In times of emergency we are often told that a state must balance the need to ensure national security against the need to preserve individual liberty and rights. How do we reconcile these often competing interests?

Is it logically possible to consider yourself in love with someone after a short duration of time? Say, three weeks? Or is this too short of a time period to be able to determine something of such great importance? Ashley S.

I've told some very stupid lies recently, and on reflection obviously wish I could take them back. But the prospect of going to the people I've lied to and straightening things out is not so easy to commit to. Is there some kind of moral compulsion to confess to all the lies I've told, or can I balance against it things like losing respect and hurting people?

I have just accepted a tenure-track position at a school that I am convinced suits me quite well; while I love to write, I am a teacher first and consider writing a wonderful (and wonderfully frustrating) secondary priority--and these match the priorities of the school. I taught for several years as an adjunct and have taught for a few as a contract faculty member. So I know much of the goings-on and how to be successful in a university setting generally (or, I assume, I wouldn't have gotten the tenure-track offer). I am wondering if there is advice you can give for a person moving from the contract level to the tenure-track level? Are there particular things to keep in mind during this time? s2

In many introductory text that take a topical approach to understanding philosophy theology is not listed as a branch of philosophy; however, the philosophy of religion is. Why is that? This is especially confounding in that texts that take an historical approach always include a section covering Scholasticism.

I have a question about something Nietzsche said in Twilight of the Idols . Under morality of physicians he writes "... some advice for our dear pessimists and other decadents. It is not in our hands to prevent our birth; but we can correct this mistake- for in some cases it is a mistake. When one does away with oneself, one does the most estimable thing possible. one almost earns the right to live." Is Nietzsche advocating suicide for weak-minded people? joe s.

My parents tend to blame the ills of UK society on the Thatcher government. In relation to this, I wonder to what extent a single figure or political era can shape a people, given that whatever a party or figure says or does comes from the prior possibility for that particular action or speech. Philosophically speaking, can we hold a single figure or political era responsible for any society considered 'as a whole' (i.e., seen in general)? Also, can you direct me to any philosophers who have written about this? thank-you.

A friend of mine working for a business recently claimed that his business was bribing a petty government official involved in the audit of their government tax/duties accounts because the government official was demanding a bribe. He managed to reduce the bribe amount to half or even less. My question is this: Is it right for him to take a high moral ground compared to the bribe taker? His argument is that like pollution, corruption is required to be reduced and since he managed to reduce the bribe amount, he did the right thing morally and ethically speaking. I argued that my friend is as much an accomplice in the ethical wrong doing as the bribe giver(the business) and the bribe taker(the petty government official). My friend seems to be stuck on the "pollution analogy" and feels he has done a great act by reducing the bribe amount like reducing the "pollution". Can you expose ethical issues invoved in the above?

Before a computer is assembled, it's a pile of useless wires and hardware. Put it all together and the whole is much greater than its parts, in that it can do things like beat the best chess player in the world. Conversely with the human brain, severe enough head injuries can cause profound changes in personality. Doesn't this "whole much greater than the sum of parts" not prove that dualism fails Occam's razor? I mean, if there was a soul independent of brain matter, where does it go after severe head injuries? By all accounts, people are not who they used to be after such unfortunate losses. Thanks Jeff

Is there such a thing as formal inductive logic? It seems to me that whether or not an inductive argument is good or not depends on its semantic content, not just its syntactic form, which makes it impossible to formalize in the way that deductive logic is formalizable.