APOLOGIES FOR HISTORICAL EVENTS I have been concerned in recent years about the tendency of governments and other bodies to apologise for shameful events perpetrated by their predecessors. Instances that spring to mind are the Australian government's apology to the aboriginal population for their previous maltreatment, the British government's apology to the descendants of First World War servicemen shot for cowardice, and most recently, the British Prime Minister's apology to people who were displaced and sent to Australia as children to lives of abuse and hardship. The first thing that springs to my mind is that it's easy to apologise for something that you personally had no part in. It seems to me that it is most likely done for political enhancement rather than true remorse. Surely the only people who could legitimately apologise are those who perpetrated the act, and if they are long dead, then the time for true apologies has expired. The fact that the recipients of these apologies (usually the descendants of the victims), seem to take comfort from them makes me very uncomfortable. I can't help but feel that they have been short-changed and are settling for a pseudo-apology when the real thing is no longer possible. I have no problem with a modern government condemning the wrongdoings of its predecessors, but I think that these apologies are a cheap and cynical ploy to achieve political popularity. Don't you agree that the only person who can legitimately apologise for an injustice or atrocity is the perpetrator?

As a vegetarian, when I consider the prospect of having a child I must ask myself whether to bring her up on the same diet as mine. I have met people who resentfully continue to be vegetarians because their parents brought them up that way and they could never ingest meat properly. Is it fair for parents to treat a child in this way and would you answer that question differently if the majority of adults, but not children, had freely chosen to be vegetarians and were now asking themselves the same question?

I am of legal age for sexual experiences and my partner is also. My question pertains to the rightness or wrongness of consensually losing my virginity to my partner after knowing her for only two days. I care about her quite a bit and she I. I like to think that I make halfway good decisions, but I felt so caught up in the moment that I stopped thinking and just ran on instinct. I seldom, if ever, make rash decisions but this time was different. So in this situation was I morally wrong to give away my virginity so quickly to someone I recently met? Please note that I am not a devout Christian but consider myself a student of Platonic, Aristotelian, and Kantian thought, I hope this helps frame my mindset and the internal conflict I have been experiencing. Thank you for your help.

Should prominent adults (e.g. athletes) be held responsible as role models for young children even if they do not consider or present themselves as such?

Your company does work for a government-run enterprise. While waiting to be paid, the country suffers a massive earthquake. The enterprise is damaged but continues to run. Should the debt be paid or should the company write it off without any expectation of payment? The company is not a charitable organization.

Your marriage of 10 years is "in a bad place" and you find yourself seeking "compensatory" emotional gratification through extra-marital sex, with a) an acquaintance and then b) briefly, while drunk, with the spouse of your sibling. You realise your mistake. You tell no-one, out of cowardice, but also out of sorrow that it has happened and a knowledge that you love your spouse and you know that your spouse would be devastated by what you have done. You return to the marriage with determination to do better and the behaviour never reoccurs. You devote yourself to loving and caring for your spouse and you both enjoy a deepening relationship in which both parties commit and contribute wholeheartedly. Over the next ten years your spouse becomes progressively more sick and eventually dies without ever discovering your earlier treachery. Almost simultaneously, your sibling's marriage breaks up and the "in-law" behaves shittily, claiming that the break-up of the marriage is entirely the fault of your (innocent) sibling who is baffled by, and distraught about the break-up. You know that the "in-law" has been serially un-faithful to your sibling but your sibling is unaware that their spouse's infidelity involves you. Question: How do you come to terms with the universal goodwill that comes your way for your apparently self-less care of your dying spouse throughout the long years of illness, when you look back and realise that for you, it was but a poor penance for the wrongs you committed in secret? Does your love for your spouse have any meaning now? And their love for you? And should you confess your sins to your sibling, knowing that your children may ultimately discover what you did? What "ought" you to do????? And why? I am so sorry for the clumsy pronoun use - I did not want a gender-biased answer (as if that could happen here of all places!!!) I so need help with this - I am in agony...

I am doing a project for my philosophy class. When I google search for the ethically legitimate function of civil servants, I am finding zero. I am curious to find out if the code of conduct that civil servants follow applies to all professions (if there has every been just one code of conduct), also have these codes of conduct ever been revised. With more cultures and religious beliefs coming into play in society I am wondering if this has been addressed at all? Thank-You for your time, Becky J.

Is it right to kill in self-defense or use any type of violence?

Hi, I'm wondering what is the purpose of moral philosophy assuming that our moral intuitions are mere products of evolution. Evolutionary psychology seems to explain our moral roots (genes that coded for cooperation helped the organisms in which they resided reproduce and replicate those genes). Given this, our instincts that say we should behave in certain ways are merely adaptations that increased survival. It seems then that there is no objective answer to "What should I do?" and the entire field of normative ethics is premised on the delusion that there is. Wouldn't it be more honest for professors of moral philosophy to tell their students that they're merely looking for a consistent framework for decision-making that best coheres with our moral intuitions? And that outside of these intuitions (which arose because they increased survival), there is no warrant for believing in some absolute, metaphysical grounding of ethics--in other words an objective answer to the question "what SHOULD I do?" Thanks!

Is it immoral for a person in a rich country to adopt a child from a very poor country, while the parents are still alive. Often, the parents in poor countries will beg rich people to take their children, so consent is not an issue.