What does it mean to "respect" nature? Is there a difference between "respecting" nature and just liking it a whole lot?

Is it ethical for a depressed person to limit social interaction with friends, based on the idea that the friends might find such interaction unpleasant? Part of the problem is that friends often don't openly admit to not enjoying the depressed presence, but, if the depressed person finds it difficult to live with him-/herself, would it not follow that other people also find his/her company difficult? Increased isolation would undoubtedly have adverse effects on the depressed person. Would it be possible for a philosopher to explain the ethical position of the depressed person as regards to social interaction, please?

Many of my science professors have remarked that the law of conservation of mass and energy is unprovable (or at least unproven); is this really the case, however? Isn't the problem of the conservation law precisely the problem of induction? (I.e., we observe that the mass and energy of every system we have ever examined has remained constant, but how do we know that this will hold true (1) in the future and (2) of all systems?) But presumably when my professors have said that the conservation law is unproven, they didn't mean that this is so because of the problem of induction (after all, if they took this route then all of science would be "unproven"!). I feel as though they are treating the conservation law as exceptional when in fact it is not. -ace

Although there is obviously a distinction between playing a game with simulated violence and actually committing acts of violence, is it immoral to enjoy violent games? Is enjoyment of simulated violence evil, and, if so, where do we draw the line? Is chess immoral since the victor would normally enjoy 'killing' the opponents army? How does the accuracy of simulation effect morality?

Hello panel, My question focuses on a space in time where everyone ever associated with a person including themselves has died, where everything of that person's experience down to the most miniscule details of their existence is no longer in the minds of the living. This is assuming the non-existence of an afterlife. At this point in time, does this render that person's existence utterly meaningless? There are many people who survive in history but there are also many faceless, nameless people who lived through the ages and had experiences common to all the living now, but in this present day, those experiences no longer exist except in the distant past, and are thus inaccessible. (I apologise if this is making little sense, I am absolutely struggling to grasp my own problem.) Essentially what I mean to say is, while our experiences on this earth have meaning to us and the people sharing them with us in the present, on a grander timescale, is there any argument to allay a feeling I sometimes...

What makes god, GOD? or in other words: what gives "him" authority? Is it the fact that he "knows all", or the fact that he can "create", or the lack thereof?

Is an event which has zero probability of occurring but which is nonetheless conceivably possible rightly termed "impossible"? For instance, is it "impossible" that I could be the EXACT same height as another person? I take it that the chance of this is zero in that there are infinitely many heights I could be (6 ft, 6.01 ft, 6.001 ft, 6.0001 ft, etc.) but only one which could match that of a given other person exactly; at the same time, I have no problem at all imagining a world in which I really am exactly as tall as this other.

I think that the reason we hate is because we FIRST loved. An example would be that Americans hate terrorists because they love their country. A man hates the other man that sleeps with his wife, because he loves his wife. Does this idea have any relevance in modern philosophy, or has it already been covered? I'm not very versed with philosophical writings.

I think my question was rejected so I'll try to ask it differently. Can I, or anyone, ever accurately make a judgment as to whether another person is 'good' or not? Can I call someone a 'bad person'? For example, I assume Hitler is accepted by (mostly) everyone as a bad person, but I can also assume that there were moments in his life where he acted with genuine love and concern (maybe towards his dog). Does this mean that I can call him unequivocally a bad person still?

I am involved in an ongoing battle with someone about the following issue and am beginning to doubt my own argument!! The issue : The example was of contrasting European and British attitudes to the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. The person claimed that the French are more likely to understand the Iraqis due to their experience of being occupied in WW2, whereas Britain, although they fought in the war, were never invaded, and no battles were fought on British soil. He believes that you cannot fully understand what you do not experience, or at least, that when you do experience something, your preconceived opinion of it is bound to change as a consequence. Whereas I am (was?) an adamant believer in the capacity for human imagination and speculation, which allows people to feel empathy for others even if they have not directly experienced the situation at hand. What are your opinions? I believe it may have something to do with empiricists and rationalists, although maybe that's just because I'm...