Our panel of 90 professional philosophers has responded to

99
 questions about 
Biology
191
 questions about 
Value
100
 questions about 
Art
35
 questions about 
Literature
45
 questions about 
War
74
 questions about 
Identity
2
 questions about 
Action
89
 questions about 
Time
187
 questions about 
Science
533
 questions about 
Philosophy
124
 questions about 
Existence
66
 questions about 
Business
64
 questions about 
Perception
26
 questions about 
Gender
58
 questions about 
Abortion
34
 questions about 
Race
30
 questions about 
Music
74
 questions about 
Physics
248
 questions about 
Knowledge
223
 questions about 
Justice
30
 questions about 
Sport
1
 questions about 
Culture
141
 questions about 
Freedom
145
 questions about 
Sex
71
 questions about 
Death
69
 questions about 
Emotion
247
 questions about 
Language
65
 questions about 
Feminism
317
 questions about 
Logic
72
 questions about 
Beauty
21
 questions about 
Suicide
202
 questions about 
Education
54
 questions about 
Truth
122
 questions about 
Love
261
 questions about 
Mind
30
 questions about 
Space
21
 questions about 
History
50
 questions about 
Medicine
347
 questions about 
Religion
5
 questions about 
Euthanasia
42
 questions about 
Color
51
 questions about 
Punishment
109
 questions about 
Children
63
 questions about 
Happiness
102
 questions about 
Animals
1169
 questions about 
Ethics
118
 questions about 
Profession
82
 questions about 
Law

QUESTION OF THE DAY

Friend A believes Friend B should try something before deciding not to like it. Friend B believes he shouldn't have to try something if he doesn't want to. Who is correct? Are they both correct? Who is more correct? Should Friend C help convince Friend B to try the thing or let him make his own choices?

I hope I don't come across as pedantic, but I think that your questions may contain what philosophers call "false alternatives."

First, there's a sense in which both A and B can be correct. It might be that B is well-advised to try a particular something before rejecting it because the risks associated with trying it are small compared to the possible benefits. Nevertheless, it could be true that B "shouldn't have to" try something before rejecting it: that is, B might well have the right to refuse to do X even if he would be well-advised to do X.

Second, C can help convince B to try the thing even while C lets B make his own choice. As I see it, giving B convincing reasons to make a particular choice needn't mean depriving B of a choice -- including a free choice -- in the matter.