Other teachers in my department see Situation Ethics and Utilitarianism as a form of relativism. This seems to me to be a confusion between there being different courses of right action for different circumstances (situation ethics and utilitarianism) and there being different right actions for one circumstance (relativism). Even if you're a utilitarian, there is still an absolute as to what one should do in that particular situation (it's just that it isn't always clear given the difficulty in predicting outcomes), and so it is not a relativist ethic. Who's right?

What form of accountability should non-action take? How guilty are bystanders?

What is it about neurological pain, as opposed to other forms of suffering, that makes the pain experienced by humans and many animals morally relevant? Imagine an intelligent, autonomous robot that reacts to damage the way a human reacts to pain - fear, cries, complaints, etc. Why wouldn't the "pain" of the robot be morally relevant? Similarly, why isn't the suffering of plants considered to be morally relevant?

Are there any ethical considerations when it comes to helping or harming representations of human beings, such as lifelike dolls, video game characters, images, or humanoid robots? Does one have a duty to help a video game character in need? Should one refrain from punching lifelike dolls for fun?

Is the obligation to behave ethically itself an ethical obligation? If not, what kind of obligation is it? It certainly doesn't seem logically necessary to behave ethically, since people do it all the time without becoming entwined in reality-shattering logical paradoxes, (although perhaps one could argue that people behaving unethically are, in a sense, schizophrenic...), and it isn't an explicit legal obligation, either.

It seems to me that Kant's categorical imperative implies that we all have a duty to procreate. Is this actually the case? I say this because it seems that any person choosing not having children would be forced to admit that, if their behavior was made a universal law, society would collapse, with a slowly aging and ailing population and nobody to take care of them. Society would die out, and the last generation before the end would be helpless geriatrics suffering the problems of old age with nobody younger to look after them. So do Kantian ethics actually demand that we have children? Or is there a subtler way of looking at the issue?

Hi. Let's assume that there's no higher power that could establish objective norms of morality. Then let's think of a fictitious situation in which a certain individual could greatly benefit himself by killing several innocent civilians. Even though this potential murderer tends to comply with laws and widely accepted moral rules created within society, he's a hypocrite and thus is willing to make exceptions when it comes to striving for his own personal goals. Imagine that in this hypothetical scenario the same person committing a crime could know for sure that no one will ever catch him, he will never have to serve a prison sentence, and there will be no blame whatsoever to damage his reputation. Moreover, we make an assumption that this individual will not feel any remorse for this horrific act of violence. So, in this particular situation, taking into account the potential murderer's point of view, why shouldn't a crime be committed?

I think of forgiveness as a central principle around which I base my behavior. Lately I have been feeling as though many people close to me take advantage of my generous forgiveness by intentionally doing things that hurt me (not physically) and then offering superficial apologies, knowing that I will forgive them. Is there an ethical justification for forgiveness? If so, does it offer any insight onto the practical application of when and how to forgive and where to set limits?

I'm writing to find out if anyone would care to comment about the ethical considerations involved when the news media, political organizations and/or companies and corporations respond to private criticisms made to social media outlets by the average Joe exercising free speech within its legal limits. I've seen increasing examples of organized groups publicly reacting to individuals' negative or critical comments (which were not directly aimed at them or intended to be viewed by the general public) not only to simply respond or defend themselves, but to fulfill or further their political agendas and promote their ideology (in other words, to use the individuals as scapegoats). The definitions of both libel and the First Amendment are generally clear, defining the limitations of "free" speech in the U.S. It seems to me extremely unethical (if not bullying and violent) for organized groups to react to critical social media postings by thrusting the individuals who made them into the national spotlight and...

In Christian teachings, Jesus is said to have died for our sins. Is such a thing even possible? One person can pay another's financial debt, can 'moral debt' be transferred in the same way.