One of the biggest problems I have found in my struggles understanding common religions is the idea that we as humans always give God praise for his feats of glory, humanity, and miracles, however, it is dispicable or even pure heracy to suggest that he is at fault in something not having your desired outcome. I know this is a broad topic with many ways to go but i'm completely stuck. For instance, If a mass murder were attempted and all were spared due to someone performing a heroic act. The press, the public, our Govt. would immediately flood our country with "praise God", "our prayers were answered", "I told you he performs miracles" etc. On the other hand, if the complete opposite happened and many were murdered, first of all, most people would quietly try not to mention him, but the more bold person would respond like "God has everything happen for a reason", "only God knows" or "pray for the victims". Aren't these completely opposite outcomes to this tragic situation that result in responses that aren't so opposite? Very few are negative or questioning; it almost seems like the ultimate cop-out, like when your kid asks you a question that you don't have the answer to and you say b/c I said so. This is a hypothetical, however, you see and hear it everyday from people getting sick, the sun rising, waiting on test results... Sorry for jumping all over the map and thanks for any responses.

I recently read an article in the New Yorker about a sex offender who had a preference for 13-14 year old girls. One of the things that struck me was when one of the psychologists noted that he was under the delusion that 13-14 were capable of consenting to sex. While I don't personally find 13-14 year old girls desirable it seems strange to say that they are unable to consent to sex. What makes them unable to consent to sex? Is it because they don't understand what sex is? What understanding of sex does a 13-14 year old not know that an adult doesn't? It seems like an interesting claim to say that 13-14 has a fundamentally different understanding of sex than am adult. Of course most have not had experience with sex but nobody thinks that it's wrong to have sex with a virgin. Most 13-14 Year old girls do fantasize about sex though. Aren't there some feminists who believe that the idea of an age of consent is oppressive to women because it treats young girls as incapable of consent? Afterall, we often see 13-14 year old males as capable of having sex with an adult if that adult is female. But if the adult is a homosexual havining a relationship with a 13-14 year old male "society" (The Big "Other") seems to be as offended which is probably explainable by residual homophobia despite societies considerable progress in that area.

Suppose that a group of students petitions their college to divest from certain unethical corporations. In support of their petition, the students argue that since it is their tuition payments that fund the college, they should have a say in the way that money is spent. The college administration responds as follows. Although tuition payments account for much of the college's funding, a large portion of that funding comes from other sources, such as grants and alumni donations. In fact, the investments in dispute are funded entirely by way of these other sources. Therefore, it is not the students' money that is being used in ways they deem objectionable, and their complaint is unfounded. I think you can see what I'm driving at. If several groups fund the activities of an organization, such that no one group provides <i>all</i> of its funding, it seems like there's no clear answer as to which group is funding any activity. We could say that tuition pays for faculty salaries, while alumni donations pay for investments; or we could say that tuition and alumni donations each account for a percentage of all college expenditures across the board. Any division in spending that we might postulate seems basically arbitrary. And this is problematic if we think that supporting an organization provides grounds for making demands of that organization. (I've used the example of a college, but I think that my question could also be posed generally. For example, tax payers often make similar complaints of their government.)

Hello everyone, My name is Mohit B. and i am from India. I found one PDF online named as "101 Ethical Dilemmas". I started reading the book and got struck on the very first dilemma. <<<<<< SITUATION: The battleship Northern Spirit was torpedoed in the engine room, and began to sink rapidly. ‘Abandon Ship!’ shouts Captain Flintheart. But few of the lifeboats are intact. One boat, desperately overloaded, manages to struggle away from the sinking vessel, Flintheart at the prow. The cold, grey waters of the Atlantic around it are filled with screaming, desperate voices, begging to be saved. QUESTION: But faced with the grim knowledge of the danger of capsizing the little boat, endangering the lives of those already on board, should any more sailors be picked up and rescued? >>>>>> MY ANSWER or THOUGHT: As, the situation says that there are few lifeboats..yes more sailors can be rescued. If suppose there are no lifeboats more then the answer would also be YES..since sailors can swim. Though the water is cold they can swim to some extent and then others can ump into the water and swim. I mean to say that they can switch between swimming and staying on boat. Now, i am in a dilemma whether my thinking is correct or not. If possible, please help me out. :) :) Looking forward.

The arguments for vegetarianisms seem to be very convincing to me. Are there any good arguments philosophers have made that eating animals is not immoral?

Are spousal hires at tax-payer funded institutions (such as government agencies and public universities) unethical?

there has been talk about the use of dogs in medical detection of cancer and also dogs are being used to monitor the sugar levels of people with diabetes 24 hours a day. i was wondering what ethical issues there are surrounding the use of dogs in such a way, ie should we be breeding dogs specifically for use in hospitals and other moral dilemas. also the uk will not accept the use of dogs to detect cancer because there has been little study on how it works i was thinking is this relivent when this could save lives?

I'm having trouble appreciating Kant's moral philosophy. According to him an action is bad if we can't universalize it as a maxim of human behavior. Under that way of thinking being gay is bad because if everyone was gay nobody would have any babies and that means you are willing the non-existence of the human race which would be a contradiction if you want to exist. So I guess bisexuality is okay but being a monk isn't. The reasoning seems absolutely bonkers if you are gay whether from choice or from nature there is no reason to surmise that you think everyone has to be gay. If Kants moral philosophy is so lame I must admit that it prejudices me against his whole philosophical system. Is there any reason why I should give Kant's ethics more credit?

I believe that eating animals is a great evil because of the suffering that it causes to animals. If I tell people this, usually after obnoxiously asking me why I am a vegetarian, they often get offended because they feel that I am "forcing" my opinion on them but in fact I'm just telling it like it is and if they don't like my opinion they shouldn't have asked for it in the first place. But here is what really gets my goat, the whole idea that some people have that being a vegetarian is just a matter of opinion and that since we live in a "free society" somehow that means that we should tolerate a lifestyle predicated on cruelty to animals. According to that way of thinking if the majority of voters agree that meat eating is permissible then nobody has a right to force them to not eat meat. And to me that just seems absolutely ludicrous. We can live in a "free" society all we want but a free society still needs some kind of constitutional backbone that ensures some basic ideals are held sacred or else all you have is the whims and tyrannies of the individual members of that state. I means certainly the idea of not torturing animals because you think they are tasty is something that everyone should hold sacred and if you don't think so then I say too bad. So okay, I imagine most of you who are meat eaters are probably not going to buy this line of thinking and of course most of what I am saying could equally apply to other issues such as abortion. However doesn't the idea of democracy with it's emphasis on tolerance in some ways paradoxically intolerant to those moral beliefs which aren't tolerant but are in the minority?

Is it abuse, if the person ( allegely abused) does not consider it abuse? If the person is an adult and feels ok with it is it abuse?