is moral when they are 5, and how they determine this when they are 40. At lunch, my friend said, "I think it is silly to say there are developments of morality". I replied, "No, they were not developments of morality, but developments how we DETERMINE what is moral. You cannot develop morality because there IS only one true answer to what is moral and what isn't. The list was just showing how people differ in the way they DETERMINE whether something is moral or not." My friend replied that there is NOT only one true answer to what is moral and what is not - that everyone has "his/her own" set of moral values, and there is not any set that is more correct than another, that I was just biased for thinking so. (In other words, she claims that although murder might seem immoral to me, this does not mean that is IS immoral, only that is is immoral by my moral standards. Nothing...

If the universe has existed forever, i.e. if the universe did not have a beginning, would the present time be possible? That is, if an infinite amount of time was necessary to get to the present time? And if this is so, does this mean the universe necessarily had a beginning?

It would seem to me that the best introductory college course in philosophy would be one that determines and explores what one's own philosophy is and its origins in history. It also seems to me that a multiple choice test could be created by someone very well versed in philosophy: if each question is answered truthfully, one's philosophy, its historical origins, and a reading list could be had at the end. Is there such a test? Does anybody approach college philosophy in that manner? If not, why not? The typical chronological approach to teaching philosophy belongs with the dinosaurs, in my opinion.

In a debate about faith and doubt in which I was doubting all existence and my friend argued in favor of existence, he challenged my rationalistic perspective by asking me this: Your reasoning depends upon the rules of logic, but there is a problem: how do you KNOW, conclusively, that the rules of logic are sound? Isn't that an act of faith? Can't you conceive of a universe in which logic *appears* to work, but in which logic is actually an illusion? How do you know that you don't live in that universe? Cogito ergo sum did not cover this one. I was stumped. Can you help me out?