This paper is an attempt at a philosophical dialogue between Justin who represents the ideas of the philosopher, and Jim the ever present anti-philosopher. Justin believes that the study of philosophical ethics is a worth while way of life to pursue. The study and questioning of peoples and societies moral values and ethical standards are more than just a worthwhile, moreover they are vital to society. Jim believes that the study of philosophical ethics is at best a waist of time, and is at least, dangerous. He is sort of confused about what sorts of things philosophers see as moral, and how we depend on culture to judge what is moral and what is not. Because what is moral to one culture could be immoral to another culture.
             Jim: I think that philosophical ethics are a waist of time at best, and should be considered dangerous!
             Justin: Well you're allowed you're own opinion as ethics being a waist of time, but let me tell you why I think it is such an important part of society today
             Justin: Philosophical ethics is the study of morality. Why actions are moral, not only in the physical act, but also in the reasons behind the act. Why the act was committed. Also, if there is such a thing as a moral code.
             Justin: If philosophers got together in a room, and talked about why it is important to have a moral code, they could argue their own sides for days, and days. However if you take there points of view, one will notice an underlying common ethical value.
             Jim: Yea, but each philosophers come up with their own ideas, and no universal perfect truth as a product from all that discussion. We have studied Kant and his Categorical Imperative, to Bentham's Principle of Utility. They all seem to contradict one another and or clearly state what the universal principal should be if in fact there is one, instead they are complicated and confusing.
             Justin: Kant and Bentham looked at what peopl
             ...