I believe it would be wrong, in normal circumstances, to break a promise made to someone who died meanwhile, even if no one will benefit from the keeping of the promise. I also believe that, if keeping the promise would cause great damage to someone (to the promisor or to somebody else), it would be right not to keep it (it could even be wrong to keep it). Now, where should we draw the line between the two kinds of circumstances? If the promisee were alive, we could compare his damage to the damage of somebody else, but, since he/she is dead, to what should we compare the damage caused by keeping the promise?

I am HIV positive. Is it wrong for me to sleep with an HIV negative person if he knows the risk and wants to take it anyway?

Some people attack faith on the basis that it is "wishful thinking". But what is actually wrong with wishful thinking?

Is my body my property? Or is it not property at all?

I'm not sure is this is a philosophical question or a linguistics question but what's the difference between "agree" and "strongly agree?" In my mind, if you agree with a statement or disagree with it, that's the end of it. I think agree or disagree are absolutes so to add an adverbial quantifier is not necessary. How can you 'agree more' with something after you already agree with it? Or, for example, say we both disagree about something. It's not possible for me to disagree 'more' than you. I see this kind of choice on those psych tests employers like to give to candidates. I don't think I've ever 'passed' one of those tests because of my problem with this choice. So is it just semantics? Please help. Confused in Lakeland, FL

Hello there, I have a question concerning Maths. If I am not especially good at Mathematics in school, should I be interested in philosophy? I believe that Mathematics is quite related to philosophy. If persons good at Maths, they have a very strong logical mind. And philosophy requires logic in thoughts. Moreover, do the universities require to pass Mathematics exam if persons want to study philosophy? By nature, I am some kind of creative person. And a creativity, I believe, is more related to breaking rules. I try to say that it is opposite from logical things. The classmates say that I am some kind of philosopher and I love philosophizing although I can't always notice it. And it is interesting thing! To sum up, what is more important considering person who wants to study in philosophy? Its creativity or logical mind?

Rape seems to be a crime that is very difficult to deal with, legally, especially when the two parties are in some way or another involved. Assuming there is no video evidence and no medical evidence (i.e. injury), the rapist can always claim the sex was consensual, and assuming the two know one another (as is often the case), the idea that they might have sex is always possible; this makes it relatively easy for rapists to defend themselves. Rape can, furthermore, be used to horribly smear somebody's reputation, cause them to lose their job and ruin and relationship they might be in at the moment - and though it is difficult to prove, it is also very difficult to disprove, except by having a convincing alibi. If two people have consensual sex, and one party decides to claim they tried to turn down sex but were raped, there is little the other party can do to defend themselves. Assuming innocence until proven guilty could let rapists walk free, but assuming guilt until proven innocent could get...

Do you only do a good deed (or just about anything), because you're gaining something from it yourself? I have thought this with my friend and she thinks people are naturally "good". I just think that as we are animals, we are naturally finding ways to survive. Of course sometimes people make bad decisions, but they are still thinking that the choice is best for them. -Heikki

Why do parents have the right to decide anything about a child's upbringing, or their moral, social, political and spiritual education? Young children are trusting when it comes to their parents, and may even believe falsehoods if their parents are the ones who are repeating these falsehoods. So why do we recognize a unilateral right for parents to teach their children whatever they want, and to withhold whatever information from their children that they deem appropriate? Why do we let parents pull their children out of sex ed class, or teach them a religion as a unilateral source of truth? Shouldn't parents have responsabilities, instead of rights? Surely shaping a child's mind, personality and outlook is not the "reward" parents get for feeding and clothing them! Is this just a practical issue ("There's nobody in a better position to take care of the kids, and there's no way we can stop people from teaching them whatever they want")? Or is there some fundamental moral reason parents have the...

I was taught by my parents, as a young boy, that I should never hit first, but that if anyone hurt me, I should hit back, to show them I wasn't worth messing with. This is basically how I dealt with violence until the fifth or sixth grade; I don't remember ever starting a fight, but I was picked on often because I was bilingual, and when push came to shove, I shoved. I always got into trouble with teachers when I fought back, and came to believe that they supported bullying because they never helped me when I was being bullied; I felt alienated, and didn't trust the teachers at all. Yet I remember what happened when I stopped hitting back, and just turned the other cheek: nobody helped me then, either, and I found myself defenseless against bullies who harassed me because of my bilingualism and my good grades - and because I was a "pussy" who wouldn't hit back. My girlfriend and I recently had a frank discussion about our future plans, and we would like to have children in the next few years, if...