Before I married I dated a few guys from my group of friends from university. This group included a great variety of people in terms of health, wealth, race, looks, etc. The only common point was that we were all similar age. As I was lucky enough to be popular, I was choosy. I never wanted to date a smoker, because I find this a filthy, disgusting habit: I never wanted to date a fat man because I felt physically repelled; and I never wanted to date a black man because I find them physically unattractive. I liked all of my friends as friends, but when it comes to physical attraction I just cannot bring myself to something more physical with a black guy. Nobody would call me "smokeist" for not wanting to date a smoker, or call me "weightist" for rejecting a fat man; so why should I be labelled "racist" for finding black people unattractive? Our views of what is esthetically pleasing are personal and we are entitled to them; we should no be forced to like or dislike certain characteristics. Furthermore...

Your beliefs about smokers obviously do affect your reaction to them. Likewise, it's not impossible that your beliefs about black people affect your response to their appearance. Not impossible. But not inevitable either, so let's suppose your lack of attraction is innocent. The rest of your question is: why shouldn't you comment on people's appearances in just the way you'd comment on art? Why can't we proclaim the ugliness of some person or race? Simple answer: people aren't art. There are different rules for talking about people because the impact is different. If you are tempted to openly announce your dislikes, you might want to ask yourself why.

Is there a best way to do everything? Would there be a best way to brush your hair? Or, are there sometimes multiple ways to do something that are just as good?

I love your question, but sadly I think it has a pretty easy answer. No, there's not a best way to do everything. Take your own example. The best way to brush your hair depends on what your hair-goals are. You might want shiny, smooth hair, or you might want the tousled bedhead look. If you want smooth hair, you must brush a lot. If you want the tousled look, you have to lay off the brush. There's nothing that says you must have either goal. Of course, not every way is equally good. No matter what your hair-goals are, brushing with a rake is a bad idea. This gives people who like to supervise a little room to maneuver. You can tell other people they're doing things the wrong way, even though there isn't also, necessarily, a best.

Why not compromise on the creationism vs. evolution argument and simply require that high schools offer an elective class in theology? This way the students still get the more pragmatic information of evolution but at the same time parents are given the option of introducing their children to the opposing ideas if they feel it is appropriate. Along this same line of thought, why not compromise in the argument of safe sex versus abstinence and simply offer both? Allow parents to select which class their child should be enrolled in, but require it to be one or the other? Children are individuals too. Some would benefit more from a conservative class while others would gain from a liberal class. Personally, I’m an eighteen-year-old virgin saving himself for marriage. I was raised on an abstinence program and it worked for me. A peer of mine was raised on the same system and is now at his doctor being tested for hepatitis C. By generalizing all children aren’t we guaranteeing that we’ll fail at least...

I think the two compromises you propose bring up very different issues. Letting parents choose between two types of sex education classes is problematic. Although you have personally chosen abstinence--which is entirely fine, of course--studies show that abstinence education generally (on average) changes the age of first intercourse minimally or not at all. If regular sex education generally does a better job of preventing unwanted pregnancies and STDs, the school would essentially be offering a choice between better sex education and worse sex education. I don't think offering that choice fits within the mission of health education--which is to use the best methods available to steer children and young adults toward better health. The other compromise seems more sensible. Religion plays such a major role in world affairs, it is odd that a person can graduate from high school knowing next to nothing about it (as I did). It seem reasonable to at least offer comparative religion as an elective....

Is it rational to both maintain that abortion is entirely morally permissible (on the grounds that a fetus is not a person, let's say) and to regret having had one?

That set of attitudes wouldn't be irrational at all for a woman who discovers herself infertile or wanting to have had more children some time after the abortion. Even if a fetus is not a person, and it's entirely permissible to have an abortion, it's obviously true that fetuses eventually turn into persons. So an entirely permissible abortion can later on seem to have been a mistake.

To love and to be loved in return is supposedly one of our basic needs. If this is the case then how come ascetics and spiritual people such as priests, monks, nuns, etc. prefer to live solitary lives - some with little or no human contact - and claim that the lives they are living are fulfilled and in some cases claiming that they have transcended many needs and have reached contentment, realization, etc.?

I have long been fascinated by the desert saints, the extreme ascetics of the 4th century. The biggest "star" among them was Simeon Stylites, who stood alone on a pillar for 30 years, ceaselessly bowing in prayer, and enduring every conceivable deprivation. This struck me as the ultimate in solitary (and miserable) living until I started to wonder how we know so much about him. Then I learned that pilgrims used to throng to Egypt and Syria, where these ascetics lived, seeking inspiration and healing, or just for the spectacle. There's a wonderful bas relief from the year 500 showing a pilgrim on his way up a ladder leaning against Simeon's pillar. So these ascetics were not so completely alone after all. In fact, they were on the receiving end of a great deal of love. Maybe they loved these supplicants back, but clearly they did love their god. I think in the lives of many people who live a monastic life there are hidden sources of love and affiliation. But then, surely to varying degrees,...

Consider this scenario: I have been dating a woman for four months. Though, for medical reasons, she is currently a considerable distance (over one thousand miles, at the moment) from me at the moment, we see one another very often when she is near. We get along very well and have grown very close; she is quite precious to me. We connect on an intellectual, emotional, and spiritual level (she and I are atheists). In sum, I'm quite lucky to have someone like her. She is a rarity. There is a good chance that I will be transferring to a college roughly seven hundred miles from our current location. If I receive the scholarship required to attend the college, I would be a fool not to accept the offer. However, I would be leaving this person I have come to know, like, and admire so much. Committing to a long-distance relationship with this person would be difficult for both of us. I believe that I'm more than capable of doing this: my sense of honor would prohibit me from engaging in behavior that would...

Since you are a poet, I hope you will not be offended if I focus a bit on the nuances of the way you tell your story. You speak of "this person I have come to know, like, and admire so much." You say "I'm quite lucky to have someone like her. She is a rarity." You say "she is quite precious to me." I don't think this is the "poetry" of love. (Is it?) Given what you say about your friend's serious medical condition, is it possible what you're feeling is deep friendship, concern, commitment, all very good things, but not exactly love? Maybe some clarity about your feelings would help you make the decision. I'm not saying it would be simple, even with that clarification, but at least it would be a start. My gut feeling is that a great scholarship is not to be turned down, and both love and friendship can continue at a distance. But there's nothing irrational about putting your friend first, if that's what you think is best. I'd just make sure I moved forward in a clear-eyed way. If...

When a child asks a question like "Where do babies come from?", why do all parents consider giving an answer that is far from the truth? once on TV, a parent, in respnse to this very question raised by his baby, he stated:"When a father and a mother love each other very much, they close their eyes, and they make a wish.". For a child, that seems pretty convincing, but not at all truthful. My question is: is that really moral?

I don't think it's wrong to lie to children, if there's a good reason for the lie. I recall my daughter hearing the word "rape" and asking what it is at a very early age. I said I didn't know with a "that's not important" tone of voice. Sure, I could have made an honest statement about her being too young for the subject, but it seemed pointless to make her feel disrespected, or to let her go on wondering about the matter. But does it make sense to lie about where babies come from? I frankly don't understand why parents feel so giggly and embarrassed about the subject. I told my twins the facts of life gradually, probably starting around the age of 3 or 4. When they asked how sperm gets into the mother's uterus, at about age 5, I told them the truth. (They thought it was the funniest thing they'd ever heard.) If a parent lies about where babies come from, are they immoral? Some lies can cause children anxiety, and then there's reason to disapprove. For example, a friend of mine was...

I am a married man of 11 years with two children under 9 years. My wife and I are on the verge of a divorce and are waiting until after the holidays and figuring out the logistics of the house, finaces and child care. Nine months ago I met a younger married woman and since then we have been having an affair. We talk, text, email almost every single day. We see each other once or twice a month sometimes 2-4 days at a time. The emotional, mental and physical realtionship we have is amazing. We are like bestfriends and lean on each other for daily life issues. While my marriage is over her marriage is just starting the process of needing to change things drastically or it is over forever. She has been married for 4 years and has no children so while there is not as much to worry about it is still a very hard decision and she is taking things day by day. There is no doubt that we love each other but we obviously know there are many obstacles. 1) we are married 2) I have two children and she has none (and I...

If you really want to take a philosophical approach to your situation, then there are all sorts of things to think about--the ethics of divorce, the special responsibilities we have to children, the ethics of having affairs, the nature of romantic love, as opposed to the love we feel for our children. If you look at all those issues dispassionately, you may very well have to conclude that you have a duty to at least try to repair your marriage and preserve your children's home. I suspect, from the way you ask the question, that you want the advice that having a soul mate is more important than anything else and worth fighting for no matter what. I'm afraid I can't think of any good reason to believe that's true.

When I help poor people with medicines, food, my own work or with money, I am also contributing to the growth of population in the Earth in the sense that I make it more probable that more people live and have offspring. Population is also a challenge to the life in the Earth and is probably one of the main reasons of poverty, environment destruction and wars. So perhaps making something good at the present could be a bad idea for the future. Is this right?, or is it just a excuse for not helping people in need?

As much as your factual assumptions probably strike you as commonsensical, they are actually problematic. You are assuming that larger families have an especiallynegative impact on the environment. It seems like that must be true, but in fact our impact depends on our lifestyle. For example, average carbon emissions here in the most affluent nations are about 34 times what they are in the poorest nations. For that reason, havingone child in the US is much more of a threat to the environment than having eight in animpoverished African or Indian village. Thinking about environmental impact instead of simply aboutpopulation may eliminate your worries about helping people in developingcountries. But perhaps not. Possibly what really bothers you is the feeling that people don’t deserve to behelped, if they make the foolish choice to have so many children. Of course, the children shouldn’t be blamedfor their parents' mistakes, but setting that aside, it’s important...

Pages