Your marriage of 10 years is "in a bad place" and you find yourself seeking "compensatory" emotional gratification through extra-marital sex, with a) an acquaintance and then b) briefly, while drunk, with the spouse of your sibling. You realise your mistake. You tell no-one, out of cowardice, but also out of sorrow that it has happened and a knowledge that you love your spouse and you know that your spouse would be devastated by what you have done. You return to the marriage with determination to do better and the behaviour never reoccurs. You devote yourself to loving and caring for your spouse and you both enjoy a deepening relationship in which both parties commit and contribute wholeheartedly. Over the next ten years your spouse becomes progressively more sick and eventually dies without ever discovering your earlier treachery. Almost simultaneously, your sibling's marriage breaks up and the "in-law" behaves shittily, claiming that the break-up of the marriage is entirely the fault of your (innocent...

Should prominent adults (e.g. athletes) be held responsible as role models for young children even if they do not consider or present themselves as such?

I am of legal age for sexual experiences and my partner is also. My question pertains to the rightness or wrongness of consensually losing my virginity to my partner after knowing her for only two days. I care about her quite a bit and she I. I like to think that I make halfway good decisions, but I felt so caught up in the moment that I stopped thinking and just ran on instinct. I seldom, if ever, make rash decisions but this time was different. So in this situation was I morally wrong to give away my virginity so quickly to someone I recently met? Please note that I am not a devout Christian but consider myself a student of Platonic, Aristotelian, and Kantian thought, I hope this helps frame my mindset and the internal conflict I have been experiencing. Thank you for your help.

Hi, I'm wondering what is the purpose of moral philosophy assuming that our moral intuitions are mere products of evolution. Evolutionary psychology seems to explain our moral roots (genes that coded for cooperation helped the organisms in which they resided reproduce and replicate those genes). Given this, our instincts that say we should behave in certain ways are merely adaptations that increased survival. It seems then that there is no objective answer to "What should I do?" and the entire field of normative ethics is premised on the delusion that there is. Wouldn't it be more honest for professors of moral philosophy to tell their students that they're merely looking for a consistent framework for decision-making that best coheres with our moral intuitions? And that outside of these intuitions (which arose because they increased survival), there is no warrant for believing in some absolute, metaphysical grounding of ethics--in other words an objective answer to the question "what SHOULD I do?" Thanks!

Do you think consensual BDSM is immoral?

Should I report a Consensual Amorous Relationship? I am a lab research assistant at a public state medical school, and I have discovered that the head of the lab has a Consensual Amorous Relationship with another researcher at the lab. I found out that prior to joining the medical school, they both worked together at another private academic hospital having the same type of work and personal relationship. It is my understanding that being public state employees, they have a duty to prevent the conflict of interests, and that a Consensual Amorous Relationship between the lab director and the lab researcher clearly generates conflict of interest. Their is also an internal policy in place that requires that Consensual Amorous Relationships between an employee and direct supervisor,are required to be reported. I have a serious internal conflict in how about to solve my dilemma, Should I confront my supervisor and ask them to self-report, or should I proceed to report it directly?

Is it immoral for a person in a rich country to adopt a child from a very poor country, while the parents are still alive. Often, the parents in poor countries will beg rich people to take their children, so consent is not an issue.

Why are parents said to have the right to teach their children whatever they want? What are the underlying philosophical justifications and explanations for this right?

I go to church regularly and say things I don't believe. I justify this by saying that it's necessary to support an institution that I believe does more good than harm and that the usefulness of a statement is more important than its truth. I think my grounds are utilitarian and pragmatic, and do not share the vulnerability, among skeptics, of belief in the statements. I am satisfied with my justification until I am asked to teach a seventh-grade Sunday School class. If I decline I leave it to somebody else, maybe as much a skeptic as I am, to give the support I want given. I can't do that, and don't expect a philosopher to give me a justification for it. If I accept the job I do the things that make me ask for help from a philosopher. My question: How I can avoid harm, and if I can't will I do enough to tip the utilitarian balance and remove me from the church? As I see it, I risk doing three kinds of harm. First, pedagogical harm. I will be teaching credulousness. They can't believe what...

Why do my parents tell me it is morally wrong to have a "hickey" or love bite on my neck. I am in a socially recognized relationship. Both of us are above the age of sexual consent in our country [several years above]. Neither of us are religious. Neither of us care about the judgment of the rest of the world. No one can see the mark, when my hair covers it. I am not in a professional setting that requires me to uphold any dress code or manner of behavior. I would just like to know what is so wrong about acknowledging that we enjoy giving pleasure to each other. Why is it morally wrong to have passion, and reciprocated enjoyment. Maybe we would be a less uptight society if we spent more time trying to find ways to bring people enjoyment and less time worrying about upholding some sort of stilted Victorian morality. Perhaps he takes umbrage to the fact that I, a woman, am enjoying sex? After all, it should be done for reproductive purposes only, in the dark, with only the man enjoying himself. Can...