This is a hard thing to have to think about, and since all of us on this panel are teachers, we all have to come to terms with the issues. Let me just offer some thoughts on how I think I would handle things if this sort of case arose. There are some obvious conflicting values here. The privacy of the student is one, and public safety is another. If I got a piece of writing or witnessed behavior that I found disturbing, the first thing I would do is seek advice from someone better qualified than me. In the past, on a few occasions, I have called staff in the counseling office and described what I was concerned about without telling the counselor anything that would identify the student. I should add that none of these have been cases where public safety was an issue, but I think the advice still goes. A trained counselor is likely to be better than me at judging the level of threat and advising me on how I might approach the student. Also, if I was worried that the student might harm him/herself or...

Going to the gym soley because we want to be buff may not count as "being good," but one way to come at this question would be to ask whether we have duties to ourselves -- to take care of ourselves properly, for example. There are many ethical perspectives, philosophical and theological, that would say we do. Some of the reasons might have to do only with ourselves; others might have to do with the fact that if we don't take proper care of ourselves, we'll have more trouble carrying out our other duties. Thinking about virtues and vices gives us another perspective on the question. Gluttonly, sloth and their slovenly cousins are traditionally seen as vices -- character traits that we should avoid developing or learn to overcome. Self-control, discipline and their kin generally count as virtues -- traits that a flourishing human being would cultivate and value. Of course, too much self-control and too much discipline are not virtuous; as Aristotle might say, there's a mean to be sought here. But...

Since I don't know much about the training and practice of social work, I can't offer a direct answer to your question, but perhaps a couple of thoughts might help you decide what you think the best answer might be. Disciplines like physics, biology and psychology have a fair bit of theory that goes with them, and this theory is a source of philosophical questions. So one question to ask yourself: is there much in the way of theoretical discussion in social work? If so, the various theoretical perspectives may generate philosophical questions. Also, are there controversies within the discipline about just how it differs from related disciplines (e.g., perhaps, clinical psychology)? Are their interesting issues about what, if anything, unifies the various components of the discipline and its practice? If so, once again, there may be worthwhile philosophical questions to pursue. If there is enough such material, then when combined with the ethical and policy issues that social work confronts, it...

Let's set aside the case of people who really have ADD and who use properly-titrated doses of stimulant medication. It's hard to see what the ethical issue could be in those cases. What about people who don't have ADD, but use stimulants to boost attention? There's an amusing old quote from Paul Erdös: a mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems. Erdös, I gather, drank a lot of coffee. He also proved a lot of theorems. Was that unethical? I have the impression that in the short term, a good shot of caffeine has about the same effect as Ritalin on one's ability to focus. Add a bit of chocolate, and who knows? So we could ask: is it unethical to eat chocolate and drink coffee before an exam? I think we'd probably agree that it isn't. What's different about Adderall and Ritalin? Intrinsically, the answer may be "not much." All the Adderall in the world won't help me pass a calculus exam unless I actually know the math. Adderall may help me concentrate, but...

Suppose there were a homunculus. Would it be like me? That is, would it have conflicting motives? Foggy beliefs? Occasional weakness of will? And while we're at it, would it make any difference if the homunculus were located in one compact region of the brain? Or woud it do just as well if it were distributed over different parts of the brain, and perhaps not even clearly confined to the brain alone? What would the homunculus have to be like to do the intellectual job that's at issue? And do we really need a lot of science to know that whatever we are, we aren't simple unities? An utter disunity isn't an agent. But think about the difference between my academic department and a random collection of professors. My department is made up of diverse individuals who don't always agree. But the department has a plan of organization, it deliberates and it acts. The members of the department co-operate to get things done, and the dissenters accept decisions of the department, once they're made, even if they...

You've pointed out that you're quite comfortable committing "wrong" actions if it suits your needs. That should already suggest a pretty clear reason why most people wouldn't be too happy about your outlook. If I were around you and I believed that you really look at things the way you say you do, I'd watch my back. I wouldn't trust you, and I'd be worried that you might do me harm if it served your purposes. Of course, as stated, that's not a reason for saying that your outlook is wrong -- not unless you're willing to admit that some things really are wrong, and the presupposition of your question seems to be that you aren't. But even here there's something strange about the way you press your point. You ask why people would think your way of looking at things is wrong when you are perfectly happy living that way. But what does that have to do with it? If I'm trying to decide whetheryour way of life is right, I'm not asking whether it makes you happy. If you want an argument that doesn...