I believe that the taking of human life in all instances (abortion, euthanasia, suicide, self-defence, manslaughter, murder, etc.) is wrong; however under certain conditions I would take life under all these instances and in doing so I would accept that I am wrong and answerable to the Law but I would hope that the Law would be merciful (e.g., in a case of euthanasia where the person involved was terminally ill, in severe pain and no hope of recovery). Is my attitude wrong?

Hello. I think that I have a personality disorder called the Schizoid Personality disorder. I am actually fairly certain of this. If this is the case, I have a question that pertains to ethics. I am wondering if it is immoral in some sense to cloister oneself from the world and to spend one's time primarily by oneself. I would consider myself of a high intellect with much college behind me and I enjoy intellectual pursuits and the life of the mind very much. Though I currently have some close friends (from high school) and socialize several times a week, I can see a day in which I would like to be mostly alone. I envision a day, after several more years of graduate school, when I could leave America and get lost in Europe and break all ties with former friends, and (as I am a Schizoid) my family--whom I feel nothing for and do not enjoy being around. I am an atheist and a Darwinian and believe this is the only life I am going to get and I would like to, despite what contemporary social standards...

I once read that "moral properties are causally inert". In other words, the fact that something is morally good or right doesn't make anything (or at least anything physical) happen or cease to happen. Only the fact that somebody BELIEVES that something is good or right does. My question is whether you think that this is specific to moral properties. For instance, aesthetical properties (like beauty) seem to be as inert as moral ones. And the properties of being money, of winning a game or of having an A as a school grade seem to me equally inert. Aren't they?

Omnivores are often defined as opportunistic feeders, in other words; they eat what they can get their hands on. As vegetarian sources of food are generally plentiful in the developed world; are there any valid reasons for eating meat? I’m finding it extremely difficult to think of any rational reasons for eating meat in my own life since I’m entirely able to survive on vegetarian options whilst still getting the nutrients I require. The strongest ‘weak’ argument I’ve came up with is it is ‘natural’ for us to eat meat – our bodies are able, and ready, to digest it. Like I said; this argument doesn’t win me over; there are many ‘natural’ things in this world that aren’t necessary for one to live a good life (and many more to contradict living one). For example; cancer is entirely natural – it is observed in the natural world. Likewise; the process of rape as a means of propagating has been observed in the animal kingdom (i.e. in chimpanzees and even dolphins), but I would never use the ‘natural’ argument...

I have a daughter that is 14 years young. As a mother I understand that teenagers in her age grow up and they want to have fun, most of them with the guys. But still I can't let her go out. I think it's wrong. But my question is, Is that really wrong? Because I remember myself in her age... I also see the friends around her, they don't go out... well she's the only one. But she suffers because of me not letting her to have a boy-friend. Do you think I should let her? Because I'm really confused...

A close friend broke a very big promise to me, knowing just how upset it would make me. She did so because she has been having a hard time lately and decided that it would be the best thing for her to back out, which I completely understand. However, given the nature of the promise she broke, her actions also amount to a personal insult and a logistical mess that I may have to deal with continually for a year or more. She claims that I am still a very important friend to her. I thought friends were supposed to have an altruistic interest in each other's well-being, or at least a sense of obligation toward one another. While in the best case she'd have kept her promise out of inclination and not obligation, I wish she'd kept it for *whatever* reason. I don't know in what sense I can be a "very important friend" given her behavior. Is it possible that she is telling the truth? If so, how? What am I missing about what it means to be a friend?

Is it ethical to "cure" a mentally disabled/disturbed person if they might actually be unhappier when they are "healthy" than they were before when they were living in their own "world"?

I had to deal with some absolutely respectless persons a short while ago. They were very annoying to me, definitely the kind I don't like. This brought me to a question that seems interesting, at least to me: Do people that don't show any respect to other people deserve any respect themselves? Or, formulated else: Should respectless persons still be respected (e.g., by the persons they show no respect to)?

I personally think that abortion is immoral. But I don't think that everything that is immoral should be illegal. Marital infidelity is also immoral, but I feel strongly that it shouldn't be illegal. In the case of abortion, I don't know how I feel (nor what I should think) about the legal question. So my general question is this: is the inference from the immorality of some act X to the claim that X ought to be illegal ever justified? If not, why not?

Several of my friends are becoming increasingly enthusiastic about "objectivism," more specifically, they eschew altruism as something that should be considered "morally good" (regardless of whether or not there are any "truly altruistic"motivations in actuality). I'm inclined to take something of the opposite tack in regards to moral issues, however. I am wondering what ethical arguments could be made AGAINST a moral system that explicitly renounces any kind of self-interested motivation. That is, could the argument actually be made that a person is being immoral if, whenever faced with a decision that would benefit with either her own loss and another's gain or vice versa, she explicitly chooses to be altruistic, just because she believes that it is not fair to "privilege yourself" above others, and that the only way to avoid doing this is to only choose for the other person?