How should one go about defining their own morals? I have lost track of what I deem completely acceptable behaviour; I am an athiest and hold no reverence to any one religious guide and have recently become apathetic and non-caring. I am having a hard time grounding myself morally and would like to know how one goes about questioning the topic.

Is homosexuality ethical? If so, what differentiates it from incest? More specifically an infertile incestual relationship that has two consenting adults.

Why does society consider it moral (as embodied in its laws) for a 60 year old man to be in a sexual relationship with an 18 year old girl, but considers it immoral for a 25 year old man to have sex with a 17 year old girl? Isn't that just ridiculous?!

I work for a voluntary organisation with a great premise that I am wholeheartedly committed to. However, there are some senior staff who, athough they are themselves committed also, are ineffectual and have over the years damaged the organisation albeit inadvertently. In order to save the organisation from ending, these people need to be removed or brought to a realisation that would probably end in them removing themselves. To do this the board of trustees needs 'evidence' or a paper trail of the ineffectualness. Should I contribute to this evidence in order to help save the organisation or should I refuse to contribute because the people concerned are very good people and only inadvertantly damaging the organisation? To me, both courses of action are wrong in some philosophical sense. And in the end both courses of action leave me damaged in my perssonal sense of what is right or wrong. But should my own concerns be put aside for the greater good of an organisation which genuinely seeks to, and works to...

Why shouldn't we test drugs and cosmetics on mentally challenged or severely disabled human beings, rather than animals?

I have not written to my MP or participated in a public demonstration about my country's foreign policy, e.g., Britain's involvement in Iraq, although I do condemn it. Am I 'guilty by association'? Can you please explain this phrase. Thank you. Glen.

I have a few friends who are professional philosophers and who recognize the strength of arguments for vegetarianism, who say they don´t have counter arguments but still don't turn vegetarian. Is rational argument really persuasive? Or can't Mark Rowlands ever convince Roger Scruton that hunting is immoral? What is the authority of moral reasoning? Is there something one can do through reason to persuade the sensible knave?

What are the ethics of anonymity? When do people have a right to remain anonymous, and when are they obligated to reveal their association with their actions?

When philosophers say that something is morally relevant or that a reason is a moral reason, what does "moral" mean? What makes moral reasons different from other reasons? Can something be both selfish and moral?

In the end of the movie The Good Son , two children are about to fall over a cliff. One child is good and the other is evil. A lady, who is the evil child's mother, catches them so that she is holding the wrist of one in her right hand and the wrist of another in her left hand but she only has the strength to pull up one, so she has to choose which to let go. She chooses the good child. Did she make the right choice?