As you know, on Sunday morning’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I answer four questions chosen in advance from the Question Queue. Here are the most recent additions to that queue. Please vote for the ones that you’re most interested in hearing me answer! You can also review and vote on all pending questions sorted by date or sorted by popularity.

Also, I’m perfectly willing to be bribed to answer a question of particular interest to you pronto. So if you’re a regular contributor to Philosophy in Action’s Tip Jar, I can answer your desired question as soon as possible. (The question must already be in the queue, so if you’ve not done so already, submit it. Just e-mail me at [email protected] to make arrangements.

Now, without further ado, the most recent questions added to The Queue:

When would creating a political party advance the cause of liberty?

At the moment, creating a new political party might not make sense in the United States because the Republicans and Democrats dominate the elections and the media. But when would be the right time to do so, if ever? In other countries, even tiny parties are discussed in the news, and they can win a few seats. Under those circumstances, does it make sense to create a political party advocating for individual rights? If so, what would be a good name for such a party?

In your 2006 graduate paper, “The Scope Problem in Punishment” (https://philosophyinaction.com/docs/tspip.pdf), you criticize utilitarian theories of punishment that aim for deterrence of future crimes on the grounds that they don’t punish all and only those who are guilty. Yet why is that a problem? Moreover, why should a criminal be punished if doing so won’t have any future benefits, such as deterring future crimes? Doesn’t self-interest require that actions have some future benefit – and if so, shouldn’t all punishment have some positive future effect like deterrence?

Is it wrong to hate all the pink ribbons for breast cancer awareness every October?

People seem to be going nuts with breast cancer awareness every year. Yet it’s not clear that it does much good: it’s my understanding that so much money is spent on fundraising that many of the donations don’t even go toward research. Plus, we’d probably have a cure for cancer by now if it weren’t for the government meddling in the economy and medicine (ADA, FDA, Medicare, etc.) Of course I feel for breast cancer patients and I hate cancer, but should I feel guilty for not supporting all this pink ribbon stuff?

Is it wrong to manipulate your finances to qualify for welfare?

An acquaintance of mine – who is moderately wealthy – feels justified in manipulating her finances to get government aid whenever possible on the grounds that it is “getting back” some of what she has paid. For example, she had her elderly mother buy a new car for her own use, in order to have her mother deplete her savings faster and qualify for Medicaid. However, while she had paid much in tax, her mother collects more in social security every month than she ever paid in taxes. Is it rational to view this as “getting back” money that was taken inappropriately, or is it actually immoral and self-destructive?

How can I stop exchanging meaningless holiday presents with my siblings?

My siblings and I are friendly but not close, but we still exchange Christmas presents. Mostly, that means that we buy each other stuff that we really don’t want. That seems like a waste of time and money. I’d like to stop exchanging gifts with them, but how can I do so without hurting their feelings?

Can chess be regarded as a kind of art?

Can the concept of art be legitimately expanded to domains like chess? I find some chess combinations beautiful and enjoy contemplating them. Isn’t that similar to enjoying a work of art? If so, can we recognize different schools of art in different chess combinations? Particularly, could we see romanticism versus naturalism in chess?

Is it wrong to refuse to share lecture notes with a lazy student?

A classmate of mine is nice enough but a bit odd. She’s always at least 30 minutes late for lecture, and she doesn’t come to lab sometimes. In lecture, she does not take notes but instead usually draws the whole class period. Today, she asked to borrow some of my lecture notes. I told her that I noticed that she was always late and that she didn’t take notes, and she denied that. Still, I told her that lending her my notes would be inconvenient, then I suggested that she ask someone else. Normally, I’d be happy to share my notes, but in this case, I didn’t want to share the results of my efforts in attending this class on time, every day, and paying attention. Was that wrong?

Is it wrong to be indifferent to the rights-violations of people who advocate rights-violations?

Some celebrities actively promote the violation of rights by lending their support to political groups. For example, former American Idol contestant Krista Branch has actively campaigned against gay marriage on behalf of Focus on the Family. However, in a recent interview, Branch complained that people were pirating her songs. I know that Branch’s intellectual property rights should be respected, and I would never pirate her music. Yet I can’t feel any sympathy for her, given that she advocates violating other people’s rights. I’m of the opinion that people who advocate for the use of force against others should not be spared from the consequences of the kind of culture that creates. Is that wrong? Am I being malevolent? Should I defend her rights, even though she advocates violating my rights?

Am I wrong to be upset that I learned of my uncle’s death via Facebook?

My uncle recently died. We weren’t close, but I would have expected a phone call from my parents about it. Instead, I learned about his death via a Facebook status update from one of my cousins (not his child, but his niece). I’ve been really angry that I learned such momentous news that way, but I’m having trouble explaining why to my family. Am I wrong to be upset? If I should be upset, what’s wrong with what happened?

Do I owe my boyfriend an explanation for my breaking up with him?

I dated my recently-ex-boyfriend for a few months. Over the past few weeks, I realized that some personality and value differences preclude any long-term prospects. When I broke up with him, I didn’t give him any reasons why, and that really upset him. Do I owe him an explanation? Would that help or hurt our chances of a cordial relationship in the future? If I should talk to him about my reasons, what should I say?

What are “inalienable” rights?

The Declaration of Independence says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” But what does it mean to say that our rights to life, liberty, and property are “inalienable” or “unalienable”? If that means that the state cannot take away a person’s rights, then does the state violate the rights of criminals by imprisoning or executing them?

How would antibiotic misuse be handled in a free society?

It may be possible that antibiotic-resistant bacteria acquire such resistance by exposure to low doses of antibiotics. Such low doses may come from misuse of antibiotics, for example when taken to combat a cold or flu, which are viral infection against which antibiotics do nothing, or by not completing the full course as prescribed by a doctor. Antibiotics are indeed awesome drugs which have saved millions of people. But resistant bacteria pose a serious health problem, often causing serious and difficult-to-treat illness in third parties. What would be the proper way to address this problem in a free society?

Does the virtue of courage require struggling against the temptation to succumb to fear?

In your September 16th show, you argued that “it is far better for a person to cultivate a virtuous moral character so that right actions are easy for him, rather than constantly struggling against temptation.” How does this apply to the virtue of courage? The common understanding of courage is that it requires acting rightly in spite of fear. So the courageous person struggles to do the right thing in face of the temptation to retreat in fear. Is this a correct formulation? If so, wouldn’t that mean that a courageous person must constantly struggle against fear, not overcome it? If this view of courage is wrong, how would you define the virtue and its relation to fear?

Shouldn’t the government intervene when widespread racism makes life impossible for some people?

Given that the effect of strictly respecting the rights of private property owners in the South was that blacks could not find accommodations, health care, transportation, food, and other basic necessities of life, shouldn’t the government have intervened? Didn’t civil rights legislation help eliminate racism – and wasn’t that a good thing – even if that meant violating the right to property of racists?

Was California right or wrong to ban “gay cure” therapy for minors?

Recently, California banned “reparative” or “conversion” therapy – meaning, therapy that aims to make gay teenagers straight. Such therapy is widely regarded as dangerous pseudo-science by mental health professionals. The ban only applies to patients under 18. So adults can still choose such therapy for themselves, but parents cannot foist it on their minor children. Is such therapy a form of child abuse? Or should parents have the power to compel such therapy on their children, even if they’re morally wrong to do so?

Is social morality objective and enforceable by government?

Are “right” and “wrong” and “good” and “bad” enforceable objective standards or subjective preferences? If they are objective, what is the most effective means of social enforcement? If they are subjective, should we then encourage unrestrained personal freedom, with only personal responsibility as a self-limiter? Is that possible – or do we need caretaking by a (hopefully) benevolent government?

To submit a question, use this form. I prefer questions focused on some concrete real-life problem, as opposed to merely theoretical or political questions. I review and edit all questions before they’re posted. (Alas, IdeaInformer doesn’t display any kind of confirmation page when you submit a question.)

As you know, on Sunday morning’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I answer four questions chosen in advance from the Question Queue. Here are the most recent additions to that queue. Please vote for the ones that you’re most interested in hearing me answer! You can also review and vote on all pending questions sorted by date or sorted by popularity.

Also, I’m perfectly willing to be bribed to answer a question of particular interest to you pronto. So if you’re a regular contributor to Philosophy in Action’s Tip Jar, I can answer your desired question as soon as possible. (The question must already be in the queue, so if you’ve not done so already, submit it. Just e-mail me at [email protected] to make arrangements.

Now, without further ado, the most recent questions added to The Queue:

How would antibiotic misuse be handled in a free society?

It may be possible that antibiotic-resistant bacteria acquire such resistance by exposure to low doses of antibiotics. Such low doses may come from misuse of antibiotics, for example when taken to combat a cold or flu, which are viral infection against which antibiotics do nothing, or by not completing the full course as prescribed by a doctor. Antibiotics are indeed awesome drugs which have saved millions of people. But resistant bacteria pose a serious health problem, often causing serious and difficult-to-treat illness in third parties. What would be the proper way to address this problem in a free society?

Does the virtue of courage require struggling against the temptation to succumb to fear?

In your September 16th show, you argued that “it is far better for a person to cultivate a virtuous moral character so that right actions are easy for him, rather than constantly struggling against temptation.” How does this apply to the virtue of courage? The common understanding of courage is that it requires acting rightly in spite of fear. So the courageous person struggles to do the right thing in face of the temptation to retreat in fear. Is this a correct formulation? If so, wouldn’t that mean that a courageous person must constantly struggle against fear, not overcome it? If this view of courage is wrong, how would you define the virtue and its relation to fear?

Shouldn’t the government intervene when widespread racism makes life impossible for some people?

Given that the effect of strictly respecting the rights of private property owners in the South was that blacks could not find accommodations, health care, transportation, food, and other basic necessities of life, shouldn’t the government have intervened? Didn’t civil rights legislation help eliminate racism – and wasn’t that a good thing – even if that meant violating the right to property of racists?

Was California right or wrong to ban “gay cure” therapy for minors?

Recently, California banned “reparative” or “conversion” therapy – meaning, therapy that aims to make gay teenagers straight. Such therapy is widely regarded as dangerous pseudo-science by mental health professionals. The ban only applies to patients under 18. So adults can still choose such therapy for themselves, but parents cannot foist it on their minor children. Is such therapy a form of child abuse? Or should parents have the power to compel such therapy on their children, even if they’re morally wrong to do so?

Is social morality objective and enforceable by government?

Are “right” and “wrong” and “good” and “bad” enforceable objective standards or subjective preferences? If they are objective, what is the most effective means of social enforcement? If they are subjective, should we then encourage unrestrained personal freedom, with only personal responsibility as a self-limiter? Is that possible – or do we need caretaking by a (hopefully) benevolent government?

What is the purpose of government?

What is the purpose of government? If the purpose of government is to ensure the safety and well-being of its citizens, then should the government then remove all freedom of choice and expression in hopes of maintaining the safety and well-being of its citizens as a whole? If its purpose is to ensure that individual rights and freedoms are protected, then shouldn’t the government do as little as possible?

Is it wrong to work on a programming project that files tax returns?

I am a programmer, and I work for a private company. I am the lead developer on a on a system that files tax returns. I believe that all taxation is theft, and that our current tax system massively violates rights. I feel like hypocrite for working on this project. Am I wrong? What should I do?

Is yelling at and shaming an employee ever justifiable?

Imagine that a product at work must be shipped by a certain deadline – and if it’s late, the company will suffer a major loss. All the workers involved know that, yet as the deadline approaches, one worker works slowly, seemingly without concern for the deadline. When reminded, he acknowledges the deadline, yet his work continues to be as slow as ever. In such cases, might yelling at that worker – even shaming him in front of co-workers – be just what he needs to motivate him to get the project done? If not, what else should be done?

Should you care whether other people find you attractive?

Some people think that you shouldn’t care what others think of your physical appearance – and that if you do care, that’s second-handed. Others say that it’s fine if you value praise from others, as a form of psychological visibility. Who is right?

What should parents do if they regret ever having children?

In 2008, Nebraska permitted parents to abandon children of any age without penalty. As a result, quite a few older children were abandoned before the state changed the law. That shows that some parents deeply regret ever having children, and surely many more parents have major regrets, even though they’d never abandon their children. What should prospective parents do to ensure that they’ll not regret having kids? What should a parent do if he or she realizes that having kids was a mistake? Also, is it worse for a mother to abandon her children than for a father to do so, as people commonly assume?

Can Islam change for the better?

Many critics of Islam claim that the religion is inherently totalitarian, violent, and repressive – and hence, that change for the better is utterly impossible. An Islamic reformation or enlightenment will never happen, they say. Is that true? More generally, what are the limits of a religion’s ties to its own scriptures?

Can life be morally black and white?

People often say life is not “black and white,” meaning that sometimes we must navigate morally gray zones, particularly when dealing with complex decisions involving other people. However, if we make decisions based on objective absolutes, doesn’t that eliminate these so-called “morally gray zones”?

Can abortion rights be justified based on Judith Thomson’s “violinist” argument?

Even if we accept that an embryo is a person with a right to life, can’t abortion rights be justified on the basis of Judith Thomson’s famous “violinist” thought experiment – meaning, on the grounds that one person does not have the right to use another person for life support?

Should a person without other options accept welfare from the government?

I’ve had generalized anxiety disorder for as long as I can remember. I live in Sweden, and my government has so many labor regulations that no business can hire me, and charities don’t exist to help me. Is it wrong, in such a case, to accept government assistance? I don’t have any savings, and it seems like my only other options are criminal activity and suicide.

To submit a question, use this form. I prefer questions focused on some concrete real-life problem, as opposed to merely theoretical or political questions. I review and edit all questions before they’re posted. (Alas, IdeaInformer doesn’t display any kind of confirmation page when you submit a question.)

As you know, on Sunday morning’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I answer four questions chosen in advance from the Question Queue. Here are the most recent additions to that queue. Please vote for the ones that you’re most interested in hearing me answer! You can also review and vote on all pending questions sorted by date or sorted by popularity.

Also, I’m perfectly willing to be bribed to answer a question of particular interest to you pronto. So if you’re a regular contributor to Philosophy in Action’s Tip Jar, I can answer your desired question as soon as possible. (The question must already be in the queue, so if you’ve not done so already, submit it. Just e-mail me at [email protected] to make arrangements.

Now, without further ado, the most recent questions added to The Queue:

When should parents refuse to support their adult children?

Some parents continue to support their 30-year-old and even 40-year-old adult children. Usually, these adult children are chronic screw-ups without much interest in improving their lives or even holding down a steady job. Are these parents immoral for helping the child? Are the parents contributing to his or her problems? How can the parents stop in a way that’s fair to the dependent child?

Should an atheist refuse to have a religious wedding?

I’m an atheist, but my fiancée is a not-terribly-devout Christian. My parents – and her parents too – are Christian. Everyone wants and expects us to have a religious wedding, but I don’t want that. My future wife would be willing to have a secular wedding, but she prefers a religious one. Mostly, she doesn’t want to argue with her parents over it. Should I insist on a secular wedding? Or should I just let this one go? What’s the harm, either way?

What’s wrong with campaign finance disclosure laws?

I understand that people should be able to donate to whatever political campaigns they see fit, but what’s the problem with campaign finance disclosure laws? Aren’t transparency and accountability genuine values for voters in today’s complex elections? Shouldn’t voters know who is funding which candidates and what measures?

Should a man be able to prevent his pregnant girlfriend from aborting his baby?

Sometimes, a man will get his girlfriend pregnant accidentally, and they disagree about what should be done. If the man wants the woman to carry the pregnancy to term, whether to give up the baby for adoption or him take sole custody, while the woman wants to get an abortion, should he be able to prevent her? It’s his baby, shouldn’t he have some say?

Should abortion be left to the states?

Many people – some for abortion rights and some against abortion rights – think that abortion laws should be decided by each state, rather than dictated by the federal government. People mostly argue for that view on the grounds that the right to abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. I’ve also seen someone argue that since murder is defined by state law, whether abortions are deemed murder or not should be a matter of state law. What would result from allowing states to decide abortion law? Would that be the right approach?

Can a romance between an atheist and a religious believer work?

What are the major obstacles? Should the atheist attend church or church socials with his spouse? Should they have a religious wedding ceremony? Should they send their children to religious schools? Do the particular beliefs – or strength of beliefs – of the religious person matter?

Is equality a value – and if so, what kind?

Some people advocate for equality of outcome, while others advocate for equality of opportunity or equality before the law. What’s right or wrong with these concepts of equality? Are any of them part of a rational morality – or a rational legal code?In other words, can people be made equal in some sense? If so, should that be attempted?

What are the moral principles governing collaboration with other people?

What kinds of alliances with others – particularly in cultural or political activism – are moral and practical? What kinds are immoral or impractical? When should a person form ad hoc rather than enduring alliances? Are “big tents” sometimes appropriate? Might circumstances be so dire that short-term alliances with unsavory people are warranted?

How can I make my boss more communicative?

My boss hardly ever communicates with me. As a result, I’ve wasted days and weeks on useless work, and I’ve gotten into needless conflicts with co-workers. I’m always guessing at what I should be doing, and I just hate that. What can I do to encourage my boss to be more communicative with me?

How can I politely tell my co-workers that I’m not interested in socializing?

I have always struggled with the pressure to form friendships at work. Personally, I don’t want to hang out with my coworkers after work. I don’t want to chit chat during work. I won’t want to celebrate birthdays or other personal events. This is always interpreted as me being snobbish, aloof, and worst of all “not a team player.” It’s so annoying. I just want to do a good job and then leave, not join a social club. How can I communicate that without being offensive?

What is the value of understanding personality differences?

You’ve become increasingly interested in personality theory lately. What are the major practical benefits of better understanding personality? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the various personality theories? Is understanding personality differences as important – or perhaps more important – than knowing philosophy?

Does a doctor violate a woman’s rights by refusing to perform an abortion?

Many people on the left claim that a doctor who refuses to perform an abortion – or a pharmacist who refuses to dispense Plan B – is thereby violating the rights of the woman. Those doctors and pharmacists, however, claim that they’re exercising their own freedom of religion. Who is right?

How can I make up for my being accidentally rude for years to a friend?

I recently discovered that my friend hates the nickname that I’ve used for him for years. I feel really bad about that, but I also wish he’d spoken up sooner. What should I do now? Should I apologize – or just stop using the nickname?

Does government welfare protect people against theft and violence by the poor?

If government welfare were abolished, the poor would have to fend for themselves. Granted, some would finally start working, but others would likely resort to theft and violence. So isn’t welfare in the interests of the middle and upper classes, despite the cost in tax dollars? Isn’t welfare a way to buy safety and security?

Does everything happen for a reason?

When confronted with some unwelcome turn of events, many people tell themselves that “everything happens for a reason.” What does that mean – and is it true? Is it harmless – or does believing that have negative effects on a person’s life?

To submit a question, use this form. I prefer questions focused on some concrete real-life problem, as opposed to merely theoretical or political questions. I review and edit all questions before they’re posted. (Alas, IdeaInformer doesn’t display any kind of confirmation page when you submit a question.)

As you know, on Sunday morning’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I answer four questions chosen in advance from the Question Queue. Here are the most recent additions to that queue. Please vote for the ones that you’re most interested in hearing me answer! You can also review and vote on all pending questions sorted by date or sorted by popularity.

Also, I’m perfectly willing to be bribed to answer a question of particular interest to you pronto. So if you’re a regular contributor to Philosophy in Action’s Tip Jar, I can answer your desired question as soon as possible. (The question must already be in the queue, so if you’ve not done so already, submit it. Just e-mail me at [email protected] to make arrangements.

Now, without further ado, the most recent questions added to The Queue:

What is mysticism?

Is mysticism distinct from religion, faith, and belief in the supernatural? Can a person be non-religious but mystical?

How important are a person’s particular sexual values in a romantic relationship?

The problems in many relationships seem to be due to conflicting sexual values, such as one partner wanting variety while the other opposes an open relationship. So why aren’t such sexual values considered at least on par with other important values in a relationship? When faced with sexual problems, why is the assumption that a couple needs to “work on them” – as opposed to thinking that such problems should be sought out before any commitment? In other words, before accepting and establishing a relationship, shouldn’t people seek sexual compatibility in the same way they seek emotional compatibility?

Are some ideas inherently dishonest?

Some people claim that certain ideas – such as communism – cannot be advocated honestly. Is that right? What ideas qualify as inherently dishonest? Conversely, are some ideas inherently honest?

Should people define themselves using the negative term “atheist”?

To me, a rational person sells himself short when he calls himself an “atheist”: he’s only saying what he doesn’t stand for, not what he does stand for. Plus, to use the term “atheist” seems to be accepting the religious frame of reference. A rational person values individual healthy human life, and everything else he believes follows from that, such as respect for reality, reason, and rights. When a person defines himself in those positive terms, what he’s against follows. So, can a person be more clear and persuasive when he focuses on what he’s for rather than what he’s against? If so, what terms might he use to describe himself?

Is it wrong for parents to have another baby to save the life of their sick child?

In 1990, Marissa Ayala was born in the hope that she might be able to save her 16-year-old sister Anissa from a rare form of leukemia. (The parents went to extraordinary lengths to conceive.) Happily, Marissa was a suitable bone marrow donor, and Anissa’s life was saved. At the time, many people criticized the decision as “baby farming” and treating the new baby as a “biological resupply vehicle.” Yet today, the Ayalas are a close family, Anissa is alive and well, and Marissa is happy to have been born. Were the Ayalas wrong to attempt to save the life of one child by having another? What moral premises would lead a person to condemn this act? (See this news story.)

Is chivalry virtuous?

In the Aurora Masacre, three men died in the process of physically shielding their girlfriends from the gunfire. (See this news story.) Is that kind of sacrifice noble? More generally, does chivalry have any place in an ethic of rational egoism?

What kinds of privacy can people reasonably expect online?

Online privacy is an increasing concern in the media and the culture. The FTC is working on redefining what companies are and are not allowed to do with data they collect online. But given that the internet functions by sending your data through lots and lots of different systems, what rights and/or reasonable expectations should people have concerning their privacy online?

Should men be sensitive to women’s fears of being raped?

Recently, I became aware of an ongoing debate among the online free thinker community regarding proper conduct of men toward women they do not know. In a June 2011 video reporting on a conference, “Skepchik” Rebecca Watson talked about her experience of being asked to the room of a strange man in an elevator at 4 am. (See 4:00 to 5:45 in this video.) That invitation made her very uncomfortable, and she thought it was very wrong to so sexualize her. Her comments created a firestorm of controversy. Do you think that men need to be sensitive to women’s fears about being raped? Should women have such fears around unknown men?

What should a student do when he thinks his professors intellectually inferior?

The idea is i’m aiming at is how to learn from a teacher whom shows no genuine interest in the fundamental aspects of knowledge in terms of it’s fundamentals. For instance, I had a teacher whom never asked us to question the merit of given theories to mass media ethics, the ideas were presented as ready-made packaged deals of how censorship was ideal in the communication model presented to us via textbook. Considering also when asked the verity of such concepts, the teacher will hide by claiming since the textbook says so, it is truth, and if that is not satisfactory then look it up online. (Note from DMH: I did not edit this question.)

Should friend initiate contact with each other roughly equally?

Some of my friends never initiate contact with me. They are friendly, loyal, and otherwise great friends. But for any interaction or get-togethers, I must initiate conversation, suggest activities, and so on. Sometimes, I feel as if I value the friendship much, much more than the other person does. Is that an accurate assessment or is something else going on? Should I just seek other friends? Should I talk to these friends about this issue? (If so, what should I say?) In the future, should I seek out different kinds of friends?

Should parents make empty threats to their children?

At the grocery store last week, I heard a mother threaten to throw away her daughter’s favorite toys unless the daughter behaved. That seems to be pretty common: parents make empty threats in an attempt to scare their kids into better behavior. They’ll say that it works, and perhaps it does. But what are the consequences? Are such empty threats a valid parenting technique?

How would the government protect the safety of food and drugs in a free society?

Would the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) exist in free society? If so, would food or drugs have to gain FDA approval to be sold? Would it have the power to remove food or drugs deemed unsafe from the market? If not, what would protect consumers from harm due to adulterated or otherwise unsafe food or drugs?

What is the value of marriage?

What is the value of marriage? How is it different from living with a romantic partner in a committed relationship? Is marriage only a legal matter? Or does it have some personal or social benefit?

Is it wrong for an atheist to refuse to attend a sibling’s religious ceremony?

I’ve decided not to attend the religious ceremony of my younger sister’s upcoming Bat Mitzvah. I’m an atheist, and while I don’t think attending would be immoral, I don’t want to support any kind of religiosity or connection to religion. Other family members have criticized me for that decision, saying that I should support my sister and not pressure her into agreeing with my own views. Should I attend? If not, how should I handle the family dynamics?

What is the relationship between personality and sense of life?

What is the difference between them? How does a person’s sense of life relate to his personality? Does understanding someone’s sense of life help us to understand his personality and vice versa?

To submit a question, use this form. I prefer questions focused on some concrete real-life problem, as opposed to merely theoretical or political questions. I review and edit all questions before they’re posted. (Alas, IdeaInformer doesn’t display any kind of confirmation page when you submit a question.)