There is increasing evidence that there is an evolved "moral grammar" in human brains (which in some respects resembles Kantian moral philosophy). My question is, is it possible to have an ethical system that is entirely rational and unreliant on "hardwired" beliefs? Obviously any moral theory that relies on evolution commits the naturalistic fallacy (what helps animals to survive and reproduce has no bearing on what is good and bad). Case in point is utilitarianism, trumpeted as an entirely secular and rational moral philosophy. But why would "anti-utilitarianism"--the ethical theory that prescribes the greatest pain for the greatest number--be, logically speaking, any less valid than utilitarianism? The assumption that pain is bad and pleasure is good appears to be "hardwired" and without rational basis. These questions leave me in some doubt about the viability of moral philosophy, since all moral theories seem to include premises that I have no reason to accept.

Let's say that a virus spread throughout the world and damaged the areas of the brain that are responsible for emotions. The entire population was affected and could no longer experience any emotional reactions, although their reason and intellectual ability was unimpaired. Would morality change if we no longer have any emotional reaction to cheaters, thiefs, inequity, or tragedy? Maybe it's difficult to answer such a hypothetical, but any opinions would be appreciated.

If one accepts the premise that human beings are, a priori, ends unto themselves, and not means to ends, can any form of economy be considered moral? In communism, the good of the whole outweighs the good of the individual, although one could argue that for the whole to maximize its good, the individual would need to maximize his or her good. In capitalism, I am inclined to say that each individual is treated as an end, and not a means, through the exchange of mutually acceptable value equivalents (money, labor, being the key ingredients). But aren't we also assuming that another person will be a means to our ends (by selling you my goods, I gain energy in the form of whatever you give me, and you gain the goods for a price, each of us thus engaging in a form of means to an end)? Is it moral to allow two people to use each other as means to their own ends, even if they do so freely? And can we even argue that in a free society, persons engaing in commerce do so freely? are they not bounded by the society in which they live? Is it then moral to say that survival within the context of one's life is in itself a moral reason to use another as a means, rather than strictly as an end?

In the 12-step program, used by Anonymous Alcoholics and other similar organizations, the 4th step talks about a "moral inventory of ourselves", while the 8th step is mentioning "persons we had harmed". Some of my friends say that they did morally harm themselves only and no one else. I'm sure that one can easily cause material or psychological damage to oneself, but is it possible to morally harm oneself?

Could you tell me, what are the main problems in modern ethics of sex?

If by my death I could save another's life (like falling on a grenade) do I have a moral obligation to do so? Are there circumstances when this might or might not be true? Are their schools of philosophy or specific works that address this question?

Considering Evolution as a mechanism ensures the survival of the fittest gene pools, and well over 90% of all species ever to have existed have gone extinct, is it right for humans to put such an effort into preventing species from going extinct? Obviously excluding cases where the threat of extinction comes from man made causes such as pollution or destruction of their habitat, the theory of evolution would suggest that if a species naturally goes extinct, it's for the best.

I am thoroughly confused by the ethics of vegetarianism, which to my mind seems more of a religious objection towards eating meat than a scientific point of view. Recently I attended a lecture by Peter Singer (<i>Animal Liberation</i>) on the ethics of eating meat. One thing he did not address was differentiating between the 'killing' of the (sentient) animal and the 'eating' of it. OK- so here is my question: is it ethical to eat roadkill, or animals that have died of "natural" causes or of "old age"? Further to this, is being killed by a human primate not a "natural" cause of death of a cow? If humans shouldn't kill cows to eat (because we know better), perhaps we could let lions kill the cows, then we can eat them afterwards? Isn't it unethical to tell people in the developing world they shouldn't eat meat? - especially when a huge percentage of women in the developing world are iron deficient? Thanks, Grant M.

Lets say a man points a gun at someone's head with the intent of killing that person. Pulls the trigger, but for some reason the gun doesn't work. His action would in this case have been the same whether the gun worked or not. So shouldn't attempted murder be judged just as severe as murder? Should a person be judged by the result of the person's actions, or the intent of the person's action?

My understanding is that, to enter the military, men and women must satisfy different basic physical standards. Women need not do as many push-ups, do as many sit-ups, run as fast, etc. The goal, I imagine, of these separate standards is to allow women -- who tend to be physically weaker -- to enter the military by expending the same effort (if not producing the same results) as men. My question, then, regards the man who is unable to pass the "man test" but can pass the "woman test." He is as physically capable as many of the women being admitted and, yet, simply by virtue of his gender, he is denied admission. Isn't this overtly sexist? Moreover, if the military thinks that there is some baseline minimum physical capability that every person ought to possess -- i.e., the capability for which they hold female applicants responsible -- then shouldn't anyone with that capability be allowed in? Surely, if the situation were reversed -- if women had to pass some artificially inflated test that attempted to "level the playing field" for men -- the uproar would be deafening.