Let me begin by saying that I expect my answer to this one will be controversial, as I think there are deep feelings about this issue, and also a very broad range of considerations. So my own response does not rise above simply stating an opinion for others to consider. For what it is worth, then: I think, as a matter of fact that within democracies military drafts should be mandatory . So, I suppose it is obvious that I think they are neither unethical nor immoral in democracies . I think in systems where the people's consent to government is not given, but simply coerced (the obvious example being dictatorships), then military conscription is almost always immoral, however. But in democracies, I think that military drafts (universal and with only carefully conceived medical or extraordinary hardship exceptions) should be mandatory. The recent situation in which the United States finds itself gives a fairly clear ground for why I say this. It is simply far too easy for a...

As a parent myself, my first reaction to your question is to say that it sems to me confusion about what is best for one's children is more the norm than the exception. Hardly a day goes by in my own case in which I feel profound uncertainty about how I should handle the wonderful and terrible project of parenting! So take whatever I say now with a boulder of salt, because, as you see, I regard myself as deeply in the dark about such things, at least as much as you feel you are. It does seems to me, however, that there will prove to be increasing limits on the degree of control you will have over this issue, and so you should right now be thinking of something like an "exit strategy," by which I mean that you should be considering what you want your daughter to be able to think and do for herself (and without any interference from you) in regard to her relationships with boys in the coming few years. Then, think of ways you can help her to achieve the sort of prudent and deliberative...

Nothing is easy in this subject! I think most people find the promises inherent to monogamy to be moral ones--though some philosophers have questioned whether promising to another exclusive access to one's own body is one that actually can be morally made. The tricky part lies in finding (and then explaining the morality of) the correct position between extremes that do not look correct to most people. At one extreme, most of us do not think that even an uncoerced agreement to become another's personal possession (as a slave, for example) is acceptable. At the other extreme, we do think that refusing to agree to take part in a sexually exclusive relationship with another--monogamy, in other words--on the grounds that no one has a right to expect such exclusivity from us, is also inappropriate. So the general question goes something like this: How much limitation of personal autonomy are we morally prepared to sanction by the agent's own willing forfeit of that autonomy to another's exclusive...

Pudner explains the rationale for the general rule, but it seems to me the questioner mentions several factors that are morally relevant, which the general rule handles rather poorly in the case given. It is not at all obvious to me that in this case, the student needs the teacher more than the teacher needs the student, because the student makes clear that she is not in a degree program and is taking the course only "for fun and personal enrichment." Of course, the other students in the class may need complete impartiality and fairness from the teacher, for the reasons given, but it is not obvious to me why the teacher cannot provide all these to the other students in the class. At any rate, it is unclear to what degree they are actually competing with this particular student and could suffer from the professor becoming biased. Given the particular individuals in question, requiring that they either wait until she complete the three more courses she intends to take, or else force her to...

The following are really just very rough sketches, but I hope they will give you some indication of how your question would be answered by different philosophers. Some philosophers conceive of the morality of an action in terms of whether we are willing to universalize the action in question over all agents and all examples of the relevant sorts of actions, so the answer to your question in this view would be given by whether we should universalize as: "Always reveal the truth!" or "Always refrain from revealing the truth!" I think if we take this approach, the former is plainly the preferable maxim. I know that if the question concerned telling the truth versus telling lies, this sort of approach might seem more plausible. But your question is about exposing truths--in which the failure to expose some truth may involve no dishonesty or manipulation of any kind. Imagine a case in which you know that a friend's husband commited a minor crime. It may be one thing to lie, if your friend asks you...

I just answered another question related to this one. Please see my answer to that one. In gist, (1) which animals did you have in mind--"animals" is too generic for me to get much traction on an ethical issue. And (2) why do you think it is more appropriate to run experiments on mentally challenged or disabled human beings? Are (some species of) animals somhow more deserving of our moral respect? Why? Are (some species of) animals more ethically important than (some) human beings? What makes you think that? I can think of a great variety of what seem to me to be ethically significant issues that need to be visited here. One is the question of consent, which I discussed in my answer to the other question. Others include: ability to experience pain, cognitive capacities (such as memory, self-awareness), normal life-expectancy of the creature, normal "quality of life" expectancy of the creature (and how much experimentation would lead to deviation from such expectancies). I tend...

I guess what's behind the expression is the idea that a "radical relativist" might believe that what's good/right/obligatory for you is not good/right/obligatory for him/her. So, from the fact that you would regard it as bad to steal someone else's cutlery, you have no reason to think that the "radical relativist" would think it was bad to do so--and so such a person might walk off with yours! As a matter of fact, I am inclined to think that most who like to pose as "radical relativists" are doing just that--only posing. As soon as they perceive that they are victimized, just watch them quite deftly (and earnestly) invoking all the appropriate (absolutist) moral invective! I'm not actually recommending this, but one way to test whether someone is really the "radical relativist" they claim to be is simply to respond by whacking them upside the head. Doing so would be wrong (absolutely!), but I would lay odds that the fiction of their pose would be quickly exposed. But really, in their...

Life is complicated, sure enough... My advice (for what it is worth--not much, I expect) is for you to hang on to your job. Partly, this is precisely because you quitting your job (unless you have some other very clear option available to you in a "clean" occupation) won't make the least bit of difference to the project of ending waste, for the very reasons you gave: someone else will do it, and all you will have done is put yourself out of work. Instead, why don't you consider--and urge your colleagues to consider--"greener" practices at work. For example, designs done on computers (rather than sketched on paper) create less paper waste. (An out-of-date example, I'm sure, but I hope you get the point.) Those with expertise in an industry are in the best position to find ways to cut waste and to come up with processes (and products) that are not so bad for the environment. Find these! And where you can't find better solutions, consider finding "compensations" such as planting more...

I am probably not the right person to answer this question, because I am not entirely comfortable with talk about moral obligations. But perhaps I can start a conversation (or dispute). I don't think you strictly owe your parents anything at all, just on the basis of their giving birth to you or raising you. They made these decisions, in most cases, without consulting you at all (obviously, in the case of deciding to give birth to you, and often, too, in their decisions of how to raise you). So, it is not as if you agreed to some exchange: "give me these things and I will care for you in your old age." You never made any such agreement, so they can't really suppose you now owe them for decisions that they made (mostly without your consent or equal participation). I don't see how you can incur a debt without consenting to the transaction that creates the debt. But again, I am generally uncomfortable with deontological analyses of most moral issues. As a virtue theorist, I would...

I think the PETA people will think I have a very blind moral eye, but I am inclined to think that your question makes the issue far more simple than it is. For one thing, I think there are morally significant differences between different species of non-human animals. I wouldn't think of causing gratuitous suffering or death to a wild primate, for example, but gladly crush mosquitoes to death whenever given the chance. For another (and related to the first, in fact) I think the very idea of whether animals do or do not consent and how this notion may apply to them is hardly obvious, and perhaps simply otiose. If animals (or some species) do not and cannot give consent or refuse it, then it seems to me this is not a useful more indicator for them.