Is it moral (in a normative sense, I suppose) to start a non-profit that does 'less good' than other non-profits? That is, if your non-profit would facilitate donations to pay for cleft palate surgery for children but could be helping to fight malaria (apparently one the most cost-effect ways to save lives), is that immoral? Isn't your non-profit taking potential donations away from this 'better' non-profit?

What would be the better choice: truth that will make you bitter or a lie that would make you happy? Let's say truth would be the better choice. Now the follow-up question: what is there to truth that makes it more valuable than happiness, even if this happiness is produced by a lie?

Why is there such a taboo in society about children and sexual content? It seems quite odd to me that we attempt to hide something so fundamental from children. Is it really the case that children, even very young children, are somehow harmed by knowledge of sex, or that they are too immature to comprehend the material? Isn't it more likely that lack of knowledge about sex could lead to unsafe experimentation in early adolescence (or even before, for especially precocious children)? Children seem to have a natural marked disinterest or repulsion about the nature of sex in any case; does hiding even moderately suggestive images and language, dressing up natural processes such as childbirth in misleading euphemistic fairy tales, and cultivating a general atmosphere of awkwardness and embarrassment when discussing sex around children actually help anyone? For my part, natural curiosity caused me to gain a working knowledge of the mechanics of sex from a biology textbook at age 7, so perhaps I am simply odd.

Do colors have an independent existence?

Catherine MackKinnon and Andrea Dworkin were among those feminists who lead the charge against pornography, so to speak, calling it what amounts to a central pillar in the edifice of patriarchal oppression. However, humans have only had free and easy access to visual pornography for the past few decades, maybe the past century, at most; and even literary pornography, like Fanny Hill, only dates back to the 18th Century. Before this, the inability to mass-produce pornographic materials seems to imply that it can't have had much the same impact as it could potentially have today - and many such depictions were on urns, floor mosaics or other objects with further purposes, so they weren't there strictly for sexual arousal. Yet it doesn't seem unreasonable to say that Western civilization has seen women forced into the status of second-class citizens for many more centuries than that, even millenia. So how can pornography be the central factor, or even a central factor, in the oppression of women? Or...

Could it ever be rational to come to a belief on the basis of evidence which is only accessible to oneself? I have in mind, for instance, people who claim to have arrived at a belief in god by way of some critically personal spiritual experience.

The website "Wikileaks" has been getting a lot of media attention recently after it's leaking of thousands of secret and classified US diplomatic cables. It was also in the headlines in April after it's release of classified footage showing US forces killing Iraqi civilians and journalists. Some governments have been critical of Wikileaks, Hilary Clinton referring to the recent leaks as an "attack on the international community and Sarah Palin describing head-man Julian Assange as having "blood on his hands", and calling for the US government to hunt him down with the same urgency as that with which they hunt down suspected terrorists. Is any of this backlash justified? I have a feeling that such harsh criticism is typical of a person who has been caught in the act of wrong-doing and points the finger at the person who reveals their crimes, in an attempt to draw attention away from their own misdeeds. Is Wikileaks responsible for the death of US soldiers in Iraq? Is there a point at which freedom of...

Is it possible that there exist types or methods of argument/reasoning that have not been discovered or employed before? (I do not mean specific arguments for specific problems, but Forms of arguments, so to speak.)

How does Godel's incompleteness theorem affect the way that mathematicians understand and see mathematics as well as the world (if at all)? I'm not even close to a mathematician, but even a slight dose of the idea and theorem were enough to affect me so I suppose that I'm curious.

A once in a lifetime opportunity has been presented to me to participate in a reality TV show, and I meet all of the requirements to be a candidate for the show - except one. The show requires that I cannot have traveled to the country it is being filmed in, but I have been there briefly one time in my life. Granted, my odds of getting selected for the show (if I fit all the criteria) are low, but I think that several characteristics that I have are precisely what are being looked for in a candidate. What are the moral/legal implications in lying about not having been to this country, for the sake of this phenomenal opportunity? Can it be justified?