'Nature' is commonly understood as, among other things, standing in contrast to the 'man-made'. However, can these two ideas be kept separate? Surely everything 'man-made' cannot occur contrary to the fundamental structure of the universe and does not oppose it, but rather occurs within it and perhaps even as a factor of the natural constitution of humankind? Or to put it more simply: surely there is nothing 'unnatural' about (for example) a parent deciding upon the genetic make-up of their as yet unborn child, despite this being to many peoples' distaste.

If God exists and he knows it all, even the future, then he knew Hitler would go to hell before Hitler was even born. Why would God give someone life, just to send him to hell for all eternity? Is this fair to Hitler and all those doomed to go to hell or is this proof that God doesn't really know it all, not the future at least?

What if a person continues to wish evil, (e.g., that someone dies) but is only refrained from action (murder) by practical concerns (such as fear of incarceration)? What is the moral difference between that wish, and the act? (Btw, thanks Nicholas D. Smith for your excellent answer [to a related question: http://www.amherst.edu/askphilosophers/question/974].)

Some people are born into privileged situations and some people into poverty. Do you think that those unfortunate enough to be in the second group can sometimes be justified in resorting to crime, say civil disobedience or theft, either through frustration or necessity? And if they were to resort to crime, is it fair to judge and punish them in the same way as more privileged people who might do the same things?

I am a a high school teacher working for the Los Angeles Unified School District. I have been given approval to begin teaching a Philosophy survey course for the next school year. Although I am well read and schooled in Philosophy (I think?), I am unaware of possible textbooks for the study of Philosophy. I am looking for something that might be high school student friendly. Thus the Adorno Reader might be out of sorts for my pubescent high school students. In addition, I am fielding advice on the best approach to teaching Philosophy to high schoolers. I am interested in possible methods, assignments and projects. Any advice would be welcomed. Thank you, Ramon

Dear philosophers, This is about suicide. If someone's experience of their life is negative and even if we in society do not believe their life is all that bad or that there is hope of it improving, isn't it the individual's right to remove themselves from what has become an unpleasant existence for them? Also is it fair to point to the harm that befalls others from said suicide as a reason against it when remaining alive would be causing the individual harm or pain? Is your life not your own and suicide your personal decision to not continue it? Thank you.

In light of a question about Irving and Holocaust denial [http://www.amherst.edu/askphilosophers/question/971], I wonder why free speech should be seen as an absolute principle which has no limits. It seems to me that practical wisdom dictates that in some cases for the good of society (for example, to avoid hate crimes) free speech must have certain limits. I have no idea how to determine those limits and I suspect that there isn't any formula, but perhaps you people can clarify the issue. Thanks.

How do we know that what is morally right and wrong is actually supposed to be right or wrong? Was there actually any intent for what is to be good or bad? -Tom Simmons (age 13)

What is the origin of human ethics? How did ethics come into existence?

Do you think philosophical counseling is a legitimate form of philosophizing? Are there indeed situations, cases or problems better addressed or answered by philosophers (rather than psychologists)?