Society

What can hard cases like Kershnar's tell us about the bounds of scholarly inquiry?

Hacking at the roots of pro-choice precedent leaves substantive due process exposed.

"We are not the makers of history. We are made by history." - Martin Luther King Jr.

Do our shifting standards regarding objectionable behavior threaten our commitment to treating like cases alike?

How do we protect our political resolve from oversaturation of the attention economy?

After all this time, we still struggle with Thrasymachus's challenge that merely appearing just is all that's important.

When, if ever, do a child's actions warrant punishment on par with their adult counterparts?

The tools we use to interpret the world and the way we communicate with others are evolving.

Can our familial responsibilities run counter to our moral obligations, or is such an apparent conflict only an illusion?

The multiple uses to which 'justice' can be put has us talking past one another.

The verdict answers a narrow question regarding self-defense, but cannot speak to the broader uses we've made of it.

What kind of jobs and services might legitimately require a foot in both worlds?

What consideration do we owe those convicted of violent crimes? What can't we ask them to do?

What lessons can philosophy teach us for expanding our perspective, being more generous, and seriously considering the positions of others?

Why might parents deserve a greater say over what goes on at school?

How much authority should parents be granted in shaping public school curricula?

How do we adequately honor the past and reflect on the harms the First Nations people have suffered?

How should the disproportionate significance of a less-than-perfect review affect user behavior?

The loose bounds of what we deem permissible expression are closing in on both sides.

Can we really defend our reliance on personal judgment when it comes to picking the best candidate for the job?