In this work of philosophical short story fiction, two suburban families and their daughters (Tamara and Kate), live next door to each other. However, over time, Tamara’s parents, William and Beverly, get mixed up in a drug scheme. Things go wrong and William’s daughter, Tamara, is put in prison while their father, William, makes a deal to stay out of prison. The narrator blames them for their own daughter, Kate’s, current issues. Years later, when William is sent to hospice and the house is empty, the narrator breaks into their house to find and steal the left over money from the drug deals from time past. He plans to use the money to help his own daughter (Kate), whom he believes has a right to that money for the harm of their negative influence on their daughter.

Should we know the story of the lives of those who produce the products we purchase? Do we have an obligation to only buy ethically sourced goods? In this work of philosophical short story fiction, Jack Benson gives his child a prototype toy from his company as a Christmas present. When they check the toy battery compartment, they find a sad poem written in Chinese. Jack decides to fly to China and visit the factory where the toy is produced. He pays an employee to read the poem over the factory floor loudspeaker. A woman on the factory line stands up in acknowledgement, then humbly returns to her work. Later, after the shift, she slips him a book of her writings, presumably, expressing more thoughts and emotions about her life.

At what point is a discussion a debate, and at what point is it undue pressure? Is all unwanted pressure a kind of manipulation and violence? In this work of philosophical short story fiction, the narrator is invited by his father to go duck hunting as part of their bonding time. The narrator wants to spend time with his father, but expresses ethical concerns about hunting ducks. The father asserts hunting is a natural part of human evolution. The debate continues as the narrator decides to go on the hunt, but is undecided if he will pull the trigger. The story ends with father and son in the blind just at the moment before the narrator must decide if he is going to pull the trigger.

Are the pious loved by the gods because they are pious, or are they pious because they are loved by the gods?” In this work of philosophical short story fiction, Professor Adamson and the narrator discuss Euthyphro’s dilemma. The narrator is invited by her professor to follow her into the woods and to meet a reclusive revolutionary leader. The professor, and the revolutionary group, want to overthrow the government because voting rights, and other civil rights, have been severely restricted by the government. The legal ability to change the government through voting is a “near impossibility.” On her way to meet the leader, the narrator meets an angel who informs her that the future revolution will fail, and many will be hurt in the process. The angel tells the narrator she must kill her professor to help humanity. The narrator is unsure what to do and, during their walk, discusses the dilemma she is in; a practical application of Euthyphro’s dilemma. The story ends in the final moment, knife in hand, when the narrator is about to decide what she will do.

When is “reasonable discussion” no longer an option? Under what conditions are we no longer required to listen and consider the opinions of others? In this work of philosophical short story fiction, the elderly narrator has two children who are no longer speaking to each other because of the upcoming election. One child supports liberal, open immigration policies, while the other supports the populist, emotional, and charismatic leader who believes in shutting down borders. There is a rally, and a counter-rally. The two protesting groups begin to merge for a pending street conflict. To stop the conflict, the narrator walks into the street with a bag of groceries, intentionally slips, and injures herself. She is helped up by her nursing aid, Asael, and members of the two conflicting groups. The video of the groups working together goes viral, making both seem like reasonable people. The populist candidate wins the election by a narrow margin and passes his anti-immigration laws. Shortly thereafter, Asael is in a car accident, and it deported to the violent country of his birth while his legal wife and family stay in the United States. Asael is tortured and killed in his home country. The narrator regrets ever having tried to stay moderate in the discussion, and regrets her role in making the populist candidate seem reasonable.

Is it okay to grow and harvest animals for use for human organ transplants? Should you be banned from, or required to, meet that animal that is giving its life to save yours? In this work of philosophical short fiction, the family has Harriet, a special pet pig they keep in the house. Janie, the youngest child of the house, treats Harriet as the family pet and a close friend. She confides in the pig, and reads it stories. Janie wakes up to find that Harriet (the pig) is gone. Harriet was killed so her heart could be harvested and put into Janie’s mother. After Janie’s mother comes back from the hospital, Janie is briefly left alone with her recovering mother to ponder the idea that Harriet’s heart is in her mother. Janie thinks if more of her mother’s body failed, than more of her mother would be replaced by her pig. In an effort to make her wish come true, Janie gives her mother the wrong pills and her mother dies.

To what extent should we be accepting of a foreign culture’s morality? Is all non-voluntary meat eating a violent act? Do we have an obligation to correct what we see as the immoral behavior of others? In this work of philosophical fiction, there is a group of technology advanced people living on an island. They have already mastered space flight, and have abolish poverty, crime, and violence. They are vegetarians, except for their cannibalism. However, they only eat the meat of those who volunteer to be killed and used for food. Of course, it is an honor to be killed, and an honor to be selected to be allowed to eat the meat of those that have died. One day, a seafaring people come cross the island for the first time. The islanders have the ability to easily destroy them, but do not as they are a generally peaceful people. The seafaring people are eager to learn have a technological exchange, but are abhorred to find out about the islander’s cannibalism. An agreement is made for a trial, of sorts. The islanders agree and invite the seafaring people to the island. They participate honestly and openly in a discussion about their culture. When the trial is over the islanders see little cultural understanding has been made ask the seafaring people to leave the island. However, before they do, the seafaring people secretly steal and leave an atomic bomb on the island destroying all the cannibals, except those that are currently living among the stars.