Mission Impossible: Fallout is an intensely escapist movie, but it's also a deeply philosophical one. It explores the question: should you be the kind of person who saves his friends and risks millions of lives, or the kind of person for whom saving the millions matters to the exclusion of all else?

Is every idea worth responding to, or are some ideas so harmful that we should not engage at all? Philosopher Elizabeth Barnes explores this question in a recent article, arguing that it is sometimes worth it to engage with harmful ideas.

Scott Pruit offers you a job at the EPA. His agenda is to roll back regulations that help protect the environment. So what should you do? Take the job and try to change the EPA from the inside? Or would it be more productive to work for an environmental agency whose efforts you support?

In these polarized times, it's hard to convince anyone of anything that they didn't already believe in. This consistent inability to reach any real mutual understanding can lead some to "agree to disagree," but when it comes to serious moral questions where lives are at stake, we need better tools of persuasion.

It has been described as a revolution in philosophy and a new way to approach age-old questions in the discipline. But what exactly is contrastivism?