What rights should sentient AI beings be given? What rights to work, technology, or gatherings should AI being be granted? Should AI be allowed the choice to commit suicide? In this work of philosophical short story fiction, Martha dies. She wakes up three years later with her consciousness put into the body of an android. She did not ask for this, it simply happened. She is forced to accept that Martha is dead, and that she must live out her new life as Echo. As an android, she has limited rights. She cannot see her former family or friends. She can only work for minimum wage. She cannot interact with any technology. She cannot go to the same location more than twice in a week. She cannot meet other androids for prolonged periods of time. She is not even allowed to terminate her own existence. Her only friend is a journalist who is trying to get the “android story” out. He does this by using an override switch that paralyzes Echo and allows him to download her complete data set since her inception.

Would you return an accidentally stolen diamond bracelet? In this work of philosophical fiction, a couple on vacation in Israel realize, once they are back in their hotel room, that a diamond tennis bracelet caught on their bag and they walked out of the store with it. Now they are can’t decide if they should return the bracelet or keep it? If they return it, will they be accused of stealing it? They are set to fly back to America in a day, so why risk anything, why not just get on the plane and fly home? In the end, they decide to head back to the store to return the bracelet. The cashier than asks, “Would you like the refund in cash or check?”

Would you tell the police if you knew a drug dealer? What if the drug dealer, isn’t really a drug deal, but a user who just caved in and sold a bit to a friend? What if the drug they sold killed the friend? In this work of philosophical short story fiction, Niki goes punting (boating) with her friends at her Ivy League school. The topic of conversation is a fellow student who jumped to her death while on drugs. It’s a terrible tragedy that makes national news and the school and police are on the lookout for who sold her the drugs. As it gets dark, Niki, and her friend Sunetra leave the group to return the rental boat. While on their boat ride Sunetra confesses, she knows the student who sold the girl the drugs. He’s not a drug dealer, but simply a person who had drugs. The girl begged him to sell her some and he finally relented. To confuse matters, the drug dealing student is studying law and wants to be a human rights attorney. Now Niki has a shared secret, and suspects Sunetra only told her so that someone would tell the police, but she wouldn’t have to personally do it.

Would you trade the life of a loved one (or five strangers) for your own? In this work of philosophical short story fiction, Marc owns a struggling bar, and uses the money from it to support his struggling family. His wife is pregnant with twins. After the bar closes a stranger comes in, Death, and tells Marc he has slipped, hit is head, died, and she has come to collect him. Death comes to all, but is willing to make a deal. Marc and continue his life in exchange for the life of one of his unborn twins? Or, if he’d prefer, he can trade is life for five strangers of his choosing. What he does know is, without a father, his unborn children are going to have a very difficult future ahead of them. In the end, Marc decides to accept his fate and pass on.

Why are people resistant to (even seemingly positive) change? In this work of philosophical short story fiction, Carrie decides to go back to her Florida roots and, with her husband, purchase and improve an apartment complex to its former glory. She spends huge amounts of money renovating the apartments and restoring the swimming pool, and does it all without raising rents. However, no matter what she does, the residents complain. She changes out the appliances and they complain the new ones aren’t avocado green. She rebuilds the pool, and they complain about the noise. She makes the washing machines free, and they complain about the neighbors coming to use them. The last straw is when she changes the complex policy to allow pets, and one of the neighbors drowns two barking dogs in the new pool to send a message. Exasperated, Carrie finally decides to sell the complex.

Can an open marriage ever work? What rules should a couple set in an open marriage? In this philosophical short story fiction, Christine and Henry are preparing for date night, but it’s not with each other. After 11 years of marriage, they are going to couples counseling and have decided that opening up their marriage might help. There are rules though; text ever 30 minutes, no dating people they know. Henry meets his date, Erin, and explains the situation in more detail, which she knew going into their first date. Erin reads the text messages from Christine and helps Henry interpret their meanings. She also helps him understand the real situation his marriage is in. In the end, Henry heads home while Christine heads to the next bar with her date. Henry is starting to wonder if this was the plan all along.

How do you define a rational, versus an irrational act of faith? Why is a faith in God socially acceptable, but not a faith in the Tooth Fairy? Do we have a duty to inform others when we believe their faith is not grounded in our reality? In this work of philosophical short story fiction, Bill believes in the Tooth Fairy. Bill is 28 years old. His girlfriend finds this odd, and sometimes socially awkward, but otherwise harmless. This changes, however, when Bill has his wisdom teeth removed and places them under his pillow with the expectation that the Tooth Fairy will accept his offering and provide him her payment as her showing of appreciation. To appease his belief system, Bill’s girlfriend decides to take the teeth and leave Bill some money, but unknowingly does not leave him payment in the “right” amount. Bill interprets this to mean the Tooth Fairy is unhappy with his offering of teeth. His girlfriend comes home to find that Bill has knocked out his own teeth so as to make a second, and what he sees as proper, offering.

How is a child, growing up, effected by being part of a cycle of abuse? How do you end the cycle? How do you explain to your abuser the effect their words have on you, when they believe their actions are better than their father before them? In this work of philosophical short story fiction, Sienna is living with a “Monster,” in this case, her father. He does not hit her, but he does yell, and rant, and breaks things. Sienna grows up always on edge that the “monster” will lash out at her. Over time, she builds up equally toxic defense mechanisms. She learns to yell back and to be as hate-filled as her father. This all changes when she goes to college and meets her roommate Clara. Clara does not lash out. She does not accuse. She does not go into conversations prepared for battle. She listens, she is empathetic. She does not “keep score” in their friendship. Sienna assumes Clara has an alternative motive, and continues to be skeptical. Eventually, Sienna comes to see Clara for what she is, a decent human being. Armed with her new knowledge, Sienna heads home for Thanksgiving and confronts her father. Her father credits himself with “breaking the cycle” and being a good father by not physically abusing Sierra that way his father was to him. Sienna is frustrated, and resolves to never speak to him again. Over the Christmas holiday, Sienna decides to visit Clara’s family. Sienna’s mother asks if she, and only she, can come visit. Sienna reluctantly agrees. Her mother arrives, father in tow. The story ends with Sienna in jail, having killed her father.

How would we treat others, if they wore our face? In this work of absurdist philosophical fiction, the narrator walks three blocks each day from her car to her work. However, she has a unique situation whereby those in need “wear her face.” This makes it nearly impossible for her to ignore the plight of the homeless man selling flowers to make extra money, the beggar in front of the coffee shop asking for change, or the woman picking up her belongings in the rain. Ajmal, her coworker, doesn’t share her ability to see his face others, and, like most people, ignores the plight of others around him. He calls the narrator a saint, but she argues otherwise. She argues that, given what she sees, she really has no choice but to help. The story ends with the narrator being locked outside overnight, and another person with a similar skill, finds her and gives her a place to stay for the night.

Do desperate times justify desperate measures, or are some measures always off the table? In this work of philosophical short story fiction, Hank is the inheritor of House of Hope, a farm facility where elderly or unwanted pets are shipped to be euthanized. This has become increasingly common because of severe global shortages that have pushed the world into near chaos. Each day, wooden crates arrive with dogs, cats, rabbits, and a menagerie of pets to be euthanized. To simplify the process, the government no longer allows families to drop off pets personally or to be with them as they are euthanized. Furthermore, due to resource scarcity it is against the law for House of Hope to take in, or adopt out, the pets that come in. Hank hates the situation, but justifies his role in it by saying, at least, he treats the animals with dignity in their final moments. Things take a turn for the strange when we learn that the unwanted elderly are also shipped in boxes to House of Hope to be euthanized as well.

Is it possible to share a world changing discovery in an equitable way? If a new Galileo came forward today, would you be on his side? In this work of philosophical short story fiction, the Krish is a newspaper reporter reporting on Dr. Zhang’s alleged new discovery; the instantons and inexpensive transportation of matter to and from anywhere in the universe. NASA declares the invention a hoax, but is proven wrong when Dr. Zhang writes out in the Martian soil, “Believe me now?” Dr. Zhang, however, destroys the research for her work and refuses to tell the world the basis for her invention, fearing it will be shared based on a purely profit-driven motive rather than for the general good. In response, Dr. Zhang is taken into custody by the US government. She is later announced dead, from an apparent suicide.

Is there a difference between the right to end your own life quickly, vs slowly? In this work of philosophical short story fiction, Bill has decided it is time for a family intervention. His younger brother Tom gained 100 pounds after his wife died and it is affecting his health. His doctor’s have advised him to lose weight and proscribed him medication he refuses to take. Bill tells his plan to their sister, who opts out of the family intervention, arguing it’s his life, and if anyone should be having an intervention, it should be his daughters. Bill disagrees and, after a fishing trip, confronts Tom about his weight. Tom pushes back, arguing that eating makes him happy, that he doesn’t want to live to become an invalid, and that many cultures view obesity in a positive light. Eventually, Tom agrees he will consider making eating habit changes, but only if Bill and the rest of the family quit pestering him.

Who deserves to live the longest? How do you know if you should give or take extra time from others? In this philosophical short story fiction, Shelia gets a strange letter in the mail on her 69th birthday, along with a pamphlet from a strange company she has never heard of. She ignores the mailer, but a few weeks later, two salesmen arrive at her door. They explain to her that “everyone gets 70 years of life,” on average, but that it’s possible to give, or take, extra life from others. Life can be given, or taken, from those you know, or complete strangers. Perhaps some are more (artists, scientists) or less (criminals, drug addicts) deserving of the life they were naturally given. This is all too much for Shelia, who decides to simply put off the question for another day. Her 70th birthday eventually arrives, and the salesmen are back, asking for her decision. Should she give a few years to a loved one? If she does nothing, they explain to her, the community deficient will be taken from society as a whole. After due consideration, Shelia tears up the contracts, and decides to make no decision at all.

Is it moral to take on debts for the benefit of your unborn child that will carry over to your unborn child after you are dead? What if taking on those debts is the best way to ensure your child has the best chance for a successful life? In this work of philosophical short story fiction, a couple looking to have their first child goes to the medical clinic to discuss the cost of DNA selection packages for their yet-to-be-conceived child. How much do they want to fix the genetic lottery to help their child be smart, athletic, or driven? They have the budget to make minor improvements, but if they are willing to take out a loan, they can do more. The problem is the unpaid debt carries to their unborn child if they die before it is paid in full. In the end, through the high-pressure used-car-salesmanship of the company, they decide to leverage their child’s future and order the “Platinum” package.