You have such a helpful and accessible website! Thank you and all the contributors for such a great free service to the public! If, G-d forbid, somebody is going to harm himself (e.g. commit suicide), then am I obligated to stop him? What lengths should I go to? For example, what if the only way I can stop him is by harming him in another way (e.g. by breaking his arm)? What if I will harm somebody else? Thanks, keep up the great efforts!

If I am understanding it, some philosophers don't beleive in moral facts because such facts would have to motivate all people who KNOW about them regardless of what those people WANT (or something like that). My question is if it will make a big difference if those philosophers are right, and we give up talking about moral facts, but talk instead about, say, almost-moral facts (with words like "almost-wrong" and "almost-right"), which are almost identical to moral facts except in that they do not motivate people who just know about them? Let me put it another way: some philosophers say that nothing is wrong, because something being wrong would have to be, by itself, a motive for people not to do it, and this is impossible. But can't we just say: ok, nothing is wrong, but some things are almost-wrong, and "almost-wrong" is close to be a synonym of "wrong", except that something being almost-wrong, by itself, doesn't give anybody a motive to avoid it?

I am thirteen years old and I do not understand the world. In terms of world hunger, how can one possibly find happiness in their lives when such tragedies exist? Approximately 24,000 thousand people starved to death today, and three billion people live with under two dollars every day. For one to continue their lives as normal, or even not give any care, would this be the equivalence of starving someone yourself since you have the power to make a difference, yet you are choosing not to? And is the root cause of poverty a lack of equality within the world, or are specific governments not running thing effectively? For people that are not actively practicing compassion, would that make you a horrible person for not wanting to aleviate the extent of pain and suffering that so many have to endure day after day?

You are an amazing website! I have told many people about you guys. We greatly appreciate your kind services. I feel smarter and like I have learned something after having visited your site. Here's a hard question. I heard it on a television called the Office. Can you steal food in order to feed your starving family? If so, why? I know, you want your family to survive. But still, stealing is a crime. Would you even *murder* to feed your family? Where do we draw the line? Who determines? The best philosophers? Doesn't G-d decide because he made us and the world? Many Thanks!

Is there a fundamental link between behavior we view as immoral, and behavior we view as repulsive, disgusting, or otherwise aesthetically unpleasant? It seems the terms of the latter are sometimes used to describe the former.

My landlord has a terrible fear of rats. Over the summer, a young stray cat started hanging around the brownstone meowing for affection and food. My landlord started feeding the cat, and even put a box for it to stay in, because he is convinced that having the cat living in front of our building will scare away rats. But now it's late fall and getting colder; the cat is looking more and more desperate and sad. I'm afraid it won't last much longer out there. So here's the question: having benefited from the cat's predicament, is my landlord now morally responsible in any way for the cat's eventual fate? Is he under a moral obligation to take the cat inside, or to a shelter, etc? Similarly, am I, having indirectly benefited, under any moral obligation to the cat?

Is it possible for animals to commit moral wrongs? For instance, bottlenose dolphins are supposedly known to torment and even rape other dolphins. Many of the capacities once thought unique to humans (language, tool-use etc.) are now commonly ascribed to certain animals; but I've yet to see anyone claim that animals are capable of immorality.

In my mind, discrimination has always been about denying people rights or opportunities based on some irrelevant aspect of themselves (irrelevant to whatever is being denied, that is). However, we also use the word "discrimination" to describe such terms as "nigger" or "retard". These terms are obviously pejorative, and shouldn't be used by anyone hoping to appear kind or civilized, but they aren't, in and of themselves, denying anyone's rights or opportunities. So this is a different kind of discrimination, then. Why is this discriminating? What kind of discrimination is this? Is it related to the presumed stereotypes we assume people have in mind when using these terms pejoratively?

If everyone has the right to their own body, is there anything even wrong with self-injury? If someone who smokes is effectively also 'harming' himself, what makes a person cutting herself doing something wrong?

If you personally cannot slaughter an animal by your own hand or even imagine doing so, then should you still eat meat? Do you still have the natural right to eat meat?