There is ongoing debate about whether it is ethically acceptable to allow the creation of cloned embryos in order to produce human stem cells. A cloned embryo is created through a process called somatic-cell nuclear transfer, often known as ‘therapeutic’ cloning. The value of stem cells lies in their capacity to become any sort of cell in the human body. This capacity is particularly useful for treating medical conditions where stem cells can be used to repair or replace damaged tissue. The value of a cloned embryo is that the DNA from a person who needs stem cell treatment can be used to create the clone and thereby minimise the likelihood that any inserted stem cells will be rejected. Research on the use of cloned stem cells is in its earliest stage.

As our wealth increases, more and more of us undergo cosmetic surgery. From tummy tucks, breast enlargements and nose jobs to hair transplants and face-lifts: You name it, they fix it.

Many are growing increasingly skeptical of the claims by government officials about winning the war against drugs. Should this war be supported because a smaller percentage of teenagers use marijuana, or should it be opposed because a larger percentage of teenagers and young adults use cocaine and crack in the USA? Should people be optimistic when multi-billion dollar shipments of cocaine are confiscated, or pessimistic that seizures continue to increase yet have such little impact on price and consumption? Drug prohibition was doomed to failure from the start, no less so than alcohol prohibition, and the best alternative is an immediate return to complete legalization of such drugs.

Curtain. On the stage there's a row of about forty heads, of natural size, on a long and narrow white board roughly chest height, arranged facing the audience with equal spaces between them from near the left end of the stage to near its right end. The heads are all identical apart from two features. First, the leftmost head is completely bald, the rightmost head has lots of hair on its scalp, and the amount of hair on the heads increases gradually and uniformly from left to right, so that it is hard to discern a difference between any two consecutive heads. Secondly, the colour of the heads changes from bright red on the left to bright orange on the right, again so gradually that it is hard to discern a difference between any two consecutive heads. Apart from the row of heads the stage is empty, with dark background.

‘Mom's Maxim’ states that it is impolite to discuss religion or politics in mixed company. Instead, Aikin and Talisse want us to heed Mill's Principle: ‘He who knows only his own side of a case knows little of that.’ They want us actively to engage in debate with those who may disagree with us. To fail to do so may lead to irresponsible judgements, implied if not actually stated, of all those who hold positions different from our own. This points to a ‘dark side’ of Mom's Maxim.

Why do believers and atheists seem to talk past each other? From what different perspectives do they see things? The following dialogue suggests that one deep difference is about whether or not the World must make a certain kind of complete sense.

Many people hold that procreation is morally obligatory; one ought to bring children into existence because they benefit by being brought into existence. Often this line of thinking stems from the notion that procreation is intrinsically valuable; procreation should be pursued for its own sake. Other philosophers hold procreation is immoral because of the great harm it causes as a result of climate change, overpopulation, mental illness, and so forth. If current population growth continues, there will be an ever-shrinking supply of fresh water and food, leading to the suffering of future generations.

In a footnote to Chapter 7 of ‘The Open Society and Its Enemies’ Karl Popper describes what he calls the ‘Paradox of Democracy’: the possibility that a majority decides for a tyrant to rule. This is the lesser known paradox of the three to which he pays attention, the other two being the ‘paradox of freedom’ – total freedom leads to suppression of the weak by the strong – and the ‘paradox of tolerance’ – unlimited tolerance leads to the disappearance of tolerance.

According to Socrates, an unexamined life is not worth living. This view is controversial. Is the unexamined life worth living or not? Most philosophers disagree about the answer. While some argue for the worthlessness of an unexamined life, others support the superfluity of self critical examination. In his recent article, Jamison pooh-poohed the claim that an unexamined life is not worth living. According to Jamison, not only is an unexamined life worth living; the rigorous examination of life should not be encouraged due to its possible negative effects on the participants and the entire society. In Jamison's view, a consistent and unregulated examination of human life produces a feeling of ecstasy (a specie of spiritual feeling) in those who engage in it. The feeling, if allowed, could endanger both the thinker and the entire society. For Jamison, “once you get a taste of this kind of thing, you do not want to give it up”. Someone who engages in self-critical examination eventually becomes entangled with it. Socrates became entangled in dialectics, became unpopular, was accused of corrupting the youth and eventually sentenced to death.

A ‘good society’ is one which is governed by a number of prized social virtues. Amongst these virtues, surely, must be counted a deference to the values of personal liberty and inter-personal equity. (These, after all, are two of the three values embodied in the French Revolution's stirring exhortation to ‘Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity’!) In urging, or professing, an acceptance of these values, there is the implicit judgment that the acceptance entails no possible problem of internal coherence or logical consistency. In this small essay, it will be shown that the apparently unproblematic judgment just mentioned could prove to be suspect. In particular, the reader is invited to consider that there are plausible, but mutually incompatible, ways in which the principles of ‘liberty’ and ‘equity’ can be formulated. The essay draws on the conventions and methods of a body of knowledge called ‘social choice theory’, which lies at the intersection of philosophy, political science, and economics.

Issues concerning the ultimate origins of the universe have generated huge public interest recently. It began with the publication of The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, in which the authors claim that, because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing, and thus there is no role for God. This has prompted heated responses from scientists, philosophers, and religious leaders in the media, many of them asking, in effect, ‘where that law came from’. Subsequently, Roger Penrose released his new book Cycles of Time, arguing that what came before the Big Bang was the end of another universe, prompting the question whether there is an infinite temporal regress of universes or not. These discussions make it very timely to examine afresh whether an infinite temporal regress of events is possible.

Evolution, the human soul, and the lower status of animals continue to stir debate not only in philosophy, religion and science, but in politics as well. In 2007 during a debate for the Republican candidate for United States President, three out of the ten candidates raised their hand when asked by the moderator, ‘Is there anyone on the stage who doesn't believe in evolution?’ The possibility of a lineage from animal life to distinctly human life offers the opportunity for a host of objections from some politicians, religious leaders and philosophers alike. Those who express an objection to the theory of evolution take issue with the idea that humanity is merely another link in the chain, albeit the last link. They share a desire to see human life as somehow unique, different, better.