I married from back home because of certain cultural pressures. He seemed like an all around nice guy but when he got here he changed. He admitted that he had put on a show in order to convince me to bring him here and now he is trying to control me. He also always fights with me over money matters. At the moment we are separated but not divorced and I am contemplating whether or not I should divorce him. He does not leave me alone but constantly hurts me and thinks I am cheating on him. I also caught him trying to start affairs with women both abroad and local and I feel I cannot trust him. When he came here I liked him but now I feel little to nothing towards him and I think he wants to use me for some end (hence why he wants to get back). Also he frequently hints that it's good to use women for money and etc., and then dump them for other women... Although this may not be the right place to ask such a question but what do you philosophers think of the situation? I think it would be interesting...

In many Western countries divorce laws have requirements that force the party with the greater income to continue in paid work and pay alimony to allow the other party to maintain the style of living to which they "have become accustomed during the marriage," or with similar wording. However, I am having a hard time reconciling this with some of the replies to question #1796, which referred to the obligation to have sex during marriage. Most people would certainly agree that one is not obliged to have sex with a partner, or an ex-partner after a relationship has broken up. The arguments there focused on people having an "inalienable right to one's body", but surely this same argument could be used against forcing people to do work they don't want to do? More specifically, how is forcing person A to work against their will to provide financial support for person B *ethically different* from obliging person A to have sex against their will to provide sexual satisfaction for person B?

If humans didn't exist, would animals still have rights?

Depending on which normative system you adopt the statements like “He is a moral person” or “In that situation that was the moral thing to do” will have different content, since what is moral is different in different normative systems. That being said then when looking at ordinary language usage by non-philosophers in everyday life situations I would claim (at least based on my experience) that people tend to use the term “moral person” or “a moral deed” in some sense with a universal meaning, just as if the term would refer to the same kind of people or deeds. Could you please care to speculate on why this is so? Is it only that people are careless or uninformed or might it be that there really are some “universally moral” things and people want to refer to them or is it just the particular culture they happen to live in? Or something else?

Is prostitution wrong? Clearly, it's illegal in some countries. But is it really immoral or wrong? Surely prostitution may, in some limited set of cases at least, even maximize average utility, or involve consenting adults who agree to being used by one another, or one by the other, as "mere" means. What is the relevant difference, in principle, between a one night stand and an instance of prostitution? Or between paying for sex and paying for a cab-ride home for one's sex-partner after a one night stand (or paying for a meal or drinks beforehand)?

Generally student-teacher romances are frowned upon, but what about this? The facts: He (male) is 56. I am 59. I'm not in a degree program, as I already have a BA and an MA, too-- taking classes in music for fun and personal enrichment. We're both single. I'm widowed and he is recently divorced. There is definitely chemistry and a terrific vibe between us. Lots of "Oh yes, THAT'S my favorite book/food/movie, too!" He has same number of pets as me. He has shared favorite poems with me even. He is THE best teacher in his particular field, and I will want to take at least three more courses with him. (One each semester, as I work also.) Does anyone see any ethical obstacles to our dating before I finish taking all of these classes?

I know it is considered an abuse of free speech to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. But, should it also be considered an abuse of free speech to shout "Satan!" in a crowded fundamentalist church (supposing, for argument's sake, that doing so would engender a similar response)? How much does the universality or non-universality of the mindset of the people affected determine the wrongness of this action? A similar, but more personal situation is that my father, a WWII veteran, suffered from "shell shock" (a type of post-traumatic stress), yet a neighbor thought it amusing to set of loud fireworks not far from our house on Independence Day even after being informed of the distress it caused, and cited his right (probably a speech-related right) to do so. Are we obligated to take into account non-universal mindsets when determining if the right to free speech applies? What properties of certain mindsets in such cases would give them priority over free speech rights? The Danish cartoon case is the...

I am in love (or as convinced of it as I've ever been), but the woman I love is my best friend. This situation leaves me in emotional ruin after every time we see each other. I am sure that she is not romantically interested in me. What I need to know is: to what extent am I obligated to make my feelings clear to her, even if doing so runs the risk of damaging our friendship?

Can the well-documented placebo effect in medicine be applied to the comfort religious belief gives many? In the case of religion, should such an affect be encouraged, discouraged, or dismissed? You could argue that none of us will ever know until we die, and if we were wrong in being religious we will never know we got it wrong. If various monks or nuns in various religions (to take an extreme example of devotion) got it wrong - and some would have to have had if you subscribe to the logical view that only one religion can assure you an afterlife, what possible advice can be given? If you feel someone is wasting their life on a misguided religious quest should you just preserve silence, salute the meaning it lends their life and leave well alone? What duty do we have here, if any? Philosophers understand the points involved better than most and can see through many misconceptions in religious belief that believers are unaware of. Each-to-his-own is surely a tragic cop-out.

If we consider the possibility of superior life forms and the possibility of their interference of our own human species for their own gain, and then looking back at our own treatment of animals (inferior species), are Zoos ethical?