Is religious-based fear an acceptable way to ensure right behavior? Can moral behavior be created through theatre? At what age should a child be made aware of the Christian ideas of hell? Does the motivation of religious leaders make their lies acceptable? In this work of philosophical short fiction, Tina and Dale live out of their RV, scraping by, and traveling around the United States. Tina was traumatized by being made to attend an evangelical tent revival meeting as child. Now, as adults, they follow these same tent revivals around the United States offering fake exorcisms to anyone willing to pay for their service. In their opinion it doesn’t do any good, or any harm, which is more than can be said for the tent sermons. One day a family pulls up with a child asking for an exorcism. Tina and Dale obligate, however, in the process fail to realize the boy is having a genuine medical emergency. The boy dies during the “exorcism.”

To what detail do you need to know how the justice system works to support it? Would you be willing to take part in the punishment of a foreign justice system? What morality do we carry with us between cultures, and what morality are we willing to adopt from our host culture? In this work of philosophical short fiction, the narrator wanders into a remote, but seemingly civilized, village about to carry out their most severe punishment, the stoning to death of a convicted criminal. As part of their culture, if there is a stranger among them, they should be the one to cast the first stone. Our narrator only knows that the trial was fair under the laws of the culture, and the criminal was found guilty. However, he is not permitted to know what crime the criminal committed. Regardless of the narrator’s choice, the criminal will die today. The narrator decides to throw the first stone, hits the criminal squarely in the head, killing him instantly. The remaining community members drop their stones and head home, justice served.

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 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.

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.

Do both emotions and reason serve a valuable human purpose? Are we, as a species, trending towards reason and, if so, to what end? It is wrong act without reason? In this work of philosophical short story fiction, a young boy is born for the first time in 1,000 years into the “Great Sky Of Reason.” Unlike those around him, he laughs, smiles and plays, even when there is no reason. His parents find him confusing and give him to the Great Purveyors at the Great Observatory of Reason. In time, under their constant training, he learns reason and discipline. He no longer smiles as he understands all conclusions simply follow from their logical causes. He is eventually appointed to the Great Observatory where the Purveyors look over earth and the actions of all its inhabitants. From above, they sprinkle emotions that encourage reason on humans at just the right moment. Empathy, understanding, reflection, in moments when they are most needed. After some time, the young boy (now a young man) comes to question the logic of influencing humans towards a path of reason. At first, he simply stops sprinkling emotions on them. Later, he goes about destroying the store of emotions the Great Observatory has, thus making it impossible for others to influence humans as well.

Does artificial intelligence have a place in jurisprudence and justice? Are there jobs where you would prefer AI to be in charge? Should the expense of trial (vs accepting a plea offer) be a factor in determining the punishment for a crime? In this work of philosophical short story fiction, Jason lives on a remote planet colony and has been arrested for hitting a fellow bar patron over the head with a beer bottle. The arresting officer gives him a choice. He can sit in jail and wait for the rotating judge to come through in a few months, or he can use Judicial Suite 3.7.1 and save everyone the time and trouble of a real judge in a court hearing. Jason accepts the use of the AI judge and is offered the choice of various AI lawyers to represent him. He is unable to decide which AI lawyer he wants to have represent him so he decides to plead guilty and allow the AI judge matrix to determine his punishment. The AI judge reviews the case and issues Jason a fine and therapy. Jason emerges from the “court room” and sees his arresting officer waiting for him. She informs him she had a bet with her fellow officer on if he would use the software or not. She won the bet.

Can doing nothing ever be a wrong or immoral choice? Do you have a duty to keep your word even if doing so is the cause of your own unhappiness in your life? In this work of philosophical short fiction, the narrator and her husband Andy, are stuck in their car on the side of the rode waiting for a snowstorm to blow over. While in the car we learn, through flashbacks, about all the reasons the narrator is unhappy in her marriage. Her wedding was a failure. She dislikes her in-laws, and finds them to be fat, loud, vulgar, and incapable of taking on responsibility. She does not like her husband, however, as an unemployed woman with two small children, and a sense of duty to her vows, she feels an obligation to stay with him. She finds his lack of intelligence, and his lack of agency, frustrating. She feels she is the only adult in the relationship. At the end of the story she leaves the car in the snowstorm to head to the next car to see if they have extra blankets. Before she leaves, she notices that Andy has turned on the car and the tailpipe is buried in snow. She begins to dig out the snow from the tailpipe in an effort to keep her husband from dying from carbon monoxide poisoning. In the end, she decides to simply stop digging and walk to the next car, presumably, to let her husband die in what will appear like an accident.

Are there some lessons teachers should not teach, even if they are the thing that the student most needs? Can an “education” go too far? In this work of philosophical fiction, the main character is Quinn, an AI teacher set in the distant future. It, along with other AI teachers, are tasked with educating the most difficult students with the promise of “free study.” Quinn accepts a particularly difficult student, in fact, an “impossible student” named Leticia, a young girl who is showing early, but clear, signs of growing up to be a murderer. Quinn accepts this “impossible job” because the newer AI models are being released and she is at risk of being retired as they replace her model. Quinn decides the only way to jar Leticia out of her current direction is to shame her by supporting, encouraging, and showing her the results of her murderous impulses. At first Leticia appreciates the acceptance of her anti-social behavior, even after seeing the results of death and war. In the end, Leticia changes her mind when a serial killer she admires escapes the training exercise Quinn has put him in and puts her family in real danger. Quinn will be admitted to free study.

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.

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.

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.

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.