Is it ethical to usurp the copyright to this, and every other question deposited on this website? One could ask a question which provokes an answer equal to the meaning of life, and even though this website obtained it through answering the question, the answer only came about because of the question proposed.

Is it morally right to make fun of someone I don't even know because it's funny? The person doesn't know they are being made fun of and they most likely will never find out they were being made fun of, so, their feelings aren't in jeopardy and it's entertaining for me.

My friend and I were debating about what is considered cheating and what would simply be considered unethical behavior. Suppose two people (call them A and B) were in a weight loss competition. Every Monday the two of them would weigh-in, and the first person to reach the target weight goal would win the contest. Let's assume that this is a friendly competition and the real objective for both participants was weight loss. Both of us agreed that the following would clearly be cheating: a) Prior to weigh-in, A alters the mechanics of the scale resulting in a win for himself. b) A slips some weight-gain contents into B's food without anyone knowing. And, we both agreed that the following would not be cheating: c) A tells B that he has been eating a lot of fatty foods and has not been exercising lately. A has actually been eating healthy meals and also has been hitting the gym daily. The lie was told with the intention of lowering the sense of urgency and reduce the effort put forth by B. Now, here is where we had a disagreement. What if A invites B to get some fat-free coffee, but earlier in the day, A paid off the coffee barista so that B's "fat-free" coffee would actually include real creme and not skim milk? B accepts A's invitation, but he knows full well that they are in the middle of a competition. Would this be cheating on A's part, or would this merely constitute unethical behavior? How is this different than bluffing in poker or hustling someone in pool via sandbagging? Are b) and c) from above clearly different?

Human beings have evolved similar physical attributes over time. Though there is some genetic variation among individuals, we share many traits. But isn't it also possible that, as a result of our common evolutionary heritage, we share similar emotional and moral traits as well? If we all have basically similar emotional machinery, why couldn't we appeal to the general constellation of desires that most of us share, and use them to construct a universal ethics? If the good is what makes us happy, and happiness is the fulfillment of various desires, and if humans have similar desires because we share evolved mental traits, then why couldn't an appeal to those traits in the search for moral agreement? Just as medical experts can give general advice about physical health because most humans share similar physical bodies, why can't psychologists and ethicists give general advice about morality based upon our shared mental traits?

To accuse someone of lying what evidence must one have? Let us assume that someone argued that Saddam Hussein had WMD. We now know that to be incorrect. What is the missing element to evidence that s/he was lying other than a personal statement from her/him to that effect?

Recently, my stepsons' mother told my husband and me that her husband has been hurting her children (my stepsons). The last incident (the worst, she said) involved him "spanking" the youngest hard enough to leave a long bruise and picking them both up by the head, shaking them and screaming into their faces. He has a long history with CPS and I have spoken with his ex-wife who believes he has been molesting her daughter, as well as abusing her daughter and son (the reason she divorced him). The boys' mother seemed very concerned at first, using terms like "It's a deal-breaker. He can't beat my kids," but has changed her tune to "God made marriage first and children second, so I have to stand by my husband. Children leave you, a spouse is forever." My husband and I have contacted CPS and all have been interviewed. CPS said that they have determined abuse has taken place, but it doesn't look like they are going to do much about it. All that has been done so far is the boys' mother and stepfather have signed a contract stating that their stepfather is not allowed to be alone with the boys, discipline the boys (verbally or physically) and that their mother is not allowed to discipline them physically. The boys are already staying with their mother and stepfather 50% of the time. Since the contract was signed, the children have said that their stepfather has started to kick and hit the dogs (stating that they are animals, so it doesn't hurt them). My husband seems relieved that the drama is over and doesn't want to take any further action. I'm afraid he is in denial. As a concerned stepparent, do I have an obligation to do more than has been done regardless of my husband's preference to let it go? I believe that the boys are in danger of being injured or worse. Would it be more harmful to them to try to remove their stepfather from their lives, or to hope that he can learn (at age 45) to control his temper?

What is a definition of good and also what would a definition of evil or bad be?

I had a friend ask me this question some time ago and we tried to talk through it but ended up still stumped. The story went: if there is a husband and wife in a happy marriage but the husband goes away on a business trip, maybe has a little too much to drink or just has a lapse in judgement, and has a one-night stand with another woman and knows it was a morally wrong act does he have the obligation to tell her even though it will devastate her and potentially end her marriage? Or should the husband keep quiet and live quietly with the shame he has brought on his marriage? If an immoral act has already been committed does it do any good to be truthful about it and bring further harm to others, as would happen if the wife were told? It just seems that if it is immoral to do harm to others than telling the wife might just be as immoral as the act of adultery.

Some friends and I were having one of those classic hypothetical discussions: Suppose a scenario existed in which, by killing 10 million innocent people, you could save the lives of everyone else on earth. I said no. You don't kill the 10 million innocents. To my surprise, everyone else in the group was incredulous. They didn't think the point was even debatable. Of course you kill the 10 million to save billions. Greater good and all that. I argued that when you intentionally do unjust harm to innocents in order to be able to offer that good, then absolutely, yes, that is a horrendous thing. "By your standard," I said, "you could wipe out 49.99999% of the world's population, raising the standard of living for the other 50.00001%, and call yourself a goddamn hero." They still weren't convinced. I feel sure I'm right, but don't have the skills to explain to my friends why. Can you help? Or . . . explain to me why I'm wrong?

I thought that modern philosophy tended towards the tentative, the open-ended, and the permanent possibility of error, yet some philosophers on this site answer questions, usually on moral issues, with an almost dogmatic certainty worthy of Pope Ratzinger. How come?