Doesn't moral goodness depend on our definition of moral goodness? For example, if we define "Good are those actions which upholds God's will, as in the Bible", our moral views are likely to be very different to those of people who define good as "Those actions which help, and do not hinder, others in achieving their own peaceful ends". Yet how can we arbitrate between different definitions of the good? There are actions which uphold God's will, as presented in the Bible, and there are actions which help, and do not hinder, others in achieving their own peaceful ends, so how do we decide which of these groups of actions gets the label "good"?

Somethings are said to exist in the mind rather than in the real world but can something really be said to exist "inside" the mind? Doesn't that assume that the mind can contain things?

What is reality? Why cant we ever truly experience what is really out there since we are stuck behind our own perceptions created by our mind.

My uncle tells me that I will never be able to find what I am looking for by pursuing philosophy because of something called the "paradox of philosophy". I asked him what that was and he told me I would find out soon enough if I became a philosophy major. Its been a long time and I havent figured out what the basic paradox of philosophy is. My guess however is that the paradox of philosophy is the idea that in order to obtain absolute truth you must already possess it. Because if you dont know what the truth is how will you recognize it when you find it? Maybe that is why the theory of recollection is so importent to Plato's philosophy? Am I correct about the paradox of philosophy or is it something different than that?

Hello, I would like some clarification on deduction and induction. I have heard scientists claim to use deductive reasoning. In each case, the scientists use a hypothetical syllogism, such as modus ponens. I am confused about this because I noticed inductive arguments can be made into deductive form if conditionals are used. For example, consider this case: If an argument contains a conditional statement, then it is deductive reasoning. This inductive argument(X)can be re-worded to contain a conditional statement on the spot when asked. Therefore this inductive argument (X) is deductive reasoning. According to the example given, all arguments are deductive! Some help and clarification please? Are all arguments with at least one If . . . then . . . premise deductive by definition alone? Should inductive arguments be inductive no matter what form because the conclusions are not guaranteed from the premises?

Some people seem to think that it is fundamentally impossible to understand another culture. For example, they say that no matter how we think about and conceptualize Chinese thought and philosophy, we will always be interpreting it as though it were Western, and that we will therefore never understand it. Can this really be true?

What distinguishes the "social" sciences from the "hard" sciences? Or is there no such distinction?

"Yesterday was a Monday." Can the above statement ever really be verified by empirical observation?

Recently in my Philosophy class during a lecture on abortion the argument came up that in one view stance abortion is not immoral if it is to save the life of the mother. This is was to be considered toward the end of the pregnancy as well. Why is it that the mother's life is more valuable than the unborn child? Often the early baby could be incubated and go on to live its life. Is the mother's life more valuable because she has grown into a moral entity? Contributes more to society? Should the baby be more valuable because its life is brand new, with infinite possibilities, and the mother has had some years to life, is already closer to old age and death than the baby anyway?

Is it morally justifiable to joke about serious crimes like rape? Humor can be a coping mechanism for people to deal with something so reprehensible, while at the same time acknowledging that it is a serious and immoral crime. Yet it's possible that for rapists or potential rapists, seeing how some parts of the community treat the crime so light-heartedly might mitigate their moral qualms about committing rape. Are there some things which we just shouldn't joke about?