I have an ethical question. I own a business that provides services to corporations, both public and private. Today at lunch I was having a conversation with my business partner. He brought a proposal from a large public company's purchasing manager who had made it known to my business partner (since they were childhood friends) that he would give us this fairly substantial project if we offered him a kickback of 20% of the project cost, discreetly payable to him outside of the USA in cash. This purchasing manager would rubber-stamp approve our bid, even if it is high because we have to cover his kickback. I told my business partner that his friendly purchasing manager was not only doing something illegal, but also that he was unethical. I told him that we should not deal with such persons. My business partner posed this question to me - "How is this unethical? We routinely visit purchasing managers of other public companies and we take them and their key personnel out to lunch or to dinner to...

Dear Philosophers (and especially Prof. Pogge), I can see why an empirical theory of DESCRIPTIVE ethics is possible, but can there be an empirical theory of NORMATIVE ethics? It seems to me that, in the final analysis, you cannot deduce "ought" from "is". If all people are born (have evolved) to be selfish and cruel, does it follow that we should be selfish and cruel? Shouldn't we be considerate and kind, even if we are not born with these attributes?

In response to a previous question Sean Greenberg characterized philosophy as consisting of arguments? Is that true? Doesn't much of philosophy consist of description as well and isn't that different from argument? Is a defense of a description (which I think would require an argument) the same thing as the "description" itself? Hopefully that question made sense. Sean Greenberg's response was to a question about whether Shakespeare had a coherent philosophy. Wouldn't the idea that description is philosophy make the idea that Shakespeare has a coherent philosophy more plausible. (Also I suppose a person could use a brilliant philosophical insight without believing it and it doesn't have to fit together in the way Plato's Republic fits together) But then someone might say you can separate the philosophy from the text but I'm not so sure. Certainly something that transcends the text but is still coherently related to the text could be clearly exposited couldn't it? Is there any interest in literary theory...

One argument I've often heard in favor of vegetarianism is that we don't have to kill animals in order to survive. What if we, for biological reasons, were forced to eat other animals? If we couldn't digest plant matter, it would seem we wouldn't have a choice. By the logic of the argument, wouldn't that mean it would be less ethically problematic to kill other animals in order to feed?

When a person's irresponsible behavior leads to the death of another person such as the case of drunk driving we naturally assign culpability to that person. Should a person who's irresponsible behavior leads to them being raped be held to a degree of moral culpabilty? To what degree if any?

Dear Philosophers, My question is about the morality of actions in games. Can our behaviors in a game - however friendly or cruel if they are inside the borders of the game's rules - be regarded as immoral acts? For example, is hitting a person during a game a sort of immoral act? (in this case I know that it might be punished by the referee but is the act in itself immoral?) What about deceiving your rival in a game? Is it lie and thus an immoral behavior? and killing (suppose there is a game in which two people agree on a fight which would end in one side's death)? Thanks.

I have been an atheist for some time and I recently realized something that I am curious about. Resulting from depression I have come to see that through resenting myself I create distance with those around me. At the same time I have no purpose to a creator (being an atheist) to live and life seems to become bleak. I began to wonder and feel that the more I begin again to care about people the more I realize how essential they are to an atheist life. When caring about people we find our God or purpose so to speak. Do philosophers say anything about how without God you must care about people to feel like life has purpose beyond hedonism? Any expansion to my question is fine since I am pretty hazy due to feeling down these days. Thanks

Legal status aside, is a person who steals $1,000 from a very rich person acting just as unethically as a person who steals $1,000 from a poor person?

A common criticism against the so-called New Atheists -- e.g., Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, Sam Harris, etc. -- is that they are philosophically naive and accept an unreflective, dogmatic scientism. Is this a fair point?

Are emotions involved in conclusions/reaching conclusions in mathematics?