If all options were possible, what policy changes would make voting, and democracy, work better? In this work of philosophical short story fiction, the narrator lives in a world where all public political affiliations are illegal leading up to, and shortly after, their every-ten-year elections. No colors, no symbols, and no public speech so as to limit political misinformation and post-election turmoil. Additionally, everyone is required to vote, unless they are granted a government exemption. This is meant to create a more stable democracy. The narrator’s party ends up winning the election. At the end of the story, the evil side of this “improved” democracy shows itself; those that lose the election are summarily rounded up and killed by the government.

How do you determine who gets medical treatment? What is the basis by which to determine who gets medical treatment? In this work of medical ethics short story fiction, Libby works as a salesperson at the Phoenix Rejuvenative Sciences Center. The medical center provides bionic organ transplants for the rich. However, their most important product is Fenixir, nontechnology bots that attack damaged and diseased cells. Using this technology, aging can be severely slowed, cancer can be halted, and organ damage can be repaired. Libby’s daughter, Anna, is suffering from glioblastoma multiforme. Treatment isn’t working and she is likely to die. Anna decides to steal Fenixir from the medical center and give it to Anna to save her life. The procedure is successful, but Anna is caught by the company and forced to strike a bargain to keep from being prosecuted for her crime.

What does it mean to be alive? How do you know if violence is ever okay? In this work of philosophical short story fiction, the male owner has purchased a female service android for his house. She talks, she has sex, and she serves her male owner in every way. Over time, her male owner becomes more aggressive and more violent towards the android woman. He punches her and, later, rips her arm off and beats her with it for incorrectly mixing his nightly drink. He takes the android to Joe, the local android repair person. Joe repairs and reprograms the android woman so that, the next time she is attacked, she fights back and kills her owner.

Does empathy and moral choice only require that we better understand things from the perspective of others? What if we could force criminals to get that better understanding? In this work of nature-of-punishment short story fiction, Rat has been sentenced to a government “brainwashing” facility. He regrets nothing, save having been caught. He comes from the mean streets, and sometimes that means doing horrible things to get by. As part of his punishment, the government forces him to live his criminal experiences three times. First, from his own perspective. Next, from the perspective of the person the crime was committed against. And finally, from a meta view that allows him to see how his actions, and the actions of others, fit into the larger repeating cycles, in the city. Rat emerges from the program with a new perspective and is ready to begin assisting the program with cleaning up the city.

Do the ends justify the means? Is bribery and corruption acceptable if, at the end of the day, it serves the greater good? In this work of philosophical short fiction, Reverend Clarence Washington has been the senior pastor for nearly forty years at Gethsemane Baptist Church in New Orleans. Post hurricane Katrina is he working hard to get his church, and the surrounding area, improved so he can better serve his congregation and the community. Clarence is called by the mayor because there was a mugging in his ward just a few nights earlier. This scares the bankers who are putting up the necessary building loans. Clarence goes to the local gangs and pays them to keep the streets safe for visiting tourists and white people. To smooth things over he crates a multi-congregational coalition in support of the project. The mayor visits Clarence and tells him the budget for the renovations will need to be cut, there simply isn’t enough money for everything he wants. Of course, there are “overhead expenses” for the mayor’s campaign. Clarence’s wife is also on salary from Clarence’s church. Seems corruption goes both ways. In retaliation, Clarence calls the FBI to tell them about what’s been going on in the mayor’s office.

How do you decide which species get to thrive, and which should die off? In this work of philosophical short science-fiction, the archeologists of the planet have uncovered a hidden chamber. In it, they have found a small group of “ancient” people in hibernation. They decide to free one of them so they can learn more about their culture, and decipher the hieroglyphics all around the chambers. What emerges is a huge surprise; a talking, intelligent, female cow. A cow that is the intelligent version of the very animals his people eat. She calls herself, “human.” Over the weeks, the archeologist learns the basics of her language to communicate. It seems her people lived hundreds of generations ago, but were stricken with a disease that was killing off the world population, she is dying of it too. They went into hibernation. The archaeologist shows the human that today humans exist, but they are treating like livestock and lack her level of intelligence. It turns out there was a mutation that allowed humans to survive, but that same mutation gave them the intelligence of beasts. Working together, they realize they could cure their livestock humans, but this would cause the new dominant intelligent species on the planet to die off. They decide it is better to put her back into hibernation.

What duties do you owe to those in serious danger? To what level is the risk to your own well-being relevant to helping others? In this work of philosophical short story fiction, the narrator and her friend Tasha live in Florida. Twice a month they do nighttime speedboat drug runs for the Columbians. After completing a pickup, they are running a full boat of marijuana back to the States when they see a distress flare in the middle of the ocean. They decide to help the person in need in the hopes that, in his gratitude, he will not inform on them. They rescue the lone man, dropping him off near shore, and quickly head home. A few weeks later the police show up and arrest the narrator. She is sentenced to a year in prison. Upon parole, she finds out the man she saved was also running drugs, was captured, and traded information about her for his freedom.

To what degree do serious issues require serious consequences for politicians who fail to address them? Should politicians who fail to keep campaign promises have greater consequences than not being reelected? In this work of philosophical short story fiction, Brian Greenwald is running a unique presidential campaign. Not only is he a single-issue candidate for stopping global warming, but an ominous figure follows him everywhere with the promise to kill him at the end of his term if he fails to move the needle. The electorate knows this, and elects Greenwald President in a landslide. Everything he does in office is focused on the single goal of lower greenhouse gas emissions. At the end of his first term emissions have gone flat, but not down. By the end of his second term, even after exceptional efforts, global greenhouse gas emissions have failed to significantly fall. Good to his word, the ominous figure kills him for failing to deliver.

What does it mean to have faith? If you have absolute proof God did not exist, would it change your moral duty to others? In this work of philosophical short story fiction God, literally, lives in a temple as a being among the people. He has guided and instructed them for centuries until, one day, he declares he has nothing more to teach, and leaves. The local clergy go into a period of grief while the cities fall into lawless chaos. The clergy/narrator, likewise, falls into a deep depression as he sees the temples and religious infrastructures quickly fall into disarray. He meets at the “first temple” with the remaining leaders who are equally distraught and lack answers. He burns his religious belongings and falls into a deep depression. His church is ransacked and later turned into an elementary school. In the end, narrator gets a job working at a museum.

How do you know if what you feel is real, or is simply the natural result of a modified belief/desire? Does it even matter? In this work of philosophical short story fiction, Susan and Richard are getting a divorce, but their son is struggling to come to terms with it. They head to the clinic to learn about using the “Davidson Method” to modify their child’s brain so he will be more accepting of their divorce. Alison, the person in charge of explaining their options to them, explains that long term brain modifications in children are not permitted. However, she suggests, as adults, they could use the method to make a long-term modification so that they are happy in their marriage. They reject this idea. The next option, she suggests, is to modify them so that they don’t care that their child is unhappy about the divorce. They likewise, reject this idea. Alison explains to them the desire to make their child happy too, can be modified. The couple rejects the idea and leaves the office, determined to work harder on their marriage, rather than face the horrible prospect of programming themselves not to love their child.

How much say should each partner get in deciding to keep, or abort, a pregnancy? Should you believe what your significant other tells you? In this work of philosophical short story fiction, Charles and Muriel are engaged to be married. Muriel surprises Charles by telling him she is pregnant. They had previously discussed, and agreed, they didn’t want to ever have children. Muriel, however, forgets to take her birth control pills and skips a few days. Charles thinks she did it on purpose. Regardless, Muriel now wants to be a mother and is determined to keep the baby. Charles leaves in a huff, but comes back a day later. They keep the baby and get married.

What does it mean to be dead? If you were living in a perfect, but false, moment in time, would you choose to leave it? In this work of philosophical short fiction, Linus and Axel are sitting in Central Park on a perfect October day. They have lived in this same day, seemingly, forever. They know they are both dead. Linus died about ten years later than Axel. It occurs to Linus that if they are both seeing his vision of Central Park, it must be his reality. Linus theorizes that, at the moment of death, our brain activity speeds up dramatically, making it seem like our final moment in time lasts forever. However, it’s not real. Linus decides to end this moment in time and move on.

What if there was absolute proof of the soul? Would you ever have yours removed? Would you be friends with someone who had had it removed? In this work of philosophical short fiction, science has definitively discovered that your soul resides in your appendix. Sometimes, when your appendix is having issues, it is for medical reasons. However, sometimes it is because your soul, residing in your appendix, is having issues. The solution in either case is the same, remove the organ. Rolly is a young boy, like all other young boys, who likes to play with is friends. However, his appendix was inflamed and had to be removed. Now, the other children call him “No Soul” and refuse to play with him. Feeling left out, he goes to a neighbor’s house to visit another friend Cioran. However, Cioran’s parents are far more religious and, when their child had appendix issues, they refused to have it removed as they didn’t want to remove his soul. Because his appendix was not removed Cioran, unlike Rolly, died.