So I'm reading The Power of Logic, 4th edition. While on a section describing Modus Tollen it says that, Not A; If A, then B; So, Not B is an example of Modus Tollen. My question is how can that be if the conclusion of Modus Tollens is suppose to deny the consequent? Am i reading it wrong or just missing something? Keep in mine im still not beyond chapter 1.

In sports (especially boxing) fans love to rank the best boxers, players or teams. So when ranking the Greatest Boxers of All-Time -- is it ethical to include boxers you or anyone else (alive) have never seen before (for no footage exists of them - e.g., Harry Greb)? (Provided that you put in as much research as possible - e.g., books, news archives, boxing historians writings.)

Is there really such a thing to do naturally? For example is there really a specific way to play a sport or do an activity? Or is the term "naturally" or "specific" something that we had just created to keep order and make everyone follow rules? Or is there a "specific" way to do something?

If a store provides a customer with poor service, is it moral for that customer to steal something and leave? Businesses cannot exist with customers, not the other way around, so if most customers are not satisfied, then the business has no right to exist.

I will be taking my first philosophy class soon although my major is not philosophy. I already know the basics of philosophy and the philosophical positions of my professor so I can anticipate what kind of essays I will be writing. I know for a fact that my philosophical views are radically different from both his and society in general so should I just argue for the sake of arguing or should I take the safe route and agree with what I think his views are so that I can be judged to lesser standard and get a higher mark? Just how biased are philosopher professors really?

If a customer walks into a store and pulls a toy gun on the owner as a prank resulting in the owner thinking it is a real gun and suffering a fatal heart attack, then is the customer morally responsible for his death? If so, what ought his punishment be? Should it be less if the owner is in his late eighties and the customer attempted CPR?

Do most philosophers take the Paul and Patricia Churchland's eliminative materialism seriously? I'm concerned about the current state of philosophy of mind in that it seems that at least some people take seriously the suggestion that e.g. beliefs don't exist (and that they are believed in in a theoretical manner). So, again, how popular is the Churchland's eliminative materialism in contemporary philosophy of mind?

Have you ever changed your mind about a major philosophical problem or theory and did you feel that it was a waste of time defending your previous position?

Are feminists (who subscribe to the view) right to claim that all men are necessarily sexist? Perhaps it makes sense to limit the scope of the claim to a particular country, say within the UK. Presumably the sexism of men in few examples of matriarchal societies, if indeed they are sexist, would be different from the sexism we're familiar with. As a man, I would not care to insist that I am not sexist in various ways. My morality is egalitarian but it is no doubt at odds with my attitudes and behaviour. That applies to gender just as it applies to other ways we distinguish sets of people (or subjects of moral concern). The problem I have with the assertion is that it seems to take gender (or sex for the transphobic flavours of feminism) as the essential dividing line between people. Aren't there all sorts of predicates that group people into different sets, some more privileged than others? 'Born-in-the-UK' vs. 'Born-in-Malawi'; 'disabled' vs. 'fit'; 'socially anxious' vs. 'charismatic'. In many cases...

People from the distant past are forgiven for believing that the earth is flat or that the sun orbits around it, because they lived in an era when science was less advanced; and it would have been pretty difficult for a lay person back then to figure this stuff out on her own. Is morality like science in this way? Is it understandable that 18th-century whites believed blacks were subhuman, and are they less culpable for the crimes of slavery as a result?