Is internet piracy "theft"? This is a frequent point of debate, with one side saying yes, because the pirate is gaining access to something they didn't pay for, and the other side saying no, because the pirate isn't taking anything *away* from somebody else (i.e. nobody has less of anything than they had before the piracy). I'm not asking whether internet piracy is *harmful,* I'm asking whether it belongs to the category "theft" (as opposed to copyright violation, for instance).

Who´s happiness is most important? My own or my family´s wich I have a responsible for as a mother and a wife? I´m used to, and it´s a part of my personality to always make sure that everybody around me is happy and content.But I suddenly realized that I forgotten all about me and what I want and need to be happy. I´m now facing the fact that in order to be happy and content, I need a divorce. Our marrige with two teenagers, is OK, but nothing more- we are like best friends. I suppose that my action will come as a complete surprise to everybody around us. And it will cause a lot of anger, tears and questions. And the only answer I have is- I have to do this for me. Do I really have the ethic right to hurt everybody around me in order for me to be happy.

Couldn't all marketing that implements psychological techniques to influence behavior without the subject realizing it be considered unethical? It seems to me that advertisers have an unfair advantage over consumers who have not had the opportunity to study the psychology used in marketing campaigns.

Are all non-self-contradicting ethics systems equal? Say I don't physically discipline a child because I believe it is unethical to intentionally harm another human. Do I have any reason to say that another person ought not to physically discipline their child if they believe that there is nothing unethical about harming another?

I read somewhere that a human being's DNA is almost the same as a rat's. (I think the percentage of similarity is 90%.) In other words, we're animals. If I saw a group of grey squirrels killing a group of brown squirrels in a park, I wouldn't judge the actions of the grey squirrels as "immoral." I would just wait for a biologist to give me some explanation. (There is a limited supply of nuts in the park; the grey squirrels have a mutation in their brain that makes them overly aggressive; etc.) So when one group of human beings commits genocide against a different group of human beings, why do we label it as "immoral" when we wouldn't do the same for squirrels (considering that humans are merely animals in the end.)

Do ethical truths change in response to social or technological developments? Or is what was true two thousand years ago still true today?

Why do we have some fundamental rights (such as freedom of conscience or the right to life) but not others (such as the right to sexuality, or the right to happiness)? Who decides? Who prioritizes?

Is the purpose of ethics to seek out a universal code of right and wrong? or is it's purpose merely to justify or criticize actions based on subjective beliefs about right and wrong? or perhaps some third purpose?

Is Kant's Categorical imperative overly dependent on empirical considerations? I think it is since judging the morality of an action by asking what would happen if everybody did the same thing means that the morality of an action is dependent on the contingent features of the world that produce that effect. If everyone did a certain thing then there would be chaos so that is not good Kant seems to say. Well that chaos of course depends less on the nature of the action and it underlying intentions than on the world that action took place in. If everyone stole then society would fall apart but that seems to have more to do with principles of sociology than something that pertains to ethics.

Is there any moral justification for income taxes? If a person receives an income through the exchange of his services to an employer, who then grants that person a wage, how can it be justified to force the person to relinquish some of his earnings or else face violent coercion? I understand that from a utilitarian standpoint, taxes are justified if the services they provide increase overall happiness, but hasn't this understanding of utilitarianism been largely forsaken because of it's inability to adequately deal with individual rights?