Philosophy for decisions, disagreements and ordinary life.
Rawls’s veil of ignorance removes knowledge of your own social position from a thought experiment about fair principles, while leaving general knowledge available.
Explore the Ship of Theseus through material, continuity and reconstruction, then test which meaning of identity your answer relies on.
Examine the distinction between intended and foreseen harm in double-effect reasoning, without treating good intentions as a complete moral defence.
Explore how a belief can turn out true by luck, and why checking the reason behind an answer differs from checking the answer alone.
Recognise a false dilemma by examining whether a question excludes plausible options, while distinguishing genuine constraints from a misleading either-or choice.
Evaluate a model by identifying its purpose, simplifications and limits, then ask whether the omitted details matter for the decision being made.
Evaluate claims based on missing evidence by asking whether a record should exist, whether it survived and whether the search could have found it.
Facts can inform a moral argument without supplying every value premise. Find the bridge between a description of the world and a claim about what should happen.
Testimonial injustice asks whether prejudice, rather than evidence, is reducing the credibility given to someone’s account.