Is every idea worth responding to, or are some ideas so harmful that we should not engage at all? Philosopher Elizabeth Barnes explores this question in a recent article, arguing that it is sometimes worth it to engage with harmful ideas.

From Peter Singer's Animal Liberation to arguments offered by the ancient Greeks and Hindus, many philosophers and environmentalists have made convincing cases against the practice of eating meat. But could there be a moral case in favor of it?

In a recent interview, the controversial philosopher Peter Singer states that "Philosophy always causes offense—perhaps it should cause offense." But not everyone agrees that offensive philosophical views are necessarily a good thing, especially when reasonable critiques are ignored.

Jeff McMahan and Peter Singer wrote an article in The New York Times that has gotten lots people I know and respect pretty upset. Some have reacted to the article with very reasoned and persuasive counter-arguments. Some have thrown in a good measure of anger and disgust at them in addition.

Since the next episode of中国伊朗亚洲杯比赛直播是关于道德的要求，我想分享下面这篇我去年写在博客上的文章。许多哲学家，包括我自己在内，都在食物选择这一领域感受到道德的要求。但是，我们能在多大程度上向普通人提出这些要求呢?这篇文章试图找到一个中间立场，结果可能谁也不满意。尽管如此，我还是希望它能提供思想食粮(对不起，我忍不住)。