Big Questions

When is it fair and appropriate to compartmentalize behavior you don’t agree with? Can you take part in something you don’t support or actively disapprove of in order to celebrate other things?

As a committed Christian, should you attend the same-sex wedding of a gay friend?

As a gay person who feels persecuted by Christian beliefs, should you attend the traditional Christian wedding of a friend?

Is there such a thing as the absolute absence of a moral standard? Or does the absence of a standard become a de facto standard in itself? By not holding people to a standard, is someone just effectively endorsing a lower standard?

To what extent should geo-political borders matter to humanity? Is a person in another country any more or less valuable than a person in your own country? Why do we place higher intrinsic value on “members” of our own country, and how to we define the hierarchy of “member”? What makes one person (a natural-born citizen) more important than another person (a naturalized citizen, or non-citizen immigrant).

A person might be born in a country and can trace their lineage in a country back countless generations. Say this person contributes nothing to society and continually breaks laws and harms other. Why does this person have any more claim to their country than a hard-working, law-abiding immigrant?

Is “freedom” the ability to act as one wants, or the protection from undesirable outcomes? Is someone “free to act” or “free from fear”?

Consider someone who has no outside restrictions on their actions, but lives in constant and unresolvable fear of not being able to attain the basic necessities of life -- is this person free? Technically, every homeless vagrant is free.

How do we separate the meanings of a symbol or a slogan from an organization it might represent? Can we endorse the ideas behind an organization without endorsing the organization itself?

Can we say 'Black Lives Matter' without endorsing the organizaition named Black Lives Matter?

At what point does forcing hardship on someone simply embitter or unnecessarily encumber them, rather than making them stronger or better? Should we force people to undergo hardship out of a desire to “toughen them up”? Should someone have to undergo hardship just because someone else did, or should we celebrate things that liberate people from hardship in the future?

Is there any value in forced displays of respect or devotion? If we force someone to show some outward symbol or behavior of “respect,” have we proven anything?

If we force someone to stand up for the national anthem, have we accomplished anything? Are they showing actual respect, or simply being humiliated for amusement?

Is there value in “performative” legislation that doesn’t serve a practical purpose but simply makes a moral point or statement? If a law doesn’t have any practical purpose – meaning it will never be enforced in the way or frequency that is claimed – but symbolizes disapproval of some behavior, should it be passed or considered?

Can you “tolerate” something without necessarily celebrating it? Who decides what “toleration” means? What is the threshold where you can minimally “tolerate” something? Does toleration imply agreement or endorsement?

If someone make no attempt to make the lives of gay people more difficult, and doesn't treat them any different than straight people, but privately disapproves of their lifestyle, is this person 'tolerant'?

Is it okay to treat a symptom of a societal problem if you can’t fix the cause? Is solving a byproduct of a deeper problem productive? Does this acquiesce – or even tacitly surrender – to that deeper problem?

Should the political Right make abortion illegal, or is abortion just a symptom of deeper societal issues like lack of a social safety net and the general treatment of women in modern society? Are anti-abortion laws treating the problem or just the byproduct?

Is gun control an attempt to treat a deeper societal problem of mental illness and radicalizaton, or just an attempt to treat the byproduct of too much gun violence?

Will we ever be able to separate notions of race and appearance from citizenship or national allegiance? How many generations of an immigrant’s family have to live in a place before they’re considered a “native” to that place?

Is a person born in the United States to Nigerian immigrant parents truly considered an 'American' in our society?

Why is someone from New Zealand who is a naturalized citizen who has white skin and no accent superficially considered more 'American' than the dark-skinned offspring of African parents?

Is reverse racism ever acceptable as compensation or reparation for past racism? For it to be acceptable, does it have to be constructive – does clearly have to raise up the previously oppressed group? Or does it also just have symbolic value? And who decides when sufficient compensation has been paid?

Affirmative Action laws are an attempt to counterbalance past discrimination. Who decides when that has been balanced?

How do you deal with “conflicting intolerance”? If someone exhibits Behavior X, and someone else exhibits Negative Reaction Y, then the first person responds with Negative Reaction Z, who is being intolerant? Is it intolerant to react negatively to someone’s intolerance?

If a baker refuses to bake a cake for a same-sex marriage on religious grounds, and is then legally punished, is the baker intolerant of sexuality, or is the law intolerant of the baker's religious convictions?

When do preferences cross the line into prejudice or phobia?

Is it racist to not be physically attracted to a particular race or ethnicity?

Is it trans-phobic to not be attracted to transwomen or transmen?

If so, how are these example different than, say, not being attracted to a particular hair color?

Where do you draw the line between parental authority and poor parenting when it comes to teaching and indoctrination? Are their points where society should disrupt parental actions that it deems as patently harmful? Who decides when a parent’s teaching or authority is objectively harmful?

Should parents be required to vaccinate their children if the vaccine has been shown to be safe and helpful to society as a whole?

If a parent has indoctrinated their child to a belief that the government is trying to kill them and they have to live in the mountains to escape, at what point can society step intervene for the good of the child?

If a parent homeschools their child, but refuses to teach basic math and reading and instead insists on religious indoctrination to the exclusion of all else, can society do something?

When is it okay to judge someone? If you have and understand all the facts of a situation, is it then acceptable to pass judgment? And what does it even mean to judge someone? We all judge privately. Is it only a problem when it’s communicated to others?

If politics is a spectrum of anarchy on one side and totalitarianism on the other, at which point on the scale do you cross over into “socialism”? In any society, no matter how libertarian, there are always collective concerns and situations that are handled in the aggregate. When does this become a limitation on freedom?

Should we care what the Founding Fathers thought? Are their opinions relevant to today’s society?

Considering that almost all land was taken from someone at some point, what level of government or order needs to exist on land for someone to claim it? And can an invader make a valid claim to land if they have “improved” it to some level? How long does land need to be occupied to change “moral ownership”?

Where is the line between shrewd business dealings and exploitation? How do you know when you’ve crossed the line and just taken advantage of someone? Is the pursuit of profit always justifiable?

When and how can someone recover from a terrible act? At what point do you forgive someone and invite them back into society? For example, can a sexual predator ever be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society?

What are the limits on laws which infringe on personal liberty but help maintain peace and order?

How important is shared language to a community? Are communities always improved when everyone speaks the same language?

What percentage of people who need an exception or special consideration is enough to burden the larger group with it? If 1% of people need special handling, but this would disadvantage the other 99%, are we morally compelled to act on this?

How far removed from a bad act does a person, category, or organization have to be to no longer apologize or make reparations for that bad act?

What is the acceptable balance point between what the private market should handle and what the government should provide or coordinate?

When does a statistic indicate a larger societal problem, more than individual faults or choices? For example, Black men are incarcerated at a rate 7x that of White men. Do we accept this statistic at face value, or do we assume some underlying societal issue is at fault?

Are America’s “best years” ahead of it or behind it? Do we need to change to get better, or change back? How do we quantify if America is “good” or “bad”? How do we quantify/validate whether things are getting better or worse? By whose metrics are we comparing, and in what time period?

Who gets to claim the “soul” or “intention” of a country? Who gets to say what is “American” or not? Who gets to interpret history and claim that a current situation is or is not “what America is about”?

Should municipal or non-profit employees be paid well? Why do we accept mediocrity and expect low pay in government work, but we celebrating high performance and compensation in the private sector?

How much does being the demographic default matter? Do people in the demographic default make assumptions about their position in society because they’re the most represented?

Are people genuinely good or bad? Or do they simply act based on their environment and their circumstances?

When does noting the reality of a situation serve to prolong that situation? Should you ignore the reality in the hopes of turning the narrative?

Statistically, Black men disproportionately commit more crime than White men. Is it constructive to call this out, or does that simply obfuscate or excerbate other issues?

How do you balance when a reprehensible person is working towards good ends? How do you balance good things that a bad person might have done?

How do you guard against assuming one person is speaking for a group, or is representative of that group? How can be separate the actions of an individual from the intentions or beliefs of a larger group of which that individual is a member?

Does representation matter? Should we strive to see that racial, gender, sexuality and other groups are represented in media? When does this cross the line into virtue-signaling and pandering?

Should society strive for equality in opportunities or outcomes? Is there a difference between what the government should do as opposed to what individuals should do?

Can a majority group promote their group without being considered domineering or discriminatory to minority groups? For example, why is “White Pride” automatically considered racist when “Native Pride” is considered noble?

Black athletes are demonstrably superior to white athletes in many physical sports and accomplishments. Is it racist to acknowledge this? Why? What else does this imply about the athlete?

When learning someone is an athlete, does this affect your presumptions of their intelligence or motivation?

Is there value in group diversity? Does a more diverse group actually result in better outcomes? Should we artificially promote diversity? If diversity is demonstrably better, why is it not inherently pursued?

If you have suffered through a situation, is it fair for others to not have to, or should everyone have to undergo the same hardships as you?

Say student loan forgiveness was proven to help the economy. Should they still be required to pay simply because it would be unfair to other people who paid?

How do you balance criticizing a child against providing that child with needed life advice? Where is the line between “parenting” and mental or emotional abuse, however unintentional?

When is a theory so settled/accepted that attempts to discredit it should be actively called out as misinformation? Or should we give equal weight and consideration to every theory, no matter how much it’s in the minority?

How would you treat someone who questioned the theory of gravity?

If a product or practice is dangerous through operator misuse or irresponsibility – but is beneficial when use appropriately and competently – when does it become acceptable to limit ownership or performance of that object or practice?

Does the existence and possibility of responsible gun ownership mean there should be no limits on gun ownership?

What is the basis of good citizenship? Is it birthright, based on place of birth and/or parentage, or is it based on the value one provides to the society they live in?

Is there value in traditional gender roles being weakened – boys encouraged to exhibit more traditionally feminine traits, and girls taught to exhibit more traditionally masculine traits?

Why is mainstream society generally more accepting of masculine women, but more disapproving of feminine men?

If someone has an advantage that they did nothing to earn (a “privilege”), do they have any responsibility to others because of that?

Do you think we should continue doing things because of tradition? Or is everything in society fair game for being re-examined?

Why do people in the arts gravitate to the political Left? Why are there so few Right-wing bookstores, but many Left-wing ones?