'Zoophiles', as they call themselves, often claim that committing sexual acts with animals is okay because animals are capable of consenting, either by sexual displays (lifting tails, humping hapless human legs, etc), or by not biting/fighting back, or by allowing the human access to them, so to speak. The problem I have with this is that an animal can't attribute the same idea to sex as a human can - for a human sex may be bound up with love and other types of emotions where by and large for animals it is another biological duty. In my opinion that would mean that there is no real consent between an animal and a human because the two are essentially contemplating a different act. Am I missing something here? And is there any validity in the idea that it is wrong to engage in sex with animals because for most humans it is intuitively wrong? If it doesn't really harm anyone - if the animal is unscathed - does that make the whole argument pointless?

At what point does an immoral act, i.e. one that is in direct contrast to the ethics and laws of society, become an evil one? Both can be intentional, and with full knowledge of injury that the act will cause. Can we say that evil is an enjoyment of the injury? Is that the differentiating factor? My 17 year-old son asked me this question and we became a bit bogged down! --Laura (Australia)

My girlfriend has an eating disorder. Is it morally wrong to use her love for me in order to get her to seek help (something she doesn't want to do)?

In an earlier question (http://www.amherst.edu/askphilosophers/question/875) the following was asked: "Am I morally bound to tell my sex partner if I fantasize about someone else whilst making love to her? Or the subject of the fantasy for that matter?" T. Pogge responded: "Now ask yourself whether such disclosures from her would really be in your interest: Would you want to know what she fantasizes about when the two of you make love? Would you be happier if she gave you this information, or do you think she would be happier if she gave it to you?" Is the duty to disclose determined by self-interest? (how many people are sufficiently aware of their self-interest to thus determine their duties? e.g. how many people enact patterns of self-destructive behavior, particularly in their sex and/or love-lives?) Can the duty to disclose be determined by the interest of the person to whom the duty is owed? (How many people know what is in the interest of another person? particularly, again, with regard to their emotional ties, sex lives and/or love-lives?) Final question: are our interests (never mind our duties) determined by their likelihood to promote our or others happiness? Perhaps the fantasy indicates actual preferences rather than mere associative pleasure. Perhaps it doesn't. What is the liklihood that we can tell the difference between the two? Deeply hidden desires can masquerade as fantasy. -MS

Since life first evolved on Earth, a huge number of species have developed only to subsequently become extinct, a key feature of Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' model of evolution. A number of species face extinction today - is it right for mankind to intervene to try and stop this process?

Aaron Meskin provided this as part of his response to a question about performance enhancing drugs: "...But there might be other sorts of reasons. Professional athletes are entertainers, and one of the things we value in entertainment is the manifestation of human skill at a very high level. Sport and other forms of entertainment are like art in that way. The use of performance enhancing drugs tends to undercut our sense that sport is valuable and enjoyable because it allows us to experience high levels of skill and human achievement." I think this is a reason IN SUPPORT of performance enhancing drugs! There are individuals who are biologically high on these same hormones, who no doubt enjoy enhanced performance over those who are naturally lower on these same hormones. Why not level the "playing field"? We would see enhanced performance from all players, but the highest from those who have perfected their technique. I don't see how use of these drugs "undercuts" our appreciation of sports. I fully support their use and believe that the reaction to prohibit them is just part of our society's "chemophobia". (Of course, we're not a fully chemophobic society- Starbucks on every block, prescription meds rampant, etc., but there is a large current of anti-drug sentiment, especially in America, that just doesn't exist in many other cultures.) Thanks- Dan

Is it 'selfish', as is sometimes indignantly alleged, for an MP - I'm thinking of the UK parliamentary system - to vote on a Bill according to principle when that principle does not follow the party line?

Is fishing unethical? Always unethical? What do the panelists feel and why? BW

I have been thinking about the nature of "virtue" as it relates to culture and subcultures. My thought is that a clear way of defining a culture would be to identify the set of virtues that are respected. This would be appropriate with respect to understanding certain political leanings as well. For example, I suspect that many Repubicans would place the virtue of "Constancy" high on their lists, while many Democrats would place "Tolerance" highly. This leads to my question, Has any philosopher proposed a universal set of virtues? There are a couple of ways of looking at this. First, is there a set of virtues that is considered to be universal in that every culture recognizes and appreciates the same set? The second approach is whether there is a larger, yet still finite, set from which one could identify specific virtues that define a specific culture?

When someone accepts responsibility for a pet, what are the moral and ethical imperatives they are (or should be) committing to? What is the appropriate context for making decisions about whether the pet is to be kept safely indoors (probably living longer) or let free to roam outdoors (with all the risks that carries)? Or whether to give an ailing pet expensive surgery or have them put them to sleep? Some people feel that their pet is deserving of or entitled to the same care as their own children. Others feel some lesser committment is sufficient. And so on. How does one make such decisions if not by analogy to ones obligations to other humans, which many of us fail to fulfill anyway?