In Avengers Infinity Saga and Philosophy, philosophers explore the momentous issues and the fascinating puzzles raised by Marvel's compelling series of movies: Is the Thanos snap truly an answer to overpopulation and famine, or is it simply indefensible mass murder on a cosmic scale? Are the Avengers who try to stop Thanos dishing out justice or merely fighting a man who is himself just? Captain America or Tony Stark-which leader holds the key to a civilized society? Dr. Strange claims to sees 14,000,605 possible futures, in one of which Thanos is defeated. What does this tell us about the true nature of reality? Sometimes your best just isn't enough. How can we cope with inevitability? How can the Soul Stone and the Binding of Isaac by Abraham help us understand the Infinity War saga? Is Thanos a utilitarian? And if so, is his utilitarian calculus logically sound? Would it be possible for a group like the Avengers to amass enormous power to fight for humankind, without themselves becoming a corrupt ruling class? Can the past Nebula shooting the future Nebula cause her to cease to exist? Can you change the future by communicating with yourself or your family in the past? Can Thanos be seen as the epitome of non-self-serving behavior, or is Thanos masking his own egoism with the lie that his altruistic mission is to bring the universe into balance? Does Thanos show us the danger of living by an absolute moral compass, which allows us to see only what we believe to be "the right" with no variations or nuances?

In 1933 the crime writer Erle Stanley Gardner, himself a practicing lawyer, unleashed the character Perry Mason in the novel The Case of the Velvet Claws. Perry Mason entered into public consciousness as a new conception of the role of the defense lawyer, so that millions of Americans came to expect every criminal trial to have its "Perry Mason moment." In the 1950s the Perry Mason TV show had a phenomenal success, and Mason came to be identified with Raymond Burr. Now Perry Mason has again been restored to life in the HBO series starring Matthew Rhys and John Lithgow. Meanwhile, the eighty-two original Erle Stanley Gardner novels continue to sell thousands of copies each week. Perry Mason gave America a new conception of the trial lawyer, as someone who was always loyal to his client and always prepared to use dirty tricks such as misdirection and withholding of evidence to protect the innocent and secure the ends of Justice. The Mason of the novels is less scrupulous than the Raymond Burr Mason, and would sometimes be in danger of going to jail if the trial didn't turn out right-which it always did, largely because of Mason's cleverness. The Perry Mason icon raises many philosophical issues explored by seventeen different philosophers in this book, including: Can we defend Paul Drake's claim (The Case of the Blonde Bonanza) that Mason is "a paragon of righteous virtue" despite his predilection for skating on thin legal ice? Can complex murder cases be solved by facts alone-or do we also need empathy? The most convincing way to give a TV episode a surprise ending is by the guilty person suddenly confessing. But in reality, is a confession necessarily so convincing? Does Perry Mason represent the Messiah? How does the Raymond Burr Perry Mason compare with the more recent TV character Saul Goodman (Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul)? Is it morally okay to mislead the police if this helps your client and your client is innocent? How does Perry Mason help us understand the distinction between natural law and positive law? Do the Perry Mason stories comply with Aristotle's recipe for a good work of fiction? Does life imitate art, when Perry Mason is cited in real-life courtroom arguments? How much trickery can be justified by loyalty to one's client? Can evidence in murder trials be evaluated by probability theory? Perry Mason is officially a lawyer and unofficially a detective. But isn't he really a historian and a psychgoanalayst? Della Street is a competent legal secretary, but is she something more? Mason often says that "Eye-witness testimony is the worst kind of evidence" and occasionally that "Circumstantial evidence is the best evidence we have." Can these claims be defended?

In The Twilight Zone and Philosophy, philosophers probe into the meaning of the classic TV series, The Twilight Zone. Some of the chapters look at single episodes of the show, while others analyze several or many episodes. Though acknowledging the spinoffs and reboots, the volume concentrates heavily on the classic 1959-1964 series. Among the questions raised and answered are: What's the meaning of personal identity in The Twilight Zone? ("Number 12 Looks Just Like You," "Person or Persons Unknown"). As the distinction between person and machine becomes less clear, how do we handle our intimacy with machines? (A question posed in the very first episode of The Twilight Zone, "The Lonely"). Why do our beliefs always become uncertain in The Twilight Zone? ("Where Is Everybody?") Just where is the Twilight Zone? (Sometimes it's a supernatural realm but sometimes it's the everyday world of reality.) What does the background music of The Twilight Zone teach us about dreams and imagination? Is it better to lose the war than to be damned? ("Still Valley") How far should we trust those benevolent aliens? ("To Serve Man") Where's the harm in media addiction? ("Time Enough at Last") Is there something objective about beauty? ("The Eye of the Beholder") Have we already been conquered? ("The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street") Are there hidden costs to knowing more about other people? ("A Penny for Your Thoughts")