I begin a selfless task with no thought of reward. While working, the possibility of being rewarded for my task occurs to me. Does this new thought invalidate the selflessness of my action, even though I began with "pure" motives? If I am able to drive thoughts of reward from my mind until I am done, does my action become selfless again? If the thought of reward spurs me on to do an even better job, does that tilt the scales even further away from my selflessness, or does it remain steady, because the task was only begun with "pure" intentions?

Why is sex (a legal act) censored to a much higher degree than extreme violence (an illegal act)?

Is the existence of God more important than the existence of religion?

How does one respond to the argument that the danger to our troops is misguided because a citizen of Washington D.C. has a greater chance of being fatally shot than an American soldier does of dying in Iraq?

Philosophers / Journalism / Truth If we can agree upon the premiss that Man is not a solitary creature and that Man wants to belong to a group, why isn't there more movement towards getting the mass-media to use this longing to propel mankind to a higher level by 'punishing' (exposing) the Bad and 'rewarding' (admiring) the Good? Is this at all possible, you think? And if not, why not? As far as I am aware there is not a single major/popular newspaper or news program or internet site that reports a selection of objectively gathered news in a framework of comparison to the eternal value of 'Good vs Bad' on which the great philosophers agree. For example: Only reports (aknowledge and admire) of true 'good' deeds - esp. from role models - and ignore all the other trivial actions (non-news) as much as possible. Sorry for my poor English. Please translate into proper English ... Compliments for the site!!!

I'm not sure who made the claim, but I read that during the 1970s feminist movement some claimed that all sex was rape. Why did that person think that women could never have consensual sex?

Is there a moral difference between killing a newly born baby and having an abortion? To be consistent, do we have to say either abortion/infanticide is morally wrong OR that abortion/killing a newborn can be morally permitted if the circumstances are right?

How do you know that you know something? Isn't everything a perception? Even science assumes that the world is real and the senses convey truth about the world--and perhaps even more. If everything is perception, then how does one leap to the level of finally "knowing" something.

Why is it important to know the truth and falsity of a proposition?

Do you think it is ethical to have romantic desires for people with good looks? I know the obvious (pop culture) answer is yes. One may even assert further that it is natural to do so. However, my point then is that some desires, albeit natural, are unethical. (If I don't have money on me and I am hungry, I may feel the urge to steal some food.) And even though most people may feel that it is okay, the general public may be very often wrong. My reasoning is: (1) We should evaluate people only on their choices and not on conditions they haven't achieved by making choices. (2) People don't choose to look good or bad. Conclusion: Therefore, it is unethical to grant people ANY advantage based on their looks. A friend of mine, against this argument, tells me that for instance, a mathematician has not chosen to be born with her talent, so we shouldn't also value her mathematical works. This seems like an inextricable tangle! Thanks.