Suppose I take a taxi with a friend. She gets out when the fare is $3 and I get out when the fare is at $6. How should we distribute the total cost fairly? One idea is that I should pay double what my friend pays. $6 = X + 2X where X is the amount paid by my friend. So I would pay $4. But another idea is that we should share the fare up to her exit, then I should pay alone after. So X = $3/2 where X is the amount paid by my friend.

I have a question about separation of religion and politics,especially about French "laïcité". My understanding is that laïcité is removing religion from public places. But what is religion? For example, female Moslems living in France are not allowed to wear scarves in public schools because it is tought to be a symbol of Islam, a religion. However, also some morals (like loving your neighbors or helping out each other) are part of religion as it is written in Bible and Qur'an. As long as they are acting according to God's lesson, is it impossible to secularize any public places?

I live in Ireland where it is obligatory for students to learn the Irish language while in both primary and secondary education (for a period of 13 / 14 years) The reason for this obligation being that the Irish language is part of our heritage / our national identity. My question is should we be obligated to our heritage / national identity and if yes to what degree?

It is a well publicized fact that voters are less likely to vote for atheists than for individuals of practically any other sort of minority. Why is this sort of discrimination generally not regarded as indicative of a really significant injustice? Why isn't the difficulty of atheists to achieve political office viewed as on par with racism, homophobia or other kinds of discrimination?

I read the other day that 48% of people over the age of 85 suffer from senile dementia, and that this number increases steeply as people age. Sufferers have difficulty remembering events and people. Even in its early stages, it impacts on decision making and one's ability to form short and long term plans. My question is, one of the reasons for having a voting age is because we believe that children and young people are cognitively unable to understand the full implications of voting. While this isn't true for all children, it is for the majority of kids, justifying an arbitrary, blanket voting age. If there is a point at which a majority of elderly people are cognitively unable to understand the implications of their vote, does this mean we should create an upper voting age limit? Thanks :)

Do think there's any legitamacy to the principal of first dibs? Suppose Jones sits down on a bench in a public place, and later Smith comes and wants to sit down (there's only room for one). Does Jones have more right to the bench since she came there first?

Aren’t political parties essentially tools to avoid having your own opinion? I mean, it’s very easy for me to say, “I’m a Democrat,” and then just believe whatever the Democratic political party tells me. Doesn’t that seem a bit like simply selling your mind and letting somebody think for you? It seems to me to be the modern equivalent of the medieval Church.

As an Englishman, I share a dilemma with many of my countrymen that we do not have a strong sense of English (rather than British) nationality - in contrast to say the Scots, the Welsh etc. My question is what are the moral arguments for and against the establishment of a clear English national identity. My question is definitely not one geared towards a backward-looking (and hence white Anglo-Saxon) identity, but one that can unite the inhabitants of the country in a sense of pride. If the team prefer to answer with reference to other nationalities then this is fine - it is more the moral principles that I am seeking to understand. Thank You

If someone doesn't vote, does she then cede (to any extent) the right to complain about the conduct of the subsequently elected official(s)?

Some proponents argue that in the judicial system, matters of policy reasons are best left in the hands of Parliament to decide. For instance, cases involving moralities which appear before the courts such as deviant sexual practices, assisted suicide and the likes where consent is clearly given and that these practices have not yet been made illegal/unlawful. In these cases, is it over the board to say that judges who decide based on the general consensus of morality in a particular society are interfering with one’s conduct (because it has not yet been made illegal/unlawful) even though it is generally understood that these practices are inherently wrong? Can this statement be countered by Dicey’s third postulate on the rule of law that the courts are the guardians of citizens’ rights and that judicial activism is necessary to solidify a common morality? Or is it best for a judge to merely sit back and apply the law as it is, despite knowing that had Parliament decided on these issues, it would be...