Thank you for this inquiry! First off, unless you and others are actually working for Satan (I am joking here), then it is at least unfortunate that your interlocutor suggests the devil is on your side! Seriously, the key issues include what you allude to: if someone requests (for example) a heavy dose of morphine that will eliminate pain but at the same time cause death due (for example) to heart failure, then it is relevant to consider the degree of suffering, whether or not the patient has voluntarily requested such an end-of-life scenario, and it is very understandable that an appeal to what is the current law does not (alone) settle matters. As for the analogy with dogs or other creatures we euthanize, I suggest it may be dangerous to appeal to such practices to justify human euthanasia; after all, in practice we do all kinds of things with doges (walk them on leash) we would not want to apply to humans. I suggest that you might make clear to your "opponent" that you (assuming you do) only would...

This is a very tough question! I think that it can be and you are raising a concern that is highly important today. In the USA technology (along with subsidies) has permitted farmers to produce far more goods and cheaper prices than some farmers in under developed nations. Persons in Africa are not able to produce as much corn or cotton as an American farmer and they therefore cannot compete as well in international markets. In some cases, the hardship that this causes African farmers can be quite severe. You asked about morality, not legality. It may (or may not) violate any international law for American farmers to out-compete African farmers, but cases are easily imagined in which American self-restraint or assistance in terms of exporting efficient technology to African farmers may be a more respectful course of action. Historically, there are a significant number of cases within a society when new technology has made many workers redundant. Some advocates of a free market system...

Very good question! Those philosophers in the utilitarian tradition tend to think that such a gifted person ought to apply her intelligence in such matters if that would be the maximal way in which she might bring about the greatest happiness. Formally, what is called 'act utilitarianism' is the view that an agent should do that act of which there is no other act that will produce greater utility (or happiness). A Marxist approach to social roles (in which persons are assigned roles in accord with their abilities) would probably also deem the gifted person degenerate if she failed to help her comrades. Philosophers who are in some religious traditions would also contend that one should use one's talents in ways that maximally benefits others. Christians, for example, offer a Good Samaritan ethic that obliges us to help the vulnerable. In that tradition, though, it is sometimes thought there is a difference between ordinary obligations, and the precepts of perfection. Ordinary virtue may...

What a great question! Though (fair warning): I may not be the most impartial panelist to reply as I come from a family that helped start a modest, and yet municipal newspaper, and I was brought up with being instructed by parents that, no matter what my politics, I should read at least one daily paper, and one weekly magazine! Moreover, I have actually sought to follow this practice, but I shall do my best in the following reply. As my goal is to offer an interesting reply, let me set aside some perhaps obvious reasons why it would not be unethical to avoid watching or reading the news. So.... I shall assume that there are many reasons why it would be perfectly fine for you or I "to avoid watching or reading the news" such as: we have reason to believe that the news is being used by the state to spread disinformation and watching or reading it will not aid us in combatting this abuse; we are engaged in honorable life-saving jobs that leave us no time to keep up with the news; we are...

Actually, I am 99% sure Kant actually rejected the (at least surface) interpretation of the narrative of the binding. That is, Kant thought it would never be reasonable for Abraham to think God (or any good being) would require a sacrifice of the innocent. My own reading of the text is that it should be read chiefly as a prohibition of child-sacrifice. The point of the story is that the God of Abraham is NOT like the other gods who demand human offerings. The purpose of the (divine) command of offering Abraham's son (verse 2) is only to set the stage for the dramatic prohibition of such sacrifice (11-12). The narrative stress on God providing a ram to take the place of Abraham's son further highlights the emphatic prohibition of human sacrifice. Abraham's naming the place where this substitution took place "God provides" (verse 14) rather than something like "This is the place where I almost lost my son" or "This is the place where Kant would have insisted that what I thought was a command to...

Hello Tim. This is Charles. Age 60! You have asked a deep question. I will reply with what I have found to be sound in all the years I have considered a question like that, but then step back and note how other philosophers would answer you. In general, I think that "evil" refers to things, events, persons that should not be the case. Something evil (such as a grown up hurting an innocent child) should not occur or, putting it differently, it should be condemned or disaproved of and prevented. Something good (such as rescuing someone drowning) is something that should occur; its occurrence is preferable and should be loved rather than its non-occurrence (allowing the person to drown). I further suggest that understanding what is good and evil will very much depend on what kind of things or persons are involved, because what fulfills and makes one thing good, may not make another thing good. So, it is good for a fish to live under water, but not for a human; it is good for someone like yourself to...

I feel certain that even in this extreme case, the mother would be at least charged with homicide, if not murder, from a legal perspective. And I think it would also be a case of wrongful homicide or murder from a moral point of view (or, more specifically, from the stand point of natural law, which I accept). You are, after all, asking us to imagine a killing, the mother actively taking her child's life through, say, suffocation or a gun shot or drowning or using a knife to cut off the baby's head. This would seem very much like a murder and just as murderous than if the mother cut off the head of her healthy baby. Still, the way you describe the case, it seems that even keeping the baby alive through childhood alone would require extraordinary measures. Often ethicists think that (under normal circumstances) while a person is obligated to take ordinary measures to stay alive, she is not obligated to take extraordinary measures. So, if I am dying of heart failure, but simply taking a few aspirins...

Good question! I suggest this very much depends on the relationship, the circumstances, and motives. I don't think there would be any disrespect if the engineer had told you in the past that he knows your thoughts and motivations better than you, and when he told you that (for example) deep down you still wanted to be an art historian even though you left the field to make more money in a computer firm, you made a life-changing, satisfying decision to return to art history. In that case, you might well be trying to help him, just as he helped you. But even without this past, I think that an intimate friend (though if the person is unable to connect with others, the notion of an intimate friendship might be a stretch) may avoid being disrespectful if in the course of telling the engineer this, you add something like "And I want to help you connect with others. Let's spend some evenings after work with Michelle and Osama. They have been concerned with your over-working this year and want to make some...

I cannot resist at least trying to respond to your question, but please know that this is a rather personal matter and many would think this is a matter for you to consider in light of respecting your partner and your own judgment about the consequences of making such a disclosure. Perhaps, though, I can be helpful in highlighting some factors to consider. I suggest that promises to others can be (but are not always) binding even if the relationship ends. So, while obviously after a divorce or break-up one is not bound to (sexual) fidelity with one's x even if that had been promised with a vow, but there may be promises such as promising not to disclose information or secrets that were shared with the understanding that this was to be strictly confidential. I suggest that if the relationship you had (or you are about to break off) was built on the basis of trust and an explicit (or implicit) understanding that either of you would disclose any infidelity if it occurred, that would be a good...

A difficult question! There do seem to be clear cases of when jealousy is a vice, especially when it leads to violence and inordinate, misplaced rage. Imagine I am so possessive of my partner that I constantly read his emails to others (secretly and without permission), I rarely trust him and so I regularly interrogate him when he comes back from a trip and I suspect there may have been some dangerous flirting. But as with envy, there seem to be appropriate and inappropriate kinds of jealousy. Imagine I have been a good father to my son, but when he is in college he becomes fixated on an alcoholic, pro-pornography, racist philosophy professor whom my son idolizes and calls "Daddy." Probably my response would not be jealousy, but to seek to expose "Daddy" as a fraud, but I think I might well feel that the affections my son should have for me (or, dropping "should," my son having emotions that are fitting in a father-son relationship) and directing them to a kind of rival, surrogate bad Dad figure. ...