Will it be moral to continue working for a cigarette company knowing the sickenesses that smoking creates?

If one perceives that one is in a one-sided friendship......is it ethically necessary to inform the indifferent friend that you are no longer pursuing the friendship.....or is it better to just let the matter lie.....I ask the question in order to more fully understand what the bonds of friendship actually might be......Thank you for your attention. lisa m.

I am about to be a senior at an Ivy League university, and I am starting to panic about my next step. I believe that I am intelligent, a capable worker and will succeed in anything I do. The only problem is... What should I do? How would different philosophers advise me to approach my next step in life?

What has happened to the practice of philosophy as opposed to the profession (teaching) of philosophy? Given the political, ethical, moral, and economic dilemmas facing the U.S. and the world, one would think philosophers would be as common in government as bureaucrats.

My wife was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease at the age of 62 almost immediately after we retired. I was her sole caregiver for over 6 years until she entered a nursing home this year. She is deteriorating at a greater rate and, for instance, she no longer recognizes her grandchildren. She does recognize me and apparently gets pleasure when I visit. I intend to continue visiting regularly at least until she no longer recognizes me. I do not even consider divorcing her - we have been married 43 years and she was always my best friend. I am a relatively young 70 years of age. How do I reconcile my own needs including having a female companion with my marriage vows?

I am curious about the formation of the moral conscience and at what age a child should be held responsible for knowing the difference between right and wrong. And would the same criteria apply for acts of commission and acts of omission assuming that there are no "defenses", so to speak, like voluntary intoxication or organic brain damage. Thanks.

Does music exist without a listener? This is kind of a corollary to the tree falling in the woods question- but it definitely deviates. Does the noise exist without someone to hear it? If music is created by a musician, does it really matter if anyone hears it? Does music have more value than random noise- because it was created with a purpose? Does this purpose give it more value than other waves?

Some twelve step groups advocate taking the right actions to lead to the right thinking, "right" being defined as non-addictive behavior. The phrase is "Fake it until you make it." Is there a philosophical comment on that process, as opposed to the idea of thinking your way into the desired behavior?

Why do philosophers seem to object to anthropomorphic moral and value claims? In other words, what's wrong embracing our parochial human interests completely? Say for instance a rare slug which we know conclusively to have no non-aesthetic value occupies space that prevents the construction of a hydroelectric dam. Why should we not say, "Screw the slug, humanity is more important" and proceed accordingly? More abstractly, why has morality (excepting maybe Nietzsche) not attempted to reconcile humanity's obvious selfishness, bias, violence and greed with what we might call "pure" ethics. Moreover, what's to stop us from simply re-defining our philosophical terms in order to make this more palatable, e.g. by defining "free will" as "whatever it is that humans do/experience" as an easy out from some sticker philosophical dilemmas? Thanks in advance for any responses.

Is there a proper role for faith in philosophy, or do they function in distinct realms?