If there is a person that feels no remorse over their hurtful actions, is incapable of feeling love or being loved, is severely emotionally restricted and has no interest in other people apart from using them for selfish means (maybe a psychopath), does that person have humanity? And if that person doesn't - and human rights is a concept of 'shared humanity' as Ronald Dworkin says - does that person have the same human rights as 'normal' human beings?

If I lied and told Bob that I was very pleased to see him when I really am indifferent to his existence and couldn't care less if I never saw him for the next two thousand years. My lie made him very happy. Is that as bad a lie as if I lied in an 'ordinary' way, for example lying to my father about why I got home so late or telling my mother I didn't break her favourite vase? What if it didn't make Bob happy, but it just meant that we didn't have an awkward moment since saying that to Bob is what was socially expected of me?

I have a moral question concerning the following scenario: At a party you talk to another guest who you haven't met before. He is drinking several glasses of beer and intends to drive himself home later. Are you morally obliged to tell him he should not drink and drive even though that would be impolite and he presumably knows he shouldn't anyway? Thanks.

I have recently heared the following expression: "If someone tells you at dinner that he is a radical relativist, then you must count your cutlery after he has left." What is the basis for mistrust of people holding relativistic views?

I'm a print designer. Knowing how much waste is caused by my work and how it precludes several industries causing harm to the environment in different ways, and considering that I am concerned about having a healthy environment, is it unethical for me to continue my practice? If I stop, others will still continue, and they will be joined by more; and there are plenty of other industries with even more environmentally harmful practices. Although there is a definite environmental impact from my work, there is a social acceptance of, and potential humanistic need for, my work. Does the latter override the former due to its immediacy?

What obligations do we have to our parents and families? I guess this is really a range of questions: because they cared for us in the formative years of our lives, how obliged are we to continue to accept their advice and care and offer the same back later on? Can being borne to two people bind you to them forever? What right do we have to criticise the methods they used to bring us up: should we just be thankful that they raised us at all? If someone looks after you, do you always owe them something?

Isn't it more morally acceptable that we use consenting, informed adults in scientific tests rather than animals? The adults would at least know what they were being tested for and the possible benefits. Added to which the tests are likely to be safer as scientists would be more likely to value a human life rather than that of an animal. Plus this way would fulfil the moral criterion for both utilitarianism as it decreases suffering for the reasons aforementioned and Kantianism but using no one as a mere means, human or animal (although Kant himself argued that an animal cannot be used as a mere means I will ignore this as it is arguable and that if we can avoid using them as a mere means then we should). Could it also be argued that testing on animals is even worse when no consenting, informed adult volunteered? And that such tests shouldn't be done under any circumstances? Many thanks :)

This afternoon I experienced the following: while driving home through busy traffic I passed under a railway bridge, at which point traffic from another lane attempted to filter into mine. I had the opportunity to wait, and allow a car to filter in. However, I kept driving, and the car behind me waited, allowing the other driver into the main lane. Then I began wondering about whether providing someone else with the opportunity to perform a 'good' act (good here understood as referring to an act that is arguably beneficial to at least one other person, and does not cause harm to anyone) is itself a good act. Put more generally (and in the form of a question), if in performing an act that is detrimental to another we allow a third person the opportunity to perform a beneficial act where they would not otherwise have been able, can our first act be seen in a more positive light, or is still to be considered negatively?

Imagine I am a scientist working for a pharmaceutical company and I spend 25 years working on a drug that will cure a disease. I patent my work, but the patent only lasts for 8 years. In that time, the pharmaceutical company sells the drug at a high price but uses most of its profits to fund more research. After 8 years, anyone can replicate my drug. Why should I allow generic brands, in that 8 years, to make my drug? I know many more people would have access to it if I did, but at least when my company is in control of it there are quality controls and secondly, my work is not only funding more research but is something I invested a great portion of my life in. Is it fair to argue for generic drugs in that case?

Recently, in the final game of World Cup, French midfielder Zinedine Zidane headbutted Italian defender Marco Materazzi for insulting him. In the aftermath, Zidane apologized in an interview with a French television but added that he didn't regret hic actions. Can one coherently apologize for an action yet not regret that action? Or is Zidane false in one of his claims (the apology or the lack of regret)?