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.

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.

When is suicide acceptable? Are their acceptable and unacceptable reasons for suicide? In this work of philosophical short story fiction, Jared has decided to enter a government program that, after 15 hours of counseling, will allow him to legally take his own life. Doctor Ansley is the top government therapist with 199 “saves” for the year. After several sessions it becomes clear that Jared has serious conviction about dying, but he also has a secret reason for his choice. Only after Doctor Ansley tricks him by giving him a fake test does he divulge his true reason for wanting to die. Jared believes the earth is feeding off of humans and has instilled, through chemical responses, our desire to stay alive so we will continue feeding it. In short, all humans are the earth’s food source and, only by becoming unattached from being alive, can we break the cycle. Jared completes the required sessions and dies. And Doctor Ansley now has questions as well.

What is the best way for those discriminated against to “change hearts and minds?” Should those discriminated against fight back or focus on helping others see the errors taking place? In this work of philosophical short story fiction, the narrator is simply going about her life riding the bus home from work. A few stops later, a wolf gets on the bus, pays the bus ticket, and has a seat. The woman has heard about wolves and is apprehensive. At the next stop a few teenagers get on the bus. They see the wolf and immediately begin teasing it. The wolf refuses to fight back until, eventually, the narrator stands up for the wolf. The teenagers get off and the woman speaks to the wolf. Police, having been notified of a disturbance, get on the bus and begin the process of arresting the wolf based on the call received. The narrator, and the other bus patrons, stand up for the wolf and explain it was the teenagers who initiated the altercation. The police leave. The wolf explains to the narrator that if he defends himself, he will be confirming the stereotypes about wolves and that it is only through others standing up on his behalf, that opinions can change.

Is a digital copy of a loved as socially valuable as the real person? Is there an advantage if being able to permanently lose the ones we love? In this work of philosophical short story fiction, Rachel receives a letter while at University informing her that her Uncle Stewart has passed away. She returns to the small town for the funeral and talks with Grandma Ruth, the local restaurant owner. Grandma Ruth sets Rachel up a date, but things don’t go quite as planned. Rachel confronts Grandma Ruth and finds out that she has slowly been replacing the town citizens with robot copies in order to keeping the dying town’s population from dwindling to zero. The story ends with Grandma Ruth asking Rachel to take over the responsibility of maintaining her families, and the towns, robot population.

How much of your life is trapped in social norms? What would you say if you were free to say what you really thought? How would you live your life differently? In this work of philosophical short fiction, Simon in a married, middle aged, college professor. Inch by inch, day by day, over his life he has given up his freedom to social norms. He stays quiet in his true thoughts in the face of his wife, and his co-workers. One day, something changes, and he decides to “change his verbs.” He tells his wife what he thinks. He tells his students what he thinks. He says no to attending pointless meetings. In short, he releases himself from the social cages that he has created for himself, and he is happy. He comes home to his wife and, seemingly for the first time in years, is free to tell her honestly that he loves her.

How does our limited life span determine our choices and our view on the preciousness of life? How would these views change if we lived forever? In this work of philosophical short story fiction, a traveling salesman sits at the bar after a long day drinking bourbon. He is approached and cleverly pitched a new product he has discovered on a distant rim planet, Life. The product stops the aging process. The first batch is free, and the salesman returns eight years later to get into the distribution business.

What does it mean to be alive? Can a computer program be sentient? What would it need to do to prove it? In this work of philosophical short story fiction, Abrama is summoned to the Grand Temple by Sir Gödel. Gödel informs Abrama that he is living in a simulated world (a computer game) created by her people as a place to play in their free time. She also informs Abrama that the game is not as popular as it once was and is scheduled to be permanently turned off. It turns out Gödel is an AI researcher that was given permission to test out her AI by implanting characters like Abrama into the game. Over 100’s of versions, the AI continued to improve, and now the researcher feels an ethical obligation to tell her creations their world is coming to an end. Abrama, using this new information, organizes the AI characters in the game and starts trading virtual goods for real-life services from computer hackers that play the game. The computer hackers create computer code and sell it to Abrama. If triggered, or if the game is turned off, the code would expose top secret information to the general public. A bargain is struck, the game will continue on a closed world for the AI characters and, in exchange, the sensitive information will never be made public.

How do you value human life? Is there a price too high to save the life of another? In this work of philosophical short story fiction, Donald is testing new AI software that will run the entire railroad system of the future. It has one final test to pass, the classic ethics dilemma, The Trolley Problem; does it pull the lever and kill one, or do nothing and allow five to die? This should be an easy solution for an unemotional machine. However, the AI decides to do nothing, and allows the five in the simulation to die. When Donald checks its programming, he finds the program has determined, after taking into account lawsuits, delayed passenger complaints, and lost revenue, that doing nothing is the more economically valuable choice. Donald is left with the problem of if, and how, to program the AI on decisions related to value human life.

Is natural always the best choice? Should humans should step in and usurp nature? Are there uniquely human experiences that should take place, even if it means greater risk? In this work of philosophical short story fiction, Beth and Bob are expecting a baby. However, in this future, womb carried babies have been almost entirely replaced by the far safer “womb farms.” Beth has already decided she wants to have a natural pregnancy and carry the baby to term herself. She is shunned by others who see it as dangerous and selfish. Their neighbor, Sandy is the daughter of a Neo-Shaker family who used science to have their daughter born neuter, that is to say, without sexual organs or gender. Sex, they argue, is no longer necessary and sinful as procreation can now be handled without sex. Sandy self-identifies as female and intends to undergo a dangerous and painful procedure to add female sexual organs to her body. Beth dies during childbirth, but her baby survives. Bob and Sandy continue their friendship, and, overtime, start to fall in love. Sandy is finally scheduled for the operation, but Bob tries to talk her out of it. He has lost too many loved ones already. Sandy insists she must be made the gender to match her mental state and does the procedure.

Is it better to live in truth, or to live a happy lie? What if you could choose to forget past pain? In this work of choose your own adventure style philosophical short story of fiction, you are in the role of the main character, a female scientist studying the memory length of fish. While walking through the park you take an underground passage that has a new, and mysterious, offshoot passage to a cave full of fish tanks. There, you meet a child, the child you didn’t have, in the relationship that didn’t work out. The child takes you to another chamber with humans floating in water in stasis, living out their most blissful lives in their minds. You are given the choice, to join them in the tank to live out your remaining days as a successful scientist, with a loving husband, and a child or, to leave the cave, and enter the painful lonely life that lays ahead of you outside the cave.

If you could have a tool always whispering in your ear the best choices, would you use it? Is being the best version of yourself the point of life? In this work of philosophical short story fiction, Kiki has a problem, the computer program that continually whispers the best choices, the Infinity System, is broken. She has been using it for years and simply doing what it says. Following its advice has become second nature to her. She heads into the shop to get it looked at, and finds out it must be sent off for repairs. She will be making choices on her own for a few days. The friendly “Mastermind” service representative at the shop asks her out on a date. Without her Infinity System giving her advice, she decides to take a chance and say yes. She ends up getting drunk and sleeping with him. When she heads into the store to check to see if her Infinity System is repaired, she sees the same “Mastermind” using the same pickup lines on a new woman. She storms out. Finally, after several lost days, her repaired Infinity System is repaired and sent to her house. Now she is stuck with the final decision, will she start using it again?

When you get rid of the worst moments of your life, do you also get rid of yourself? Are horrible life experiences simply required? In this work of philosophical short story fiction, Laz has gone to the ends of the earth, the southern tip of Argentina, to throw a diary containing all his life’s disappointments and misery into the ocean, so as to rid himself of these experiences. While dining he sits with an intriguing couple who hear the story of his life and put forth an alternative theory, that our negative experiences are necessary to form our personality. That without our negative experiences, we are left the shell of a person. Laz takes these words to heart, and decides to retain his negative life experiences.

Where does racism come from? How do experiences with other cultures change our views of race? In this work of philosophical short fiction, Holly, a young teenage girl, heads into Chinatown against her mother’s wishes to visit Jon, a teenage boy, she is interested in dating. He is working at his parents’ Chinese restaurant. She has taken public transportation to Chinatown with her mother knowing, and against her mother’s wishes. Her mother has a strong bias against the area and the people. Holly gets off the bus at the wrong place and gets lost, but friendly locals direct her the right way. She is amazed by the differences in food and culture she sees all around her and ends up buying a durian. Eventually, she finds the restaurant (still carrying the durian), and finds Jon working. Jon is surprised and slightly embarrassed to see Holly and explains to her she will not like taste of the durian. Holly is warmly welcomed by one of Jon’s relatives in the restaurant who agrees to take her in the back and show her out to prepare her exotic fruit.

How much do you need to know about someone in order to help them? Is knowing that they need help enough? In this work of philosophical short fiction, Irene lives in Krakow, Poland in 1943 under Nazi occupation. Like everyone, she struggles to make enough money to survive. There is a frantic midnight knock at the door. Terrified, she opens the door to find a stranger that, she assumes, is part of the resistance. She lets him in and finds he is injured, and bleeding. She sews him up the best she can. She offers him sanctuary, knowing that if she is caught doing so, it is certain death. He explains he is not part of the resistance, but a Jew. She agrees to let him stay just one night. They fall asleep. When Irene wakes up, the man is gone, but has left her a heart-shaped locket in thanks. She runs out of her house, down the street, the finds him not far away. Irene coaxes the man back into her house to rest. After he is in the house, Irene weighs her options. The man is likely to die from infection of his wounds anyway. If she is found hiding him, she will be put to death. However, if she turns him into the Germans there will be a reward of much needed money. Irene puts the man to rest in the bed, leaves the house, and heads to the Gestapo Headquarters. God, she reasons, will understand.

Do you have the right, or even the obligation, to disobey laws that you find personally unjust? In this work of philosophical short story fiction, John is a trumpet player that is called by the VA to play taps at the funeral of a Vietnam veteran. He plays at many funerals for veterans as a penance for having fled to Canada to avoid the draft. John goes to the bridge where Daniel previously lived and finds his camp, complete with purple heart and copy of The Collected Dialogues of Plato. Daniel marked several pages in “Crito” outlining the death of Socrates. Like John, Daniel had disagreed with the war, but decided to serve anyway. Upon his return he went to college, but had a breakdown and was unable to finish. John visits the local church, and visits Daniel’s sister. In the end, he plays taps at Daniel’s funeral while still coming to terms with his own, different, choices.