What are the limits on my obligation to be sure about something before acting? I know that my life is finite, so I can't study economics, history, sociology, and psychology, as well as law (this last is what I do professionally). And yet I am called on to comment on laws or problems that, to provide a sure answer to would require knowledge of all of those things and more. So do I do nothing, and let the problems of the world go by, people starve and murder and so on, or do I act knowing that I may in fact cause more harm because I am factually incorrect about something, for example the harmfulness of GM crops, or the likelihood of re-offending, or the weight to be given to tribal rituals.

I've read that philosophers claim that the sorts of things that can be true are things that could be potentially talked about in words. It also seems held that truth is essential to knowledge. Hence, it seems that the claim is that language is essential to knowledge. But I was looking at an intricate (but ugly) carpet yesterday, and it really did seem to me that it wordlessly expressed knowledge, as much as many sentences do. Why cannot a visual idea express knowledge as well as a word idea?

If, as George Washington said, "All government is force," is not resistance to government a necessary and morally superior corollary to resistance to force in general?

What is the line between justice and revenge called? Or better put, when does justice become an act of revenge?

Is ‘philosophy’ singular, or is there room for multiple philosophies? Clearly each philosopher will respond to a question according to their own understanding, but what about schools of thought that fall outside the scope of ‘Philosophy’ as taught in Universities (and perhaps contradict it)? To what extent is ‘Philosophy’ a generally agreed upon pool of knowledge and a set of tools for a rational understanding of life, the universe and everything, as opposed to a continually shifting, subjective and relative arena of debate where alternate and opposing explanations are considered?

Do people have a moral obligation to comply with someone's last wishes?

Do the panelists think, perhaps from their own experience, that there are certain philosophies that are more appealing at certain times in people's lives, perhaps even predictable life stages?

Is a parent morally obliged to tell an adopted child he/she is adopted? If so, at what age/stage of the child's life should one do so? What about the birth parent(s)? If they are known, it it incumbent upon the adopting parents to make efforts to include them in the child's life? On the one hand, knowing they are adopted/involving birth parents might hurt the child - make them feel unloved, complicate custody arrangements, etc. On the other hand, not telling them or risking that they find out themselves also seems unfair to the child. What is a reasonable course of action in this probably common situation?

If someone is tolerant, in the sense that they accept, and do not wish to change, views held by others which are different from their own, are they obliged to tolerate intolerance in others?

If, as some believe, depression is a state of mind, what is the difference between being depressed and thinking that one is depressed? And would the effect be the same regardless of the cause?