Should I be free to sell my freedom? It seems that from a libertarian perspective, I should be even though I should own my self. But a problem I have with this view is that we can, and often do, make arguably irrational decisions that will inhibit my future capacities as a person. To demonstrate using a small example, it would be better for me to eat an apple rather than a cake but I still choose the cake. Should I be allowed to do this for things as important as my own autonomy. e.g consenting to a contract that binds me to my labourer for life in exchange for shelter and food? Or is the moral responsibility on the employer to not exploit me?

is the existing reality of a thought dependent upon our mind or upon on our external world?

I was engaged in a tense relationship with my supervisor for more than a year. The tension escalated in the last few months and culminated in him framing me for things I did not do. I was not given the opportunity to clarify (the allegations were not made known to me overtly). I have since left the organization but am now having thoughts about clarification now. I was fearful about clarification then as I thought it could implicate many people (including my supervisor), expend resources and worsen my lot without positive outcomes. These concerns remain. Even if I was to mediate (i.e. a conflict resolution approach), I could see no way in being honest and stand for myself while defusing the conflict and mustering a good ending for everyone. What is the right thing to do? Thanks.

My preference is to live a simple lifestyle, minimizing my carbon footprint, buying and consuming less, checking out books from a library instead of purchasing them, biking to work instead of driving, eating vegetarian, etc. Yet it's clear that if everyone lived in such a minimalistic manner, the global economy would be in a shambles. Am I somehow obligated to live a life of conspicuous consumption in order to help support and maintain economic stability and progress even at the cost of continued environmental destruction?

Dear Philosophers I recently posted the following on a forum for a course in Global Health that I took: “India going to Mars while 48.9% of its population can’t go to a flush-toilet! Is it just me, or is there a moral disconnect here? The international press is reporting that India intends to launch a space vehicle which is slated to orbit Mars. India's space program is reported to cost the country US$ 1.1 billion (yes! that is "_illion" with a B) annually from 2011-2013. I am kind of wondering how extensive a sanitation infrastructure India could have had for the combined budgets of their space and nuclear weapon's programs? I am also wondering at what point practitioners from the global health community start to call into question the ethical and moral responsibility of a government toward its citizens? For myself, I think I have reached that point - the next time I get solicited (a.k.a. fleeced) for some health project in India I may just tell them to go to h... Mars, because to me, this stinks worse...

Does an interested layperson have any business in evaluating or criticizing the arguments of specialists in complex academic fields? Are the intellectual efforts of laypeople (limited, perhaps, for those of working-class status to only a few hours a week) destined to result in nothing more than the dubious ends of personal enrichment or cultural appreciation? Would it make more sense for someone of merely average cognitive ability and with only meager academic credentials to spend his free time watching mindless sitcoms or reading the latest potboilers rather than attempting to engage with cutting-edge scholarship across a variety of disciplines? Is our layperson in some sense obligated to accept the arguments and claims of experts if he cannot find reason to doubt them?

There are many questions and answers here about free will and its importance for moral responsibility, and about how free will is consistent with the scientific view of the world. I would like you to consider the idea that even if there is free will, many human actions are anyway caused by circumstances, and we should try to refrain from blaming people. It is known that when economy goes down, crime rates increase. Violent criminals were often victims and spectators of violence in their childhood. Child molesters were often sexually abused when they were children. Religious terrorists were born and brought up among followers of their religion and were often led to terrorism by people around them. Of course, many people experienced more or less the same circumstances and didn't become criminals, but that's easy to say when you're on the right side of statistics, isn't it? And circumstances are never really the same. I know a 5-year old boy at my daughter's pre-school who doesn't seem to be growing properly...

After all that Plato said concerning the written transmission of philosophy, and his attempt to get around it using the dialogue form, why did a devoted student like Plotinus write treatises instead?

what is the reason or purpose for us differentiating between beautiful and ugly.

I have heard Christian apologists say that the concept of the fundamental equality of human kind originates in Genesis 1:27 and that it was wholly alien to ancient Greek thought. Can anyone think of anything in ancient Greek texts that would undermine the apologists' argument?