Is it okay to disobey a just law just because you disagree with it? For example, take under-age drinking of alcohol. In various parts of the world there is a general disagreement about when it is a right age to drink alcohol. In the United States, the drinking age is 21. Many choose to begin drinking at an earlier age because they feel they have a right to do so. What philosophical problems are there with disobeying a just law?

Of course, it isn't morally acceptable to disobey a law merely because you disagree with it (you seem to be confusing the concept of a 'law' with the concept of a 'suggestion'). Let's suppose I'm an American driving in Europe and I want to drive on the right side of the street simply because I prefer it and find the government's insistence that I drive on the left side to be unintuitive and intrusive. This would likely result in someone getting hurt... most likely me. Laws like this one are designed to promote public order and protect people. I think the drinking age is a good example of this pattern (that laws we disagree with are often there to protect us and promote public order). The drinking age was raised to 21 in the USA largely to cut down on drunk driving accidents and injuries. And (statistically speaking) it has worked rather well. I admit that laws like this one do hinder the liberty of more responsible young adults for the sake of the 'greater good,' but it is hard to argue with...

Do employers have some kind of ethical obligation to employ their countrymen (as opposed to outsourcing)?

One might make a Kantian style argument that it is unethical to 'use' one's countrymen by using the local resources and the education you received within the community to start your business, but then outsource the overwhelming majority of the work (and the implicit benefits) to a different community based strictly on cost once your business is successful. I think the argument is plausible, but I don't find it ultimately convincing. The argument might be strengthened by revising the conclusion. Instead of making the blanket judgment that outsourcing is unethical, one might claim that one is obliged to weigh the benefits you and your business have received from your community of origin as one important factor when deciding whether to outsource (and perhaps how much to outsource if you decide to).

Does it make any sense to say that a person has an "obligation to develop her gifts/talents to the utmost"?

It seems that there are a couple of ways that it might make sense to claim that someone has 'an obligation to develop her gifts'. Let's suppose that I believe ethical egoism is correct (that each person morally ought to do that which benefits them the most). I might believe that developing your gifts is essential to benefiting yourself the most long term. Second, a similar argument might be made from a utilitarian viewpoint (the view that morality consists in promoting the most happiness for the most people long term). I might believe that developing your gifts is essential to promoting the most good for the most people long term. Third, Kant's ethics actually uses an 'obligation to develop gifts' instead of living a life of pleasure as one of his four paradigm examples of moral obligations. I think his argument was that human dignity requires that you treat yourself as something more than a mere means to pleasure (but I haven't reviewed that argument recently). In any case, there are...

I have always been more talented at exposing flaws in reasoning or hypocrisy in actions than in constructing anything to replace what I criticize. Naturally many people are bothered when they're criticized and aggravated beyond that when not presented with an alternative. What is the status of this ability? Should someone hold his silence if he has nothing better to offer, or is just being critical worthy by itself?

It strikes me as very 'Socratic' to expose flaws in reasoning even if you don't have claims of your own to make. However, we should also remember that things didn't end well for Socrates (at least not by conventional measures.... I sometimes joke that Socrates was the first person in history that was executed mostly for being annoying). More seriously, it is important to remember that relationships are valuable and in many cases it isn't worth alienating friends over minor flaws in reasoning.

While I don't have a firm opinion on the issue, I never understand many pro-life positions that state they are against abortion except in the case of rape or incest. Life is life. These babies are as innocent as others. The situation in which they were conceived should have no bearing on whether they should be allowed to be aborted. It is illogical.

Perhaps, such positions concerning abortion are based on the idea that a developing fetus is very morally valuable, but not equal in moral value to a fully developed human being. Therefore, something like the great emotional pain involved in being forced to carry a child conceived as the result of rape might be enough to justify an abortion. But, very few things other than the life of the mother or rape would be adequate to justify an abortion. Or, perhaps, such views on abortion are mainly developed based on political pragmatism.

Is it wrong to subject older drivers to more frequent (or perhaps more stringent) driving tests? Although I don't have any statistics at hand, it seems that we often read about an older driver plowing into a group of bystanders b/c they fell asleep, forgot to take the pills, etc. So why not subject them to annual driving tests? Or annual vision tests?

More frequent tests might be justified IF we have legitimate reason to think that their driving skills may have degenerated and that they present a real danger, but I don't think more stringent tests would be just. Why hold them to a higher standard? Instead, shouldn't we want to ensure that they meet the same standards that other drivers meet?

Moral arguments have long been made in support of theism, but the Euthyphro dilemma has always seemed to be a strong counter. Is there any way a theist can get passed the dilemma without simply biting the bullet and accepting that moral laws are based on the arbitrary whims of God? Sure they could also accept the first horn, but it would seem to cost them there argument that God has to be the source of objective moral values. Basically, I have heard some say that it is a false dilemma -- that there is some other way of resolving it perhaps. Is there any good philosophical reason for making this sort of claim?

One classic theist response to the Euthyphro dilemma is that morality doesn't ultimately come from a contingent or subjective divine will, but from the necessity of the divine nature. Therefore, morality could not be other than it is and is not subjective, but morality's ultimate source is still God. So, God will's the things that he does because they are good, but not in reference to a standard outside of himself. Yet, that standard is not something arbitrary. There is ample commentary elsewhere on the web concerning the pros and cons of this alternative. In any case, I don't think its an obvious non-starter.

I've noticed, perhaps incorrectly, that many philosophers and ethicists regard logical coherence as an integral component of forming and defending moral positions. While I can understand why logical coherence would be necessary for, say, a scientist who is trying to describe how something works, I do not seem to see why logical coherence would be needed for ethics -- where, presumably, there are no objectively right or wrong answers.

Your final assertion is where you disagree with most ethicists. Most of us still believe that there is something approximating 'objectively right and wrong answers' to moral questions. Ethicists disagree with one another concerning what the proper basis is for discerning objective right moral answers, but the overwhelming majority of ethicists still think such a basis can be found from sources such as: maximizing the good for all (utilitarianism), reason itself (Kantianism), some sort of ideal human character traits (Aristotelian ethics), or natural law (Thomism). Your view seems to descend from David Hume's account that based morality in the sentiments rather than reason. Yet, even he thought there was a discernable pattern to what the sentiments approved of as 'virtuous'. In any case, no one ever solved a difficult problem in ethics, science, math, or any other aspect of life by presupposing that there were no 'right or wrong answers'. There may be few answers that we can get universal...