This week, we’re thinking about J.S. Mill and the good life. While Mill valued individual choice and freedom, he was also a utilitarian who believed you should always do what produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Can these strands of Mill's thought be reconciled?

Mission Impossible: Fallout is an intensely escapist movie, but it's also a deeply philosophical one. It explores the question: should you be the kind of person who saves his friends and risks millions of lives, or the kind of person for whom saving the millions matters to the exclusion of all else?

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.

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.

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)。