Is true, honest-to-god deontology possible, or is what we call deontology just far-sighted consequentialism? Kant's ends principle is the classic ethical principle from deontology, right? But even Kant's principle is inextricable (I think) from Enlightenment meliorism. That is, treating people as ends-in-themselves is moral because it leads to a better world, no? Deontology is supposed to divorce ethics from consequences, but don't attempts to establish rational moral principles still take for granted certain principles, such as human dignity, species survival, or (if nothing else) logical integrity?

What is a 'local community'? In the UK, the media will often use the word(s) 'community' or 'local community'. I struggle to see how this term can be defined. Is a community a purely defined by geographical location? If so, is the person who lives 10cm outside this zone not part of the community? Do we have to share the same beliefs, customs or rituals? Is the definition subjective or objective? Am I massively over thinking the matter? I would appreciate any help or comments. Many thanks

Is Science born from Philosophy? And so, what about Quine's anti-foundationalism? Is it correct?

Some philosopher have said that the very static nature of concepts excludes the dynamic and thus undefinable nature of reality. I don't know how strong that argument is. They say to conceptualize change by reference to unchanging principles is somehow wrongheaded. Can philosophers understand change while avoiding the problems these critics raise and what philosophers in the analytic tradition of thought have tangled with these criticisms?

It’s not difficult now to find able moral philosophers such as TiborMachan, Tara Smith, Ayn Rand and others defending egoism as a viable normative ethical theory. My question is: supposing that I can get away with it, why shouldn’t I freeride if I take egoism to be correct? I am aware that only a minority of philosophers subscribe to egoism. Thus if I may ask a different but still connected question, does the injustice of freeriding prove that egoism is not practically livable?

If what makes something immoral is any act that harms someone, would deliberately harming oneself count as an immoral act? And if some other person who is harmed agreed to be harmed, would that be immoral?

My question is about real vs. nominal definitions. It is generally, though not universally, held that to come up with a real definition, one needs to investigate the world to discover the properties of the entity denoted by the term. So for example, to provide a real definition of the term "tiger," one would need to look at tigers to determine their characteristics. My question is: does this characterization of real definitions imply that one can make assertions about real definitions that are true or false? Consider the following: I fix the denotation of the term "tiger" (pointing to several large cats), and then provide the following real definition of "tiger": an eight-legged invertebrate. Can I accurately say that the real definition I provided for "tiger" is false? Likewise, is the correct real definition of tiger: a large four-legged cat, true?

What constitutes a duty? I read somewhere that the elderly who are very ill have a “duty to die” in order to relieve taxpayers of taxes to pay for the elderly’s healthcare. Is this assessment fair? Do the elderly have a duty to kill themselves if they are already being a burden to others and society in general?

Why is philosophy difficult to define?

Both idealism and materialism have convincing arguments for me, yet within each argument are refutations of the other. How can I reconcile which to believe when they both seem equally as likely? I've thought that perhaps idealism explains our own subjective worlds, and materialism explains the objective external world, but can both be true when they contain refutations of the other?