Featured

If at-home workers must chip in more money to the pot as a matter of fairness, surely there are others who might be similarly obligated.

Can virtue ethics ever justify wishing harm to come to others?

What responsibility do judges bear in assessing individual's moral culpability for outcomes that are the product of luck?

Public officials have described the return to classrooms as an "experiment," but this description fails to appreciate the guidelines for studying protected populations.

Whose rights are at stake when businesses require patrons to don face masks? How should we define the boundaries of our individual freedom?

Is identity politics threatening to further fracture our fragile bonds or is it the path to reconciliation?

How should we understand the speech act of retweeting? What are we signaling and what are we not? When, if ever, might condemnation be appropriate?

As Black Lives Matter protests spread across the world, Australia must also confront the very present racism of how Indigenous people are treated by police.

What can we do when we are in no position to judge?

The WHO has moved away from including origin in the naming convention for diseases, and they've done so for good reasons.

What might justify an organization or government's wielding of exclusionary power? What does it mean to be removed from the conversation?

Should climate change policies aim at justice or fairness?

Our writers offer recommendations of the best reads you might have missed.

The value of the impeachment hearings extends well beyond the immediate political horizon. It is not a tool in service of a particular end, but a communicative symbol to the world.

What might be the moral implications of our notation choices in academic research? Could the ongoing debate over footnotes or endnotes be a moral debate?

The vast difference in states' standards for homeschooling raises troubling questions about children's growth and their prospects of ever developing real autonomy. It also casts doubt on the legitimacy of home-based learning.

How should we understand the relation between law and morality? And what might this answer mean for human rights?

Disagreement about our moral duties and obligations is inevitable. But this does not show that morality is a matter of opinion or that ethics is subjective.

Mill endorsed free and open debate as a machine capable of refining and reinforcing truth. There were, however, limits. On his view, political correctness is not a restriction of free speech but a basic tenet.

In assessing the different sides of the debate there are a number of relevant factors at play from relative commercial value to social message and even historical injustice.