My teacher said all violence ever does is create more violence, and that even if you use violence for good you're doing nothing long term. What do you think? Larry, 16, NJ

When confronted with so many varied competing philosophical theories in the realms of truth, mind, free will, identity, etc, I find myself lacking the abilities (and the time) needed in order to properly evaluate them and to decide upon my own personal opinions. As such, I end up being a bit of a fence sitter on many subjects, sometimes left with residual beliefs I can’t really justify nor feel able to explain how I got them. This doesn’t bother me much as I’m sure I’m not on my own in this, and it doesn’t really affect my day to day decisions. But in other areas, such as religion, politics and ethics, it would seem I have to stand somewhere. With religion I’ve done lots of thinking and reading and feel fairly comfortable with my position, deciding long ago that time could be better spent thinking about other things (I’m not persuaded by the theistic arguments I’ve encountered and I could spend an eternity exploring all religions). But with politics and ethics I feel a responsibility to hold an opinion...

If, within a marriage, one partner denies the other sex, can they morally still demand that the other refrain? Note: assuming the standard Western marriage, with the assumption of exclusive monogamy. In other terms: Can we demand of our partners, in a marriage, "You can only have sex with me, and none other, and I'm not going to have sex with you".

The following dilemma has arisen in my work as a health professional. I suppose it is more of an ethical conundrum than anything else. Imagine the following scenario: Someone is seeking help because they believe they may be at high risk of developing condition X. Our assessment suggests that they are in fact at high risk of developing condition X. Part of the reason they are high risk is BECAUSE they are worried they may develop condition X. As you can imagine informing the person of the results of their assessment can actually lead to that high risk person developing condition X. Health professionals have a clear duty to respect autonomy (including telling people the truth), balanced with a duty not to cause harm, and a duty to do good. Bearing this in mind, what should we tell the clients about the results of their assessment? NOTE: They would still be at high risk of developing condition X if we didn't assess or treat them. What we appear to do currently is assess them, but when communicating...

Why is it so widely accepted that human beings have intangible rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Humans as a part of nature, have these "rights" broken all the time by other humans and our environments. Do you think this may have to do with a strong desire to feel secure in the world we live in? It seems that in reality, the only natural rights are granted by whether or not you have the power to seize them.

I was reading Andrew Sullivan's view about homosexuality (in favor) and was wondering what would be the Kantian and Utilitarian response to his arguments.

Does the fact that we use modern technologies - which are specifically constructed only for benign purposes - to do evil deeds, make it our responsibility as individuals not to create or use any technologies what so ever, which in any way can be used to cause evil against man or other animals? Kind regards Kenneth, Denmark

What do we owe to people who don't yet exist? Intuitively, it seems to me that we shouldn't, say, cause widespread damage to earth because it will so valuable to our descendants. But can we really be said to be doing something wrong to someone who doesn't exist? And would it be wrong to do something that would cause them never to exist in the first place? It seems that if we can do moral harm to future people, but it isn't wrong to cause them to never exist, then it morally superior to never have children rather to bring children into the world in which you have done the *slightest* damage. (The children, of course, would disagree.) But if it is wrong to cause them to never exist-and, since they would drastically prefer to exist-then we have a tremendous burden to reproduce as much as possible. If it make any difference, I am interested in how these question relates to our burden to reduce catastrophic/existential risks to the human species (global warming, nuclear war, gray goo, etc.).

How obliged are we to our friends? If my friend is horribly depressed, how far do the bonds of friendship oblige me to counsel and listen to him constantly, even if I care deeply for him, and even if it's affecting my own health? Ultimately, should we protect ourselves? I feel that I'd be doing something immoral by abandoning him.

Imagine this situation. For some reason, Jack knows that by committing suicide in a very painful way, he can make Jill a little bit happier. Jack wants to do this. In a few minutes we will have our memories erased of this situation & Jack will continue to live a happy life. Now I have control over whether I allow Jack to go through with the suicide. What is the moral thing for me to do? On the one hand, if I let him commit suicide, there will be less net happiness (Jack suffers much while Jill gains little) but more preferences satisfied (one). On the other hand, if I prevent him from doing so, there will be more net happiness (Jack much more happy, Jill a bit worse off) but less preferences satisfied (one less). I suppose this is a complicated way of asking which is more important (or which is important full stop)- preference satisfaction or happiness? I'm not entirely sure why, but I wanted to illustrate the question in this way, even if it is a little confusing! Worth a shot. Thanks, Holly M.