If a man/woman kills someone and gets in an accident then gets amnesia is the person still accountable for their past actions on the grounds that they're a "new person," because they have no traits of old self?

I love reading the Qs and As on this site, and a recent post recommended a book "The Elements of Moral Philosophy" by Rachels. I got the book from my local library and really enjoyed it. What would be a good follow-up book on these topics? I have a hard time slogging through the original basic philosophy works, so I really value a book like this that is serious but not too technical for a layperson. Thanks.

How drunk is too drunk to consent? Lets take several scenarios. A karaoke bar which relies on drunk patrons for entertainment. At least some of those people will inevitably regret their performance. If they were in there right minds they would never have done such a thing but nobody really cared about that. If a person has sex with a person who was so drunk that they had sex with someone they wouldn't normally have sex with then some people consider that bad. Others don't. Depending on how drunk the person was some might consider it rape but another person would disagree. What is the appropriate standard then for consent? I think they if a person is 'blotto' then it is likely rape but to be honest I think a person has to be extremely drunk to be unable to consent to sex, for example so drunk they don't know what is going on. I don't think impaired judgment is a standard to go on. I would also suggest that there is a degree of prudery in the idea that the ramifications of merely having sex do to bad judgment are so significant that we need to protect people from the supposedly awful sexual decisions that they make when they are drunk. It's not like somebody is giving a person booze while they are signing contracts that could have lifelong financial ramifications its just plain old no eternal significance sex. Right? There seems to be some underlying under examined and unarticulated notion to the contrary. Also I must also ask why there is a double standard here. The most men are said to regret is finding that they had sex with someone that they didn't find physically attractive on the morning.

Given how evil slavery was isn't it inappropriate that we (Americans) have portraits of pro-slavery politicians on our money?

Breaking up with a partner can be very hurtful for him or her. Should I admit that I cheated on him/her and that this is the reason for me to question our relationship or should I rather keep the secret in order not to hurt him/her more than necessary?

Is it possible to have a liberal attitude toward sex and be opposed to abortion?

Do you think jealousy is morally wrong or is it a natural thing to be jealous?

Hello, My name is John T., a senior in high school. My question, I do regret, does include "what is evil", but before this message is ignored I wa hoping to bring the idea of existentialism into the topic. I specifically have been looking into views of Albert Camus in his book "The Myth of Sisyphus" which deals with absurdism. I will admit this does unfortunately have some connections to my Ap Literacy class. Before you decide to ignore this I'd like to narrow it down as a great personal interest. I decided to go all out and do real research. The assignment asks us to define our personal definiton of evil. As I stated before I have included absurdism. The central idea of my definition is one that completely cancels out all study of morals, ethics, psychology, religion, etc... I have decided that there is no evil. Evil is a term that humans have created to describe the world better. But beyond humans, evil has no meaning. We use it to categorize and theorize because that's who we are (which I understand is debatable). Moral and psychological are simply social and individual definitions that are , from my understanding) decided by current culture and upbringing of the individual. In a nut shell this is the view I have decided on. I'm asking for opinions, references to other works that may help, etc.... Thank you for your time

What exactly does the wrong of "offending" someone (as in making a racist joke, say) consist in?

I have some questions with vegetarianism. The main thing is that I do believe that animal suffering is a bad thing, but I don't think that that is a reason for people not to eat animals. I'm not asking here about the whole issue, but only about the following real case: I own a small piece of land which has been mostly unused. Last year, I bought a dozen of chicks, gave them a nice place to live, bought them some grain, gathered other kinds of food for them (plants, insects, snails, etc.) and took care of them generally. Now I have a dozen of chicken that I am about to slaughter and eat. Is there a reason for me not to do so?! Should I feed them eternally? Should I free them so that a car will smash them? Shouldn't I have bought them in the first place?