I've enjoyed a number of the answers posted on the site (I subscribe to the RSS feed). They've been insightful, and have cleverly fleshed out some problems which, on the surface, seemed banal or excessively broad. This question is the latter. Lately I've been wondering if it's possible to institutionalize ethical conduct. That is, in any bureaucratic entity (a business, government, religion, or otherwise) can you effectively create moral rightness inherent to the organization? It seems (in the absence of any thorough research on my part) that prevailing attitudes about morality put individual agents at the heart of the matter, but I was curious if there are any well-grounded dissenting opinions. The reason I ask is that I'm operating a small business, and would like to craft its orchestrating documents (articles of organization, business plan, etc.) as conscientiously as possible. -Jeremy Wilkins

How immoral (amoral?) is it that, despite rising awareness over the past few decades of "Spaceship Earth's" limited resources and carrying capacity, we continue to pursue a growth-dependent economy and grossly materialistic lifestyles that are clearly unsustainable and must have catastrophic consequences, if not for ourselves, probably for our own children and certainly for coming generations. Since we are all participating in the plundering and spoiling of our planet, with whom does responsibility lie? And does the fact, that we are in "collective denial" of the consequences in any way reduce or excuse our culpability? Roger Hicks

What is the relationship between law and morality? Is the law simply a branch of morality?

As far as I have seen the ideas of “Good” and “bad” are nothing but opinions to certain groups or individuals. I have been told that if this is the case ethical theories are useless. I do not want to believe this sceptical view or morality! What would be the best reason to suggest that what I believe is false and that “Goodness” and “Badness” are in fact objective absolute concepts?

How do words get their meaning?

Are affirmative action programs ever necessary or just? While the admirable goal of these programs is to boost equality (or equal opportunity) don't they cause definite lowering of standards (compared to a pure meritocracy)? Further, isn't there also resentment of the non-preferred group to be dealt with? Finally, how long should such programs be kept running?

Is it morally wrong to profit from other people's mistakes or stupidity?

Is the Liar paradox, stated as "this sentence is false" false? The Liar surely means, "The proposition expressed by this sentence is false", but this implies that there is one and only one proposition contained within the sentence. If this is not the case then the whole statement is false because "The proposition" must pick out exactly one object. The direct proposition expressed is "This sentence is false", yet surely since the predicate "is false" applies to the sentence in question, "This sentence is false" is false is a proposition that is also logically entwined with the sentence. Since the sentence expresses two propositions, and not one, there is no object which corresponds to "The proposition expressed" and so the whole sentence becomes false.

Even if determinism has been somewhat refuted by Quantum Uncertainty (a fact that is peddled by the layman, and never acknowledged by the leading scientists - Einstein, Bohr etc.), isn't it still the case that all events on a slightly larger scale are still determined. After all a gust of wind isn't random (as to transcend causation). Determinism is, in part, the prerequisite to sanity as none of us expect the Earth to stop turning or our cars to stop working for no mechanically justified reason. As a note of interest, a computer cannot be programed to do something random.

Can you give any instances of any philosophical problems that have been 'nailed' so to speak by philosophy - that is, solved?