I don't think that I've answered these correctly or in the "logical" way, but I've been wanting to respond to some of these for a while and I finally had the time!
The chicken poses no moral issue to me, but I'd think that if genetic manipulation could produce talking, intelligent animals, then they would be taken off the menu. Some places in the world are extending "human" rights to chimps, and those are intelligent animals who don't converse intelligently with humans.
But you stated earlier that the predictions aren't unerring. You said they are accurate within a very short future time frame and after that they degrade. So it's just a reasonable guesser and has no impact on philosophical issues of free will.
Questions like this one are socioculturally relativistic. In times of scarcity, people will eat whatever they can to stay alive. Just ask the Donner party.
She needs to do her job properly. Compromising herself morally will result in compounded stress over the rest of her career and her performance on future cases could be reduced.
If so many people do it, is it really a sign of non-conformity?
This would work only until people started to notice the impact. It would be far better to make the necessary raise in one time and tell the truth to the people about it then.
This one is a no-brainer because this is the basis on which peerages are awarded in Britain anyway. Take the money for the good purpose and reward the donor, the title's are only meaningless baubles anyway.
One of the things wrong with his reasoning is the fact that he consciously cooks food for people in a below-par hygienic environment.



Bookmarks