Pet owners neuter their animals. They rip out their claws, shave their fur, slice off their tales, and clip their ears. What if I, for whatever reason, wanted to give my dog a sex-change operation? I’m not sure what would drive somebody to do such a thing but should it be considered acceptable? Would that be crossing a line? Would it be cruel? Is it a pet owner’s right since the pet is his/her property? Where do animal cruelty laws come into play?

I've recently become a member of Amnesty International and started giving regular donations. I now feel the urge to give all my money away all the time to try to help others. I recently went into town but suddeny felt overcome with guilt about world poverty and gave all the money on me to an Oxfam shop I saw. I'm sixteen and live at home so know that I could give all the money I have away and still manage to get by just fine with the help of my family. I simply can't find any reasons to justify buying new clothes and going to the cinema with my money when I know I could give it to more important things, such as helping people in poverty, helping fight for human rights, and helping combat climate change etc. Should I give away all my savings and everything I earn? Should I sell everything I own to try and raise money to help these causes? Where should I draw the line? Millie

Peter Singer has popularized the term "speiciesism." It's the idea that we are biased or prejudiced towards our own species. Therefore, the argument says, we should have equal consideration for animals. However, this won't apply to animals. The lion will still eat the gazelle, the sharks will eat the dolphins, and any carnivore will eat any animal. I can imagine Singer replying that animals don't have the rational capacity to do ethics. The ideas that Singer presents only applies to us humans. But if this is the case, isn't that a form of speciesism?

I'm in a rather unique conundrum. After much reading, listening and reflection I've concluded that there is no source of moral good or evil beyond that which serves mankind's survival. That is, one's loyalty to country and family are only meaningful in as much as they can be rationalized as serving this ultimate purpose. The result is that I now find myself at odds with what most people here in the USA and most of the world consider to be the foundation of stability -- that is religion. It's not that I'm an atheist and belief there is no God -- or even that one cannot know whether God exists. I consider myself to be an agnostic, which I define as having no belief on the matter but as having an open mind about it. Unfortunately I've seen more credible evidence for ancient astronauts than for a God. Both are intriguing notions but I can't base moral decisions on them. This leaves me with the problem of feeling quite separate from everyone I know and love. I'm aware of the historical role of religion as a...

Setting aside the sort of lies told by parents to children, are there any lies which, in the panelists' view, it would benefit people in general to believe? (For instance, you might think that although there is no god, religious belief is so beneficial as to outweigh a strict concern for truth.) Or is it the case that there is no lie worth believing?

Although I have read many responses here that demonstrate a kind of wisdom, I doubt that the kinds of moral theories like utilitarianism or deontological ethics often mentioned here have much to do with this wisdom. I also doubt whether they have much to do with any serious moral problem. It almost seems like a caricature to switch from the serious, worried thinking that I had to do about whether, say, I must send my daughter to live with her grandparents in a different country given some real set of problems, to turn to a theory to tell me the answer? Not that these theories have got it all wrong; but they make something like an academic excercise or speculative problem out of a real moral problem, changing it in ways I don't understand but still feel are there. I would be happy to be wrong about this and would like to know your opinion. I suppose a secondary question is: what are moral philosophy departments for?

I have a new laptop with the ability to connect to any unsecured wireless Internet hot spot (e.g., at Starbucks). Is it ethical for me to connect to ANY free connection, even if I don't know whose it is, or if I suspect that it belongs to someone who is unaware that I am using it? On the one hand, the question seems to be, "just because my neighbor goes out and leaves his house unlocked, that does not give me the right to enter it without his permission." On the other hand, the wireless signal is in MY house, without asking for my consent, so why shouldn't I feel free to use it, since my neighbor sent it there? I realize that the legal answer to this question is all over the map, with some localities arresting people and others refusing to prosecute. I am only really concerned with the moral arguments for and against this.

Do we have an obligation from preventing one wild plant or animal species from wiping out another? For instance, is it morally problematic to introduce to an ocean habitat an exotic species of fish which goes on to drive species to extinction? (Set aside the question of whether such a thing might also be problematic on, say, practical grounds.) Or do we simply say: "Well, the exotic fish have just as much a right to survive as the natives, so let's not worry if the former kill off the latter."

I believe that speciesism is correct. However I am confused about how I should feel about campaigns to kill pests like possums, rats, stoats etc which destroy native and often endangered birds, animals and plants. I understand that speciesism doesn't say that you can never kill an animal, you merely have to give it equal consideration. In this sense killing the pest could be justified if doing so produced a better outcome. But then I arrive at the problem of humans, which (I assume) would in many situations be a greater threat to our native birds, animals and plants. I can't help but feel that the answer may lie in the fact that we can do something about humans which destroy the environment by convincing them we shouldn't, it's not as easy to reason with the average possum. However this seems inadequate given the fact that these people are very, very unlikely to ever be convinced. How can we justify killing pests in moral terms in light of speciesism?

I suffer from an inheritable condition which might shorten my life span if left untreated. My doctor has prescribed me a drug which, as it happens, might have adverse effects on my mental capacity; for instance, it might bring about amnesia and mild cognitive impairment. The minutiae of my particuar situation are not significant; what is interesting is the ethical question the general situation raises: Are we obligated to do what we can to stay alive for as long as possible, or may we—if the prior option necessitates potentially adverse effects on an aspect of life we hold dear—choose not to? And if the latter is true, does this translate to all other situations of this kind? As an example, consider the case of a smoker who refuses to give up smoking, regardless of the risk involved, because of the pleasure the act of smoking confers upon her. Her family and friends naturally wish for her to stay alive and remain healthy for as long as is possible—do their concern outweigh the pleasure she takes in the...