Is it ethical to stay in a marriage after love is dead?

In terms of the meaning of life, I look at how humanity has managed to claw itself up from hitting each other with rocks to a fairly impressive level of civilisation. Since there is no discernible point to Mankind, perhaps just a furthering of humanity should be the aim? I try to base my morals on this ideal, as well as relying on empathy. Does the panel think that this is a reliable base for morality?

If I am an alcoholic do I have a duty not to have children? What if I have a pretty strong history of being verbally abusive? What if I know I carry Tay-Sachs? You see where I am going here; should there be some criteria under which I am morally obliged not to have children in light of the initial conditions under which they would be living?

There has been a gread deal of debate in the news, of late, as to the application of torture under a so-called 'ticking time bomb' scenario. Is physical or mental torture ever justified in such an extreme event in a moral society?

Why is it considered unethical for a doctor to have a relationship with a patient? I was wondering this after viewing "The Sopranos" and looking at how Dr. Melfi rebuffs Tony Soprano's attempts at courtship due to their previous doctor-patient relationship.

What exactly is the moral/ethical problem with a professional athlete taking performance enhancing drugs? I'm talking about a talented professional who carefully weighs the known risks and side effects of such drugs and decides their use is necessary for him/her in order to be competitive in their sport. Shouldn't this just be a personal decision? Aspiring beauty queens are allowed to get plastic surgery, and athletes are allowed to get "corrective" laser eye surgery (significantly improving their perfectly normal distance vision)...

Why is Utilitarianism rubbish? We are supposed to do an action which will create a net increase of welfare - how are we to judge if a particular action will increase welfare? If we are forced to make this decision, do we not have to rely on some 'internal moral' or integrities that we might hold, therefore making it quite impossible to judge correctly what will increase the general happiness? And doesn't utilitarianism require us to act as machines, not bothering about what we feel?

Here's a real life question faced by most of us at some point in our lives and that I will soon face: Given our cultural context, what is the best thing to do with the last names of a couple that is to be married? The default position even today of the so-called "person on the street" is that the woman should take the man's last name. However, given the patriarchal ideology which this practice is a manifestation of, this seems like a social norm that ought to be violated until it no longer exists. But what to put in its place? I see three plausible alternatives: (1) both the man and the woman keep their original names; (2) the man takes the woman's name; (3) the man and the woman create a totally new last name that they choose to share in place of their former names. Option (3) seems best to me right now, because it seems to get the desired symbolic value of a common last name (it symbolizes the couple's unity and commitment to live their lives essentially together) without symbolically subordinating...

If determinism is true, does this undermine morality? Would Hitler be morally equal to Gandhi because both are pre-determined to act the way they did? Should this affect the anger we feel towards 'immoral' people?

Why is human life valued more than animal life in the absence of religion? Are arguments based on our being intelligent or sentient valid, after all we make the rules. If you could ask an elephant it might offer other criteria to value species by.