Hello philosophers, there is a vast philosophical literature that defends animal rights and vegetarianism, but the opposite camp doesn't seem to have produced much. What is the equivalent of Singer's "Animal Liberation" in the "meat eating" camp? Or is this a dead subject among philosophers, where those who care write books about the defense of animals, while those who don't simply go ahead and eat their steaks? Thanks in advance for your valuable insight.

There is much written on veganism and vegetarianism and the morality of eating animals. The human animal is an omnivore; eating is basic to survival; our dentition and digestive tracts are adapted for meat as well as plants. This is our condition. There is an answer excusing peoples from agriculturally poor countries (and I would add the Inuit) yet, lacking suitable abattoirs, their trapping and/or killing of animals would be seen as cruel by our delicate western standards. If this is morally acceptable, what is "unacceptable suffering"? To whom is is unacceptable and what changes that it becomes acceptable? A vegan questioner suggested her omnivorous friend should witness the killing of an animal if he wished to eat meat. If he did and continued eating meat, would he then be exculpated? If so, where is the morality? Why should the vegan's morality be superior to the omnivore's? Should the vegan witness the grinding poverty and backbreaking work of 3rd world child agricultural labourers before eating...

Pet lovers seem to be taking their pets along for 'alternative' therapies for their ailments- e.g. homeopathy, acupuncture, indian traditional medicine, etc. Given there is no scientific basis for these treatments- isn't this sort of thing tantamount to torture? (PETA doesn't think so.) Humans who voluntarily submit themselves to painful treatments are at least getting the 'placebo' given their belief that the treatment will work. I'd imagine that it'd be hard to give a pet a placebo!

Why do so many equate 'natural' with 'good?' It seems to me as though there are loads of cases stating the very opposite. So is what is natural always what is good?

I've been wondering this for quite some time now and I'm not sure how to word it in an intelligent way a philosopher may like to be asked. But I have been practicing photography for quite some time now and am currently studing it. My main interest is social documentary...i think it's important to document what it is today. My question is (and I'll try my best). Is it right for someone to document something and not interfere. Not help. Just watch? I'm thinking of this as there is a famous photographer who shot a world famous photo of a child and a vulture in Africa, Kevin Carter was the photographer if you would like to look it up, he never helped the child, was that right, I don't think he was allowed to interfere with things like that. But let's say even the likes of a war, documenting it, is it right to sit on the fence and observe someone being shot without doing anything about it? I suppose the question is, is it ok just to observe and not interfere when it is probably morally right to do so. I...

The common pro-life argument against abortion is that the killing of an innocent person is always murder, and that all fetuses are innocent people; therefore, all abortions are murder…but who’s to say that either premise is correct? I’m willing to accept the latter, but I question the former. I think I can give a few examples of when killing innocent people is not murder. A car accident: somebody jumps out in front of your vehicle and you hit them. Collateral damage in a war: in 1990 coalition forces accidently bombed a bunker full of civilians. I believe they killed 2,000 people in this single raid and that many were women and children, but we don’t call THAT murder. I could go on. So, I ask: Is it always murder to kill an innocent person?

Do we have a right to procreate? Life can be a pretty difficult journey. What right do we have to decide that another person should go through it? Even if in good faith we wish our children health and happiness, we know that some suffering is inevitably part of life. If for example I know that my child will inherit with 99% probability a very painful disease: can I be held responsible for his/her suffering? What if the probability is 50%? what about 1%? What about the 100% certainty of death: aren't I responsible for the effects that I know will surely result from my actions? Life can also be quite unpredictable, who knows what will be of our world in 80 years. Isn't having a kid placing a bet (hopefully benevolent) on someone's else life? Does it even make sense to say that I do something for the well being of someone who doesn't exist yet? Isn't having a kid a very selfish thing, something we do out of our present desires (or fears) which will cause the suffering of another human being? I hope...

Is hypocrisy morally wrong? Suppose you publicly advocate some good principle X, but privately violate X. Violating X is wrong, but surely it's still right to advocate X in public. You shouldn't encourage others to violate X like you do!

When, if ever, is profane language justified? I saw some people yesterday carrying signs with pictures of Obama with a Hitler mustache. As a Jew and an American, I was deeply offended and became so angry that I launched into a profanity-laced tirade. Afterwards, I definitely felt bad about losing my cool, but I also wondered more generally when and if the use of profane language can be justified.

What is wrong with watching child pornography? Let's be clear that child abuse is wrong, and anything that makes more of it likely in the future is also wrong. Even if we agree that watching child pornography which encourages further harm to children is wrong, it seems less clear where the wrong is in doing so when there is no chance of causing harm. There are many pictures of adults and children who have been harmed to an extent at least on a par with the victims of such child abuse from the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we do not normally think that viewing those images is wrong or makes us complicit. The most obvious candidate is the motive of sexual gratification on the part of the viewer. What makes that different from the motives of readers of bombs in the Middle-East? Is it the fact that the viewer must have a deviant sexual orientation or because they are benefiting from the harm in a way that the reader isn't? The first reason seems off the mark since it seems that the act of...