I am now taking a medication once a month to manage a symptom of a slow-growing cancer that I have. I just started Medicare last year and see by my statements that the cancer center charges my Medicare an enormous sum of money for this treatment and my oncologist says that there is not a generic equivalent that can be administered this way. Is it ethical for them to charge this sum (over $10,000) for an injection and is it morally "acceptable" for me to take this, at great cost to my fellow taxpayers?

Can experience provide us with the data for making a decision about what is morally right or wrong?

Is it wrong to profit off someone else's misfortune, even if your profit doesn't make them any worse? Suppose a hurricane hits a nearby town. If I travel to that town and sell batteries at a 300% markup, I can make a lot of money off of their misery, but I didn't cause them any misery. Is that still exploitation?

Since I live much closer to my parents than my other brothers (in terms of geography) do, do I have a greater moral duty to look after them once they'll be in need of assistance?

It may be unethical to, through inaction, allow bad things to come to pass. But is it unethical to fail to make good things happen, in the absence of any actual ill?

Hello. My question is about law and morality. It is commonly assumed that intentionality/ purpose is an important factor in determining how morally 'good' an action is. For example if I give to charity because I honestly care about the cause and hope to improve society by supporting this cause, my action would be considered more morally good than someone who donates to improve their public reputation (why companies are often involved in charity work for example). So an act which is committed for altruistic reasons is often considered more moral than one primarily committed for selfish reasons/ reasons that will directly benefit the person. However, the introduction of laws, with associated punishments for transgressing these laws, can change the intentionality of people’s behaviour from altruistic to self-centred. For example if it wasn't illegal to steal from a shop, people’s reason/justification for not stealing would most probably be a moral one (i.e. stealing is wrong, stealing harms society etc). But since stealing is illegal, people’s dominant/ most cognitively obvious reason for not stealing would often be a far more selfish/ self-centred one of avoiding punishment or perhaps rather more morally neutral desire for wanting to obey laws/ fit into society etc. So since laws often reduce people’s capacity for altruistically-motivated behaviour (due to the added motivation of avoiding punishment), do laws diminish people’s capacity for morally good behaviour in many circumstances? Or is altruistic behaviour often an illusion, and all human behaviour is selfish to some degree? Or does this issue not really matter, since these laws are supposed to bring justice and reduce the incidence of these immoral acts, which far trumps the above possible negative effect?

A colleague of mine is a very devoted vegan. So devoted, in fact, that he argues that it is morally wrong to wear fake fur or fake leather, or to eat any kind of non-meat food that is meant to look or taste like meat. Apparently, doing so symbolically condones tyranny over animals, supports the meat and animal-based fashion industries, and demonstrates disrespect and contempt towards animals. Now, I have nothing against veganism, but this just seems too radical. Is this kind of argumentation sound? Or are there any more sensible arguments against fake fur or leather, or meat-like food items?

Do attorneys who successfully enable guilty clients to evade conviction (or who manage to convict innocent defendants) have any reason to feel that they are acting immorally? Or are they beyond reproach so long as they themselves do nothing illegal or procedurally inappropriate in the course of their work?

Do ethical opinions need to be justified philosophically? Causing someone needless suffering is wrong but is there any indubitable facts that can be obtained through reason and logic that justifies that opinion?

I have a question that was prompted by a recent discussion with a female friend. We both agreed that a certain kind of voyeurism is obviously wrong. For example, we both thought that it would be wrong for a man to climb a tree to watch a woman disrobe through a window. The disagreement, however, emerged when we discussed a second case. Suppose a man is sitting on a bench minding his own business when he notices a girl sit down across from him wearing a short skirt. She doesn’t realize it, but he can see up her skirt--and she isn’t wearing any underwear. Now, let’s suppose that this girl is no exhibitionist and would be extremely embarrassed if she found out this man could see up her skirt. Indeed, let’s say she would be just as embarrassed as the woman in the first case would be if she found out about the tree-climber. Moreover, let’s suppose this man gets the same thrill out of this experience as the tree-climber. Is the man on the bench morally obligated to look away, or is it permissible for him to secretly stare? My friend thought that the latter man wasn’t guilty of any wrongdoing. He just happened to find himself in that sort of situation, whereas the former man went looking for it. This explanation did not seem quite right to me, however. I can think of other cases where it seems this isn’t a relevant factor at all. Suppose, for example, that the first man didn’t climb a tree. Instead, imagine that he was hiking through a forest when he came upon a cottage unexpectedly. There he notices an open window and sees, once again, a girl disrobing. Now here it is clear that he didn’t go looking for this sort of thing, but it still seems like it would be wrong for him to stick around and watch her secretly. My friend also suggested that some of the blame should have been focused on the girl wearing the skirt; after all, she chose to wear a short skirt without underwear. This too, however, doesn’t strike me as morally relevant. Indeed, we could say the same thing about the girl in the cottage. She shouldn’t have left her window open, but this surely wouldn’t absolve the man of his moral responsibility if he chose to stick around and secretly watch her. So who is right here? Or are we both wrong? Any sort of sophisticated philosophical analysis would be much appreciated. Thanks a lot.