In a hypothetical situation I am a vegan talking to a meat eater who buys his meat from a supermarket and has no interest in where it came from. I say that I don't think people have the right to eat meat unless they are willing to learn about what it takes to provide that meat, witness it first hand or even produce it for themselves. He says that he doesn't want to know where it came from and is quite happy for someone else to do the dirty work if they are happy to and does not feel at all guilty. Is he morally wrong and do I have a valid argument?

This is a neat situation because the meat eater is so unrepentant! It must be infuriating for the vegan. I fantasize the meat eater holds a juicy burger while the debate goes on. Precious! I think the philosophical question at heart has to do with ignorance. Is purposefully dwelling in ignorance morally acceptable? Notice this is not the same thing as Is purposefully dwelling in ignorance psychologically comfortable? We know the answer to that last question is yes. That's why the prisoners in Plato's Allegory of the Cave have to be dragged up to the sunlight. So on to is purposefully dwelling in ignorance morally acceptable. There are some instances in which I think we can say yes, ignorance is acceptable. For example, I have heard it said that the famous philosopher Peter Singer (who advances the view that most Westerners should donate all excess funds to the world's poor) can't play football/soccer and think about the poor at the same time. Say this story is true: he purposefully...

At this point I am so familiar with a) The human propensity for religious belief b) The history and basis of the world's major religious belief systems and c) The apathetic functioning of the universe, that intellectually I am unable to adopt the anthropocentric vision of the universe as presented by the monotheistic traditions. However, watching my muslim friend pray and fast during this month of Ramadan, I am struck by how much peace, happiness and purpose her beliefs bring her and contrast it with the emptiness and meaninglessness which I feel. The fissure between our worldviews is a constant source of alienation between us. 1) Would it be ethical for me to attempt to persuade her of the veracity of atheism (regardless of whether or not she is won over to this worldview), despite my knowledge that this may adversely effect her positivity about life? 2) Failing this, should I try to swallow the blue pill of theism and attempt -emotionally rather than intellectually- to force myself into believing it's...

My Atheist Friend, I advise pursuing other options because the two you outlined don't seem to reflect your genuine values. Either one wouldn't really be true to you. I say this because I suspect option 1 violates your sense of ethics - either because you are committed to your friend's right to religious freedom or because you don't want to cause her a depression. (In addition, I predict option 1 will have a low success rate, if 'success' is measured in talking her out of her faith.) Option 2 violates your sense of yourself and your most deeply held beliefs. You would literally be going through the motions. There is nothing wrong with that, and many take comfort in ritual, but I think it might feel like more of a sham for a true atheist. <So I advise option 3: explore existential atheism, which is the philosophical school most aligned with the views you have described. Jean-Paul Sartre is a wonderful author who advances this view. Sartre's philosophy is that once we realize that the...

Students in my school are currently voting for a Student Representative, and I am one of the nominees. After reading all nominees' manifestos, I have come to conclude that I above all others seem the best person for the role. We have been told to vote for whom we think would be best, and I believe this is me. There is no rule against voting for yourself, however I do worry that this is in some way morally wrong. My concerns are whether it is okay (as I am voting for the person I genuinely believe to be the best equipped, as is the purpose of a vote), or whether this is simply my way of justifying my own subconcious bias and need to satisfy my own ambition - the status and benefits of getting the position. Also, I believe I would not still vote for myself if the votes were not anonymous. Is there any well-known moral stance on this issue?

Congratulations both on your nomination and on your pangs on conscience - the latter is too rarely seen among more experienced politicians! However, I am happy to set your mind at rest. Voting for oneself in an election poses no moral hazards that I can see. (I would change my mind about this if we were talking about a corrupt system, where the vote is rigged or certain voters are unfairly excluded.) I suspect your worries come from two fronts. First, it may seem egotistical to vote for oneself. This would explain your shy refuge in the anonymous vote. Rather than think of it as egotistical you might instead see this vote as confident: you are confident in your ability to work hard and take the job seriously. One thing that tells me this confidence is justified and not ego-driven is the very fact that you wrote in to us. You are already taking the post seriously before it is even yours. Second, you raise the interesting idea that your belief in your candidacy is not due to your diligent...

There's no moral obligation on us to bring into existence lives that are good; on the other hand, if we know a life will be bad, perhaps we are under an obligation not to create it. So, perhaps, not knowing whether the lives we introduce will be good or bad, but knowing there's a significant risk they'll be bad, are we morally obliged not to risk introducing such bad lives?

Yes, I think you're right. Many will complain that this sort of thinking leads to eugenics or worse. Others will complain that all life is a gift, so there can be no bad life. Personally I think these objections can be overcome. There are major kinks that need to be straightened out, however. These kinks come in the form of ambiguities: How much risk is significant? Who decides how to weigh such risks? What constitutes a bad life? Does it mean it is a life which the live-r would be better off without? Can this really be judged ahead of time, before the individual in question is born (and thus without his or her first-hand testimony)? Will this have implications for lives that are already here and are already 'bad'? Despite these worries, I still think you're right. The abuser who cannot control his worst impulses around children, for example, ought not parent. (By the way, much of our discussion here assumes a world where teens and adults are reproductively empowered - where birth control...

I am looking for books on ethics written in a popular style; understandable for people reading on a high school level. Can you advise?

I have a couple of suggestions for you. The first is to look into books that pair philosophical analysis with contemporary culture. Both Open Court Press and Wiley-Blackwell have book series of this nature (called "Popular Culture and Philosophy" and "Philosophy for Everyone," respectively) . For example, there are books on comic book characters, television shows, sports, and many other topics that will appeal to high school students. The articles in such books are designed for a general audience. The entire book will not be about just ethics, but I can promise each book of this type will have several articles about ethics. It might be worth getting your school or local library to stock a selection. (Disclosure: I myself have published an article in one.) Another idea is to look to literary classics that have ethical themes. If you would like an ethics anthology you might try Peter and Renata Singer's The Moral of the Story (Blackwell 2005). This book is nice because it features short...

Is it animal abuse to spay/neuter an animal? Most people justify spay/neutering by pointing out that if we sterilize animals, there will be fewer needier animals. But if that's true, why not forcibly sterilize people in third world countries (at least in areas with population problems)?

I think the basic reason why it is acceptable to sterilize non-human animals and not impoverished people is that animals do not have reproductive rights, but people do. I think it is a fundamental human right to have choices regarding when to have children, with whom to have them, and how many to have. Being very poor does not weaken one's claim on human rights. (Even people who philosophically or religiously object to contraception believe in reproductive rights to a limited extent. They believe they have the right to let nature or God make the reproductive choices for them.) Animals, on the other hand, have no reproductive rights. This may seem odd, given the recent progress in animal rights. I am sure there are animal right activists who believe that pets ought to reproduce without human intervention, but this must be a small minority. Most mainstream animal rights groups urge sterilization to benefit animal welfare.

All things being equal, should I care for my brother more than a stranger?

Yes. The reason is that when it comes to human relationships, "all things" are never equal. I mean that we are not equally positioned to strangers and siblings. We have more connection to our siblings than to strangers. Notice this does not mean we automatically have satisfying relationships with our siblings, mothers, stepsons, in-laws, and other relatives. It means just that we are more closely connected to them. In the case of siblings, the connection is (for many people) is a double-stranded connection of shared experiences and biology. So if you rescue your sibling before a stranger from a burning building, others would see this choice as reasonable, as emotionally sound, and therefore justified. Even if the stranger died I believe people would console you by saying that they themselves would have made the same choice. Now, if the connection between siblings is fraught with strife (for example, mutual jealousy and distrust left over from unhappy childhoods) there may be good reason to...

Given the presence of a large (and increasing) number of orphans and a human populace that is driven (evolutionarily or otherwise) to rear children is it more ethical to adopt orphans instead of giving birth and raising one's own? Indeed, given that only a certain number of people are 'fit' to raise children, is there a categorical imperative (for the ethically aware) to explore adoption before giving birth to one's own children?

I really like this question because I have often wondered the same thing! What follows is merely an answer-in-progress. There are several related concerns touching this question. One is to consider resources at the macro level. According to Prof. Singer's book One World , the average American burns more than 5 tons of carbon a year while the average Japanese burns about 1.6 tons. The average Indian burns .3 tons a year. Assuming that burning carbon hurts our atmosphere, the planet, and thus all living creatures, the last thing the world needs is more Americans - be they adopted or biological children! Therefore, American movie stars who adopt African children are not doing the planet any favors, given the resources those Americanized children will likely consume as they grow up. But this resources analysis seems rather heartless, no? I think it is heartless because it prioritizes something abstract - important, but abstract - over the needs of particularly helpless...

Although I have read many responses here that demonstrate a kind of wisdom, I doubt that the kinds of moral theories like utilitarianism or deontological ethics often mentioned here have much to do with this wisdom. I also doubt whether they have much to do with any serious moral problem. It almost seems like a caricature to switch from the serious, worried thinking that I had to do about whether, say, I must send my daughter to live with her grandparents in a different country given some real set of problems, to turn to a theory to tell me the answer? Not that these theories have got it all wrong; but they make something like an academic excercise or speculative problem out of a real moral problem, changing it in ways I don't understand but still feel are there. I would be happy to be wrong about this and would like to know your opinion. I suppose a secondary question is: what are moral philosophy departments for?

I feel your pain. You like philosophy and want it to be relevant, but when confronted by real-life problems the theories always seem to fall flat. As you observe, most ethical writing tends to be abstract, removed from actual cases, and too densely packed with fancy terms to be of use. There are major exceptions to that generalization; much of applied ethics or feminist ethics might meet your demands for less speculative and more concrete writing. I recommend both approaches absolutely! However, I would like to try sticking up for the good old boys (Mill, for example). Even if reading about the 'decided preference criterion' might not tell you how to raise your child, Mill might arm you with a helpful set of principles that seem appropriate, or even wise. (Example: if sending my daughter to her grandparents will likely cause more overall good than ill, I ought to do it, even if I personally regret seeing her go.) So I think there is good stuff in ethical theory, stuff worth...

I am wondering if it is ethical to own a gun? There is this attitude that keeps popping up when I raise this question, that a gun is an object just like any other and that the intent of the individual is what matters most. I can't help and think about situations where the user who owns the gun could be in a situation that gets out of his control or if an accidental discharge happens. I also wonder about the self fulfilling prophecy aspect and the law of attraction. Does owning a gun and thinking that it is a cool device contribute to the inevitability of having to use it. There is also the reality that many of the people who own guns end up using the gun to commit suicide. (I can't find the statistic but it is a staggering number.) Should Vegetarians abstain from owning guns?

As you say, purchasing a gun with the intention of causing harm to someone else is definitely unethical. (Or make that a ‘definite maybe’ - do deer count as ‘someone else’? To the animal rights activist, yes and to the hunter, no.) There are many of people who enjoy gun collecting as a hobby, from what I understand. To the collector, a gun could be a crafted object of beauty. Personally I’d rather have a nice oil painting. Or maybe a pastel. Anything, really, looks better over the couch than a gun. But from the tone of your email I don’t think you are contemplating hunters or gun connoisseurs. You are thinking of someone believes that guns are dangerous but nevertheless useful, someone who is drawn to gun ownership but fears her worst impulses (and/or lack of marksmanship). Such a person should not own a gun. I don’t it would be unethical, so much as impractical in this case. Having a gun in the house, I suspect, would be a source of discomfort and unease – which is probably the exact opposite...

Pages