Food isn't as apolitical as we tend to assume, it's fraught with concerns regarding access and questions like what constitutes "ethnic" cuisine.

What are all the sources that might imbue a thing with meaning, and how might we separate our endorsement of any one of those strands from the thing as a whole?

Not all voices carry the same weight, and these disparities in clout complicate our assessment of what can and cannot be said.

The harm principle represents the standard for judging others' speech, but it can't tell us what punishment is appropriate or separate good faith from bad faith dialog.

Just as tolerance cannot tolerate intolerance, the possibility of free speech must be forcibly maintained and policed according to some limits.

Criticism of the letter tends to move far beyond the words on the page. That move is no doubt justified in some circumstances, but perhaps not justified in all.

Humor is often used to lampoon social and political beliefs, but how defensible is it when others are made the butt of the joke?

We need to communicate risks and encourage compliance, but sensationalization threatens to undue whatever gains we might make.

What does our evolving moral knowledge say about the culpability of historical figures? What kinds of wrongs can't be absolved?

Now is the perfect time to rethink our relationship with meat — the industry behind it and the baggage that comes with it.

With no evidence of effectiveness and some troubling threads in its doctrines, AA has a powerful reputation it hasn't earned.

Given worries regarding political representation and the Supreme Court, it may be time to reconsider the purpose, function, and makeup of our judges.

What model of punishment best accommodates our intuitions in this particular case?

Is our unwavering belief that we should support domestic products above all others anything more than jingoism?

Are there legitimate fears that might explain reluctance to offer those ready to flee Hong Kong safe harbor and a path to citizenship?

There may be no ideal one-size-fits-all solution for schools reopening, but that doesn't mean that all plans are equal.

Does the airing of slanted and inaccurate views really get us any closer to the truth? Is censorship really so detrimental to meaningful public debate?

Does the very possibility of wrongful conviction — inherent to the BARD standard — render capital punishment unconscionable?

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

What can D.C.'s history tell us about its future prospects for inclusion and its hopes for political representation?

The new Immigration and Customs Enforcement rule usurps the ability of universities to define what is and is not a relevant piece of a student's academic experience.

Foreign affairs predicaments like this highlight the difficulty in assessing the trade-offs between incomparable values in situations of uncertainty.

The insincerity in Rio Tinto's public statements point to a basic misunderstanding regarding the appropriateness of blame and the demand of accountability.

Holding others legally and morally accountable requires individually confronting our capacity for (and complicity in) real-life horrors.