Our panel of 91 professional philosophers has responded to

5
 questions about 
Euthanasia
70
 questions about 
Truth
283
 questions about 
Mind
371
 questions about 
Logic
169
 questions about 
Freedom
2
 questions about 
Action
77
 questions about 
Emotion
34
 questions about 
Music
282
 questions about 
Knowledge
69
 questions about 
Business
4
 questions about 
Economics
2
 questions about 
Culture
105
 questions about 
Art
58
 questions about 
Punishment
32
 questions about 
Sport
573
 questions about 
Philosophy
88
 questions about 
Law
23
 questions about 
History
58
 questions about 
Abortion
75
 questions about 
Perception
243
 questions about 
Justice
88
 questions about 
Physics
153
 questions about 
Sex
43
 questions about 
Color
96
 questions about 
Time
39
 questions about 
Race
75
 questions about 
Beauty
107
 questions about 
Animals
68
 questions about 
Happiness
218
 questions about 
Education
1
 questions about 
math
285
 questions about 
Language
151
 questions about 
Existence
67
 questions about 
Feminism
116
 questions about 
Children
392
 questions about 
Religion
208
 questions about 
Science
24
 questions about 
Suicide
110
 questions about 
Biology
54
 questions about 
Medicine
79
 questions about 
Death
27
 questions about 
Gender
36
 questions about 
Literature
81
 questions about 
Identity
124
 questions about 
Profession
1275
 questions about 
Ethics
31
 questions about 
Space
51
 questions about 
War
134
 questions about 
Love
221
 questions about 
Value

Question of the Day

In cases where the celebrity has intentionally established a false perception that was consciously used to leverage considerable benefits, especially financial benefits, the celebrity owes an apology, at least, to the public (perhaps also resigning from a position, perhaps returning goods). There's a kind of fraud in that. But the responsibility is limited for two reasons: (1) most people commonly try to present themselves in an optimal way and (2) everyone understands that. The point at which legitimate grooming shades into fraudulent deception can be difficult, but those with experienced judgment in the relevant contexts are best suited to draw the line. Neither the public nor the media have the right to examine anyone's private life, and that includes the private lives of celebrities. Except when special circumstances prohibit it (say teacher-student relationships), people do have a right to criticize others and even to expose others when the information about those matters exposed was obtained in permissible ways or when there's an overriding public interest in doing so. So, for example, if a journalists were to have invaded a celebrity's privacy inappropriately, discovering evidence of the celebrity's involvement in a plot to murder someone, the journalist would face a duty to inform the relevant authorities. Information about a child or spouse's drug addition or consensual sexual conduct or past peccadillos would, however, be off limits.