Utilitarianism and similar moral theories often tell us to evaluate an action based on its expected consequences. Usually, this is assumed to be equivalent to the mathematical expectation of some function or other. Isn't this quite a specific probabilistic assumption to be making about the consequences of an action? What would utilitarians do if they had to make a choice over actions where the consequences depended on a random variable with no measure?

Philosophically (and perhaps linguistically, what is the difference between the question, "who are you?" and "what are you?". To answer the former, I often describe something about myself like my name or that I'm a student. The latter is often posed to me when people ask about my ethnicity or national origin. And perhaps more broadly, how do we "know" which sorts of identifying information is pertinent in answering either? Thanks, and great site.

What is a miracle?

How does one know that love is real, and if it is that one's in love? ?Ai? (14)

If philosophy is engaged in a hunt for eternal verities, why does it so often seem as faddish as a clique-obsessed 13 year-old? For instance, in the 1920s logical positivism ruled and their answers seemed on the mark -- until, of course, everybody realized the Vienna Circle was engaged in narrow-minded bilge. Then it was Ordinary Language philosophy -- good on J. L. Austin and Gilbert Ryle -- until of course folks realized that close study of ordinary language revealed little of interest and certainly no grand metaphysical truths. Then it was the Gang of Quine (to be is to be the value of a bound variable) which seemed to have the handle on reality in the 1960s and 1970s -- but does anyone today still recall why anyone thought Quine's work mattered? Where are the eternal truths? Does no one in today's philosophy pursue work designed to last?

Does science depend on philosophy, or vice versa? What does it mean that philosophers are taking the role of theoretical scientists? Thanks.

Is the experience of thoughts as predominantly verbal universal, or nearly so? What alternatives are there?

Is it irrational to want power and prestige for their own sake? I think a lot of people today (especially in Christian countries) would answer yes. But people from some ancient societies (like, Homeric Greece) probably would answer no to the question. Who's "right"? And why might there be this difference in opinion?

What is an irrational action?

Can a new color be made that is not like, or mixed from, any other?