Recently, a young American sailor attempting to circumnavigate the globe was saved after her boat was badly damaged at sea. I am always struck by rescues like these, which are often as time-consuming and expensive as they are dramatic. (The search for the American sailor involved several ships, as well as the involvement of three different countries.) How can we justify the expenditure of so much resources in order to save a single person? It seems to me that the money spent on finding the sailor, if used to purchase something more basic (food or medicine, say), could just as easily have saved dozens if not hundreds of other people. Indeed, this sort of thing strikes me as somewhat perverse, because the individuals rescued in situations like this have very often deliberately put themselves in dangerous situations.

Are minimum-wage laws illiberal? Should employers and employees have the right to negotiate any wage they both consent to, even if this wage is very low?

Eyery year I participate in a not-for-profit-programe that sends shoe boxes with Christmas presents to children from very poor countries in the world. A good friend of mine said this would not be worth doing it, as it is just changing nothing about the poverty in the world. When is it good to put a drop in the ocean?

Are Native Americans the only ones who have the right to be in America?

Is there anything of value philosophically in the contentious politics of the day?

There are numerous examples of injustice in America (blacks treated unfairly in the criminal justice system, torture of detainees, etc.) and Americans generally seem to be more or less okay with this (shown by lack of a consensus of moral outrage). Yet, Americans also profess to believe in human rights, the constitution and principles of justice for democracy and the criminal justice system. I doubt that conducting a poll, many Americans would disagree with these principles. Why does our theory not match our practice? Can it be the case that American's truly don't believe in justice for all, if it can be violated so blatantly and without major objection from the public? And if it's the case that we truly don't care about justice then why not change theory? Or, if this is not the case, then why are people so apathetic? Is it even human nature to care about virtues and ethics? Or is it something that can only be achieved through active reasoning and pursuit of knowledge? How can I be happy in a...

I have two questions about fairness and value in relation to achievement. Suppose student A works very hard for his exam results and gets the grades he wanted. Suppose also that student B is much lazier, putting in significantly less effort, but achieves the same results due to their greater "natural" ability. Firstly, which student's achievement, if any, is of greater significance or greater value? Secondly, is it fair that student B achieves the same results as student A without putting in the same level of effort (albeit the same level of effort was not required from student B due to his greater "natural" ability)?

There's an exciting election coming up over here in the UK. I'm not sure if I'll vote because I honestly don't feel I know enough about the key issues. I wouldn't want to vote on which medication should be used for which illness, because I'm not a doctor. Equally, I don't feel able to choose between policies on defence, the economy or foreign policy because I lack expertise in these areas too - areas where making the wrong decisions have arguably greater consequences than medicine. One might say I have a responsibility to learn about these issues, but I would respond by pointing out that that's why we have experts! I'm also not convinced that choosing not to vote is somehow offensive to people who fought for my right to vote (I don't want to give up my right, I just don't want to exercise it) or that it's a dereliction of some duty that goes with being a civilian. The way I see it choosing not to vote because I recognise my ignorance is the right thing to do - particularly when the three main...

This question is in regards to social philosophy: Suppose someone is inclined to think that capitalism (at least, the capitalism that is being practiced at present) is neither fair nor egalitarian. In addition, they do not wish to (necessarily) take part in its practice (to make money). My question is this: how could this person expect to make any kind of "decent" money while not being a capitalist when capitalism is (as they say) "the only game in town"?

It's becoming increasingly clear that democratic societies are incapable of solving long-range, diffuse ecological problems such as climate change and peak oil, which, although indistinct and nebulous, pose what are potentially existential threats to whole populations. How serious a threat does this pose to the legitimacy of democracy? A related question, or perhaps the same question in different language: the inter-generational transfer of resources which democracies permit is clearly immoral, and profoundly so. At what point does this immorality trump the morality inherent in democratic institutions?