Does the word 'chance' (or 'accident', 'luck', or 'random') refer to the absence of causation, or does it express our ignorance of causation? Equally, does the word 'infinite' refer to the unlimited, or to our ignorance of limits?

Can acts of terrorism, as choreographed performances of something, be consider art?

On the tube in London many years ago, I was reading a piece in the Evening Standard by Ayer on some educational matters. In there he made the surprising statement 'After all all education is indoctrination anyway'. Bearing in mind education and indoctrination are characteristically opposed to each other, what could Ayer have been getting at? Or is this simply an example of a gifted philosopher not bringing his usual acumen to bear upon the topic under discussion? Ian g

Assuming that life is objectively meaningless (i.e. no God, ultimate destruction of the universe, certain death...), can making the decision to continue living be justified? In other words, how can a person justify his existence coherently if he acknowledges that whatever he does has no real and meaningful purpose? Surely life is neither worth nor not worth living. So why does everybody insist that it is worth living? It is irrational, isn't? --- Icarus

'Zoophiles', as they call themselves, often claim that committing sexual acts with animals is okay because animals are capable of consenting, either by sexual displays (lifting tails, humping hapless human legs, etc), or by not biting/fighting back, or by allowing the human access to them, so to speak. The problem I have with this is that an animal can't attribute the same idea to sex as a human can - for a human sex may be bound up with love and other types of emotions where by and large for animals it is another biological duty. In my opinion that would mean that there is no real consent between an animal and a human because the two are essentially contemplating a different act. Am I missing something here? And is there any validity in the idea that it is wrong to engage in sex with animals because for most humans it is intuitively wrong? If it doesn't really harm anyone - if the animal is unscathed - does that make the whole argument pointless?

In many sporting competitions (and other types of competition) people will pray to God for help. Would it be fair to call such help cheating if it were granted? Is it ethical to even ask for what would be an unfair advantage over an opposing side in what should be a purely human competition? The critics of performance enhancing drugs seem to say nothing on this issue.

In your opinion, is it OK to kill a spider, or a fly? I'm sure everyone has done so at some stage and felt no guilt, or only just a fleeting moment of sadness at the life just ended. But, should we go out of our way to avoid the killing of other living things, even seemingly insignificant insects? Can we allow ourselves this luxury on the basis that these are so much "lower" creatures as ourselves and therefore not worth bothering about? I would appreciate your thoughts on this.

In what ways do perceptions (what we see) and images (what we imagine) differ? Is a hallucination an image or a perception? How about a dream? Bob

Considering the ethical reasons of stopping suicide: Why is it that, by default, our society would tend to reject suicidal behaviors and promote the prevention and stopping of suicide? Why can't a person have the right and freedom to choose what to do with his/her life without approval from others? If leading a lousy or good life is the choice and responsibility of the individual, why should choosing to live no life at all be an option not considerable?

Is it possible to suffer without knowing it? Is pain the only bad thing that can happen to people?