If cause suffering is bad and life is in part suffering, procreate is inherently bad?

What does allow scientist to make moral and ethical judgements? I always thought that science is purely neutral and objective(yes I know this is an illusion, even if we destroy all bias and all string pullers(government, private/commercial sector) still even scientists unconsciousness can make the objectivity of his work biased without him even being aware of it), yet I see scientists making moral and ethical(which seem purely subjective to me[based on belief or opinion]) judgements nearly everywhere...

I'm willing to donate about $100 a year, out of my pocket, to help relieve worldwide hunger. But, If I had the opportunity to vote on a proposed new tax in my country that would collect an average of $1000 from each citizen (based on their income) and use all that money to relieve world hunger, I would be happy to vote for this new law. My family income is above average so I'd end up paying more than $1000. But this seems strange, ethically. I'm willing to have myself and my fellow citizens coerced by the state to pay far more towards a good cause than I'm willing to just pay on my own. Is my position defensible in a moral sense?

I am confused about Aristotle's virtue ethics as it applies to Aesop's fable of the boy who cried wolf. Since he was telling the truth the second time, is it actually the townspeople who are behaving immorally by ignoring him? Just because the townspeople could not instantly verify the veracity of his testimony (which can be independently verified), is that really a sufficient reason to let the sheep die? By Aristotle's reasoning, is the boy (an occasional liar) just as immoral as the townspeople (by negligence)?

In his "Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason", Kant argues that it is possible for people to become moral by following the example of Jesus Christ. How then would he comment on Abraham's actions during the Binding of Isaac? Isn't Abraham treating Isaac as a means to an end, even if that commandment is from God during a time when Jesus was not yet born? In other words, is Jesus just one example of moral guidance out of many and there is no one true religion; that is, anyone else can serve the same role?

If you are at a conference and somebody behind you says something that you feel is offensive is it okay to take their picture and post that to the Internet so that a lot of people know that somebody said that offensive thing?

Do you think there is too little applied ethics being studied and researched in academia? I think analytic philosophy still has not recovered from the ideas of logical positivism. If ethics is still a worthwhile field of study, why then shouldn't it connect as much as possible to the public by advising every facet of human behavior?

Why do so many atheists think that other atheists "ought" to be a humanist, or at least care about animal rights, environmental protection, left-wing politics, and so on? Isn't this both a psychological cognitive dissonance and a philosophical naturalistic fallacy? I think even David Hume would consider a religious person be more inclined to support those causes since they have sacred and textual norms to follow whereas the atheist has none.

Am I a hypocrite if I support gun control while owning guns myself?

Analogous to freedom of speech, one supposes that everyone is entitled to express their opinions concerning the character of any person. However, my personal view is that it is reprehensible for a group of people to indulge in an overt celebration of the death of a person - especially in the presence of bereaved members of her family. I have in mind the recent death of erstwhile British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, whose family would probably have seen TV news shots of revellers in Glasgow opening bottles of champagne in ribald celebration of her death. I noted that a prominent political opponent of Mrs Thatcher commented that this behaviour was despicable. I would like to know whether it is feasible/permmissible/desirable for a philosopher to provide objective guidance on the propriety or otherwise of this behaviour?