Can the taking of another's life, even in self-defence, ever be justified?

Do truth and morality affect beauty? We hear of immoral beliefs being 'ugly'. All other things being equal, would a piece of art that supported falsity and immorality be any less beautiful? (For example, art that supported the Nazi party?)

Is the use of animals in scientific research justified?

Is it morally wrong to tell children that Santa exists? Regardless of how much joy and excitement kids get from believing the Santa myth, it is an outright lie, so how can it be regarded as morally right? Should we always take the moral high ground and tell the truth where children are concerned, or should we make exceptions? When they find out the truth, aren't we teaching children that no one, not even their parents, can be trusted?

How much, if any, of our money should we donate to try and alleviate the profound levels of human suffering which exist in many parts of the world? I assume we accept that we have a strong moral obligation to alleviate human suffering if it is within our power and that this obligation becomes all the sharper if we benefit materially from the forces which keep people in poverty. For instance some would argue this is the case in Africa. Say I could live in relative if basic comfort on 50% of my salary. Am I morally obliged to donate the other 50% to initiatives which aim to redress the life-threatening poverty in which other people live? I accept that long-term solutions to the problem may be provided by government action on trade etc. over which I as an individual have little or no control. But I would like to know whether, in the absence of these long-terms solutions, the panel feels that I (together what I assume is the vast majority of westerners) am acting immorally by donating only a small proportion...

Are virtues something innate within all people at birth, or are they things that one learns over time, and could the same thing be said about one's morality and motivations? Thanks, Gene Mauldin

I've read that The Prince by Machiavelli is all about how the ends justify the means. However, it seems to me that the means are also justified in themselves. I think that many of Machiavelli's tactics are just common sense that should be practiced in any case, though obviously in today's world you'd take care of political enemies by propaganda (for example) rather than killing them. Is there a philosophical case for this idea that the means are justified?

Dear Scholars: At what point can the end ever justify the means? I am particularly interested in your response in the context of criminal justice. For example, is it ever acceptable for a police officer to perjure himself/herself to ensure a conviction of a defendant he/she knows to be guilty? Pete C.

As a veggie, I am continually conscious that I have made a moral choice which does not fit with society's morals on the issue (in general). I believe that in this world of choice, I can have an adequate diet without the need to kill animals. What does the panel feel about this issue?

Beneficent person (-A-) brings two people (-B- and -C-) together for the sake of helping each of them. Years later, -A- discovers that -B- caused harm to -C- at the time when -A- initiated the help. Does -A- have any responsibility for -C-'s being harmed?