how should you behave on the internet

This is as much a practical question as a philosophical one, and from that perspective, I would say this: Remember that nearly everything you post on the internet is archived and searchable, including email, so try not to put anything out there that you wouldn’t want people to be able to connect to you ten years from now. I think we all forget that rule from time to time, but we do so at our own risk.

Other than that I think people should try to conduct themselves on the internet with some version of the same standards they would apply in person. The internet is an opportunity to create a new persona, but you should try to make it a better persona, not a worse one. Be kind and helpful to those you encounter, even the “newbies,” treat others with graciousness and politeness, strive to accomplish good things and avoid negative ones. No one meets those standards all the time, of course, but that’s an ideal to strive for. When you look back at your old posts a year from now, you’ll be happier to see a compilation of witty and appropriate comments than a record of flame wars, random trolling, and pictures of your butt.

Is there a Philosopher that states about making the world a better place?

Thanks for your question. In many ways, you could say that “making the world a better place” was the explicit or implied aim of a large majority of philosophers throughout history; from Plato to Confucius to Marx to Singer. The big disagreements, of course, come from different ideas of what a “better world” would look like, and how we could get there.

For Plato, the better world is the one that is more in line with the “Ideal of Perfect Goodness”, and where people make rational decisions in accordance with timeless ideals. For Confucius, a better world is one where people act virtuously, according to the traditions of their ancestors. For Marx, the better world is the result of the revolution of the proletariat, while (Peter) Singer believes that we should act in ways that maximize the happiness of all life forms, including humans and animals alike.

From my point of view, the key problem we need to solve as human beings is the tension between living as fully realized individuals, and living in ways that will support best interests of humanity as a whole. If we can solve that problem, I believe we will also be able to resolve problems such as the self-destructive practice of war and the ongoing destruction of our natural environment, both of which are aggravated by our consumerist culture.

Three human acts/choices that are illegal but not immoral

Thanks for your question.

The tricky part about answering this question is that we generally consider there to be a certain morality that automatically attaches to following the law. In general, the argument is that the rule of law is a necessary (or at the least, a beneficial) thing for humanity as a whole, given that we are social creatures and must live with each other. Thus, breaking a law, no matter what it is, carries some sense of immorality, since it weakens that structure we all live within. To be technical, therefore, we should require that our illegal acts be not merely morally neutral, but that they should have enough moral value to outweigh the moral costs of illegality.

The first, and most important answer is civil disobedience –the breaking of a law that is itself immoral and unjust. Paradigmatic examples from the recent past include violations of the laws of segregation in the American South or the laws of apartheid in South Africa. Illegal strikes and protests can also come under this categorization, when they stand in opposition to practices that are cruelly exploitative or harmful.

If we set aside the objection that breaking the law is immoral in itself, there are many practices which are illegal, but are arguably not immoral in of themselves. For example, to drink (any) alcohol at age eighteen is illegal in the United States, yet (unless you believe alcohol drinking to be intrinsically immoral) it is not immoral outside of its illegality. The putative justification for the law is that eighteen-year-olds are not mature enough to drink safely and responsibly –if eighteen-year-olds drank exclusively in moderation, the law would lose its moral justification.

A final category of illegal-but-not-immoral actions is the breaking of laws which are themselves ridiculous or meaningless. For example, the internet tells me that Idaho state law makes it illegal for a man to give his sweetheart a box of candy weighing less than fifty pounds. Laws of this nature are generally ignored by common consent. The argument here is that actually following such laws would be of greater damage to the rule of law than to break them.