As far as I know, it's not illegal in football (soccer) to kick the ball really hard at someone's face if they are in the way of goal. Throwing dummies and gamesmanship are also treated as acceptable. So how exactly does agreeing on rules of a game remove normal moral constraints? I know people wouldn't be happy if I started blasting a football at their faces, but would it be morally ok?

Given that that most people would agree with 1 and 2 that: 1. Causing great suffering is wickedness if done in the absence of qualifying conditions. For example bombing a city is generally wrong since it causes suffering but if bombing that city ends a war then that is a qualifying condition which may absolve the wrongness of that act. and 2. Eating animals causes great suffering. How can meat eaters see themselves as anything other than wicked people? Certainly eating meat causes great suffering so the only thing that would keep it from being wicked would be the presence of a qualifying condition. What is the qualifying condition in the case of meat eating? That is tastes SO YUMMY?

Do humans have a greater right to live than other animals? If so, would beings of much greater intelligence and perception hold that same right over humans?

We all wish that we die before a person we love a LOT (our parents is an example), because we think that we'll be very sad and cry all the time. But, isn't it more moral to wish that this beloved person dies before us, so we would support the extreme sadness and not them ?

I am firm believer that life human or animal should be preserved whenever possible. I would also like to believe that had I lived in Nazi Germany I would have stood up for the persecuted. So how can I reconcile my strong moral convictions with my inaction regarding the mass murder of animals everyday. Ironically enough I feel guilty for letting the law and the disappointment of my family stand in the way of stopping the massacre. This guilt is causing me great pain. Please enlighten me on what I should do.

My question is about the ethics of working in applied vs. pure research. I'm a student in a technical field. I am now trying to choose between a few subfields, some of which contribute more to practical technology than others. Say I'm a physics student with a choice between black-hole research, or designing a better solar cell. What, if any, are my ethical responsibilities in making this decision? Is it ethically wrong to devote my time to what amounts to a very expensive hobby, and at taxpayer or university expense? Is it better to use my education and skills to work for solutions to urgent problems? In short, what is the ethical difference between a career in pure and applied scientific research? Thank you for any response.

Is circumcision cruelty?

Why students checking facebook on class are regarded disrespectful, while a professor who checks his facebook on a symposium as another professor is reading his paper is said to be cute and cool？ Are there absolute boundaries between righteous and evil, right and wrong?

I hear a lot of talk about how "the people are correct" and the saying "one million people can't be wrong." However, there has to be some absolutist force present some of the time to keep anything and everything from becoming chaotic. For example, when sending soldiers off to a war that will violate human rights, but which is widely supported by the people, some would argue that makes it the right thing to do. On the other hand, imagine the pickle the world would be in if people had taken that standpoint towards Nazi Germany, and no one had stepped in. Can the masses truly be morally wrong, or does widespread belief of something make it right absolutely?

In general, it seems that an action is considered morally wrong when it harms a person (or animal). Is there anything morally wrong with profanity? To clarify, I do not mean swearing at someone, but profanity in general. E.g.: I spent my whole &*@&#$ night writing that %*@&# paper! Sure, it may be "tasteless", but is there any basis on which to call it wrong?