Politics without God

Doctors Refusing to Perform Abortions: Philosophy in Action Podcast

2013-06-12T10:00:00.000-06:00

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on doctors refusing to perform abortions. The question was:

Does a doctor violate a woman's rights by refusing to perform an abortion? Many people on the left claim that a doctor who refuses to perform an abortion – or a pharmacist who refuses to dispense Plan B – is thereby violating the rights of the woman. Those doctors and pharmacists, however, claim that they're exercising their own freedom of religion. Who is right?

My Answer, In Brief: A doctor does not violate a woman’s right to abortion by refusing to perform an abortion, and a doctor’s freedom of religion does not entitle him to renege on the terms of his employment.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

Duration: 6:44
Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Abortion, Ethics, Medicine, Politics, Religion, Rights

Links:

Man's Rights and The Nature of Government by Ayn Rand

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on Objectivism versus libertarianism, bad ideas as a cause of mental illness, doctors refusing to perform abortions, and more – is available here: Episode of 9 June 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Bad Ideas as a Cause of Mental Illness: Philosophy in Action Podcast

2013-06-11T10:00:00.000-06:00

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on bad ideas as a cause of mental illness. The question was:

Can the consistent practice of wrong ideas lead to mental illness? Often, the most consistent practitioners of an ideology – such as Naziism or Islam – seem to become increasingly unhinged over time. Does fully embracing a fantasy-based ideology entail or encourage mental illness, such as paranoia and delusions? If so, are such people then not responsible for what they say or do?

My Answer, In Brief: A person can damage his mind severely by consistent practice of evasion and irrationality, and religion and other fantasy-based ideologies can help a person do that.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

Duration: 12:25
Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Epistemology, Mental Illness, Philosophy, Rationality, Religion

Links:

Philosophy in Action: The Reality of Mental Illness
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer
Downfall

Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

Laws Against Marital Infidelity: Philosophy in Action Podcast

2013-06-07T10:00:00.000-06:00

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on laws against marital infidelity. The question was:

Should marital infidelity be illegal? Many states, including Colorado, have laws against marital infidelity on the books. These laws are rarely if ever enforced. Politicians often attempt to repeal them, but those attempts are often unsuccessful. Many people think that the government ought to "take a moral stand" even if the law isn't enforced. Does that view have any merit? Should these laws be repealed? Why or why not?

My Answer, In Brief: Laws against adultery are wrong and unjust. They do not set a proper moral example, and they undermine respect for the rule of law.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

Duration: 10:49
Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Adultery, Colorado, Conservatism, Crime, Divorce, Ethics, Law, Marriage, Politics, Rights

Links:

9News: Cheating on your spouse still illegal in Colorado
Denver Post: Bid to repeal Colorado adultery law dies and Bill to repeal of Colorado adultery law signed

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on abortion rights and the violinist argument, Obama's cultural impact, laws against marital infidelity, managing demands for family time, and more – is available here: Episode of 2 June 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

Abortion Rights and the Violinist Argument: Philosophy in Action Podcast

2013-06-05T12:10:00.001-06:00

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on abortion rights and the violinist argument. The question was:

Can abortion rights be justified based on Judith Thomson's "violinist" argument? Even if we accept that an embryo is a person with a right to life, can't abortion rights be justified on the basis of Judith Thomson's famous "violinist" thought experiment – meaning, on the grounds that one person does not have the right to use another person for life support?

My Answer, In Brief: Judith Thomson’s defense of abortion is an excellent way to challenge and dispense with the view that abortion immoral and should be illegal because the embryo or fetus has a right to life. It’s not a definitive account of rights in pregnancy, nor is it intended to be such. It's major flaw is that it relies too heavily on intuitions, albeit good ones.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

Duration: 23:02
Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Abortion, Academia, Ethics, Intuitions, Judith Thomson, Law, Personhood, Philosophy, Politics, Trolley Problem

Links:

A Defense of Abortion by Judith Jarvis Thomson
The "Personhood" Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh, particularly Rights in Pregnancy
Libertarians for Life: Abortion and Thomson's Violinist: Unplugging a Bad Analogy
Abort73: Answering a More Sophisticated Defense of Abortion – Part 12
A Defense of Abortion by David Boonin

Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

Judith Thomson's Violinist Argument for Abortion Rights

2013-05-31T15:00:00.000-06:00

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll discuss Judith Thomson's classic "violinist" argument in favor of abortion rights. It's an engaging and accessible article which has been widely read and reprinted. If you've never read it -- or you've not read it in a while -- you might want to read or re-read it before Sunday's broadcast. You can do so here: Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion.

Here's the introduction to whet your appetite.

Most opposition to abortion relies on the premise that the fetus is a human being, a person, from the moment of conception. The premise is argued for, but, as I think, not well. Take, for example, the most common argument. We are asked to notice that the development of a human being from conception through birth into childhood is continuous; then it is said that to draw a line, to choose a point in this development and say "before this point the thing is not a person, after this point it is a person" is to make an arbitrary choice, a choice for which in the nature of things no good reason can be given. It is concluded that the fetus is. or anyway that we had better say it is, a person from the moment of conception. But this conclusion does not follow. Similar things might be said about the development of an acorn into an oak trees, and it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that we had better say they are. Arguments of this form are sometimes called "slippery slope arguments"--the phrase is perhaps self-explanatory--and it is dismaying that opponents of abortion rely on them so heavily and uncritically.

I am inclined to agree, however, that the prospects for "drawing a line" in the development of the fetus look dim. I am inclined to think also that we shall probably have to agree that the fetus has already become a human person well before birth. Indeed, it comes as a surprise when one first learns how early in its life it begins to acquire human characteristics. By the tenth week, for example, it already has a face, arms and less, fingers and toes; it has internal organs, and brain activity is detectable. On the other hand, I think that the premise is false, that the fetus is not a person from the moment of conception. A newly fertilized ovum, a newly implanted clump of cells, is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree. But I shall not discuss any of this. For it seems to me to be of great interest to ask what happens if, for the sake of argument, we allow the premise. How, precisely, are we supposed to get from there to the conclusion that abortion is morally impermissible? Opponents of abortion commonly spend most of their time establishing that the fetus is a person, and hardly anytime explaining the step from there to the impermissibility of abortion. Perhaps they think the step too simple and obvious to require much comment. Or perhaps instead they are simply being economical in argument. Many of those who defend abortion rely on the premise that the fetus is not a person, but only a bit of tissue that will become a person at birth; and why pay out more arguments than you have to? Whatever the explanation, I suggest that the step they take is neither easy nor obvious, that it calls for closer examination than it is commonly given, and that when we do give it this closer examination we shall feel inclined to reject it.

I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.

It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.

In this case, of course, you were kidnapped, you didn't volunteer for the operation that plugged the violinist into your kidneys. Can those who oppose abortion on the ground I mentioned make an exception for a pregnancy due to rape? Certainly. They can say that persons have a right to life only if they didn't come into existence because of rape; or they can say that all persons have a right to life, but that some have less of a right to life than others, in particular, that those who came into existence because of rape have less. But these statements have a rather unpleasant sound. Surely the question of whether you have a right to life at all, or how much of it you have, shouldn't turn on the question of whether or not you are a product of a rape. And in fact the people who oppose abortion on the ground I mentioned do not make this distinction, and hence do not make an exception in case of rape.

Nor do they make an exception for a case in which the mother has to spend the nine months of her pregnancy in bed. They would agree that would be a great pity, and hard on the mother; but all the same, all persons have a right to life, the fetus is a person, and so on. I suspect, in fact, that they would not make an exception for a case in which, miraculously enough, the pregnancy went on for nine years, or even the rest of the mother's life.

Some won't even make an exception for a case in which continuation of the pregnancy is likely to shorten the mother's life, they regard abortion as impermissible even to save the mother's life. Such cases are nowadays very rare, and many opponents of abortion do not accept this extreme view. All the same, it is a good place to begin: a number of points of interest come out in respect to it.

Again, you can read the whole article here: A Defense of Abortion by Judith Thomson. Then... please join us on Sunday morning for the live broadcast of Philosophy in Action Radio -- or listen to the podcast later.

Arranged Marriages: Philosophy in Action Podcast

2013-05-20T10:00:00.000-06:00

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on arranged marriages that might be of interest. The question was:

Are arranged marriages legally and socially valid? A coworker of mine in his early 20s grew up in India. His parents have arranged his marriage to a young woman who also now lives in the US. He appreciates that his parents selected a wife for him: he doesn't want to spend the time or take the risk of finding a wife himself. Should such a marriage be considered legally valid? Is it just a marriage of convenience? Is the practice of arranged marriages immoral and/or impractical?

My Answer, In Brief: Arranged marriages are legally and socially valid marriages. However, the institution of arranged marriages is a deeply immoral one: the choice of a spouse is too important to leave to others, and if a person isn't competent or interested to decide for himself, then he shouldn't marry.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

Duration: 15:50
Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Adult Children, Children, Ethics, Family, Independence, Independence, Marriage, Parenting, Relationships
To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on individualism versus anti-social atomism, poor communication from the boss, visibility of disabled children, arranged marriages, and more – is available here: Episode of 19 May 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

Infanticide After Abortion: Philosophy in Action Podcast

2013-05-13T11:00:00.000-06:00

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on infanticide after abortion. The question was:

Is killing a baby born after an abortion a form of murder? Kermit Gosnell is currently on trial for murder, due to accusations that he killed infants who were delivered in abortions at his clinic. If the facts are as reported, should he be convicted of murder? What should be done when a baby is born alive during an abortion? What are the likely cultural and political implications of this trial?

My Answer, In Brief: According to the testimony at the trial, Kermit Gosnell did not merely perform abortions: he killed born babies, i.e. persons with a right to life. A person who does that is guilty of murder, and he should be prosecuted and punished.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

Duration: 15:52
Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Abortion, Children, Crime, Ethics, Infanticide, Law, Politics, Pregnancy, Rights

Links:

The Atlantic: Why Dr. Kermit Gosnell's Trial Should Be a Front-Page Story and 14 Theories for Why Kermit Gosnell's Case Didn't Get More Media Attention by Conor Friedersdorf
CBS News Coverage of the Kermit Gosnell Trial
The "Personhood" Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh, particularly Rights in Pregnancy
Abortion Doctor Kermit Gosnell Condemned by Pro-Abortion Rights Groups
Gallup: Americans' Abortion Views Steady Amid Gosnell Trial
Philosophy in Action: Criminal Death of a Fetus

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on taxes versus slavery, infanticide after abortion, emergency medical care, and more – is available here: Episode of 12 May 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

Concern for the Rights of Rights-Violators: Philosophy in Action Podcast

2013-05-09T10:00:00.000-06:00

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on concern for the rights of rights-violators. The question was:

Is it wrong to be indifferent to the rights-violations of people who advocate rights-violations? Some celebrities actively promote the violation of rights by lending their support to political groups. For example, former American Idol contestant Krista Branch has actively campaigned against gay marriage on behalf of Focus on the Family. However, in a recent interview, Branch complained that people were pirating her songs. I know that Branch's intellectual property rights should be respected, and I would never pirate her music. Yet I can't feel any sympathy for her, given that she advocates violating other people's rights. I'm of the opinion that people who advocate for the use of force against others should not be spared from the consequences of the kind of culture that creates. Is that wrong? Am I being malevolent? Should I defend her rights, even though she advocates violating my rights?

My Answer, In Brief: Even the rights of people who advocate rights-violations should be respected, but rational people should crusade for the principle and innocent people being harmed by rights-violations, not for those mixed cases.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

Duration: 11:37
Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Activism, Celebrities, Judgment, Justice, Moral Wrongs, Politics, Rights
To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on personality and sense of life, helping a self-destructive friend, concern for the rights of rights-violators, and more – is available here: Episode of 5 May 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

CSG at the Colorado Supreme Court Tomorrow

2013-05-07T09:06:00.000-06:00

I'm thrilled and excited to announce that the Coalition for Secular Government's lawsuit on campaign finance will be heard by the Colorado Supreme Court tomorrow at 10 am. The hearing will concern the four questions about the relevant law that our judge in federal court -- Judge Kane -- asked the Colorado Supreme Court to answer.

I'll be there, of course. If you'd like to attend, the hearing will be at the Ralph L. Carr Judicial Center at 1300 Broadway, Denver on Wednesday, May 8th. The hearing starts at 10 am, but you might want to arrive a bit early, as it's the first case of the day. It's scheduled to last just 30 minutes.

If you've not followed the case, check out the following write-up from the Center for Competitive Politics, the legal advocacy non-profit that has made this challenge to Colorado's speech-stifling campaign finance laws possible.

Colorado's Opportunity to Protect First Amendment Rights

By Tyler Martinez

May the government ban the publication of books if they contain only one sentence of express advocacy, such as "Vote for Smith"?

At the oral argument for Citizens United v. FEC, the federal government argued that campaign finance laws could ban a corporation, presumably including book publishers, from producing a book with even one sentence of express advocacy. The government's stance was so shocking that the U.S. Supreme Court ordered another set of briefings and arguments on that issue, and today we have the famous decision upholding the right of corporations to make independent expenditures.

This May, a similar question will be heard by the Colorado Supreme Court in Coalition for Secular Government v. Gessler. This case centers around a small nonprofit, run by Diana Hsieh, a doctor of philosophy, who wanted to discuss a secular understanding of the principles of life, liberty, and property. To do this, Dr. Hsieh formed a nonprofit corporation, which she named the Coalition for Secular Government (CSG). CSG commissioned a paper discussing its philosophy regarding human personhood, written by Dr. Hsieh and her friend Ari Armstrong. On behalf of CSG, Dr. Hsieh and Mr. Armstrong raised money from their friends to help pay for the costs of writing and publishing the paper. They also ran some Facebook ads and made flyers to let people know about the paper.

The paper is 32 pages long, with 176 endnotes. It makes philosophical arguments concerning the complex public policy debate surrounding the definition of personhood. The paper used a proposed Colorado ballot measure as a backdrop for its discussion on the issue. The paper concludes with a single sentence of express advocacy: "If you believe that 'human life has value,' the only moral choice is to vote against Amendment 62."

This one sentence of express advocacy meant that CSG may be forced to register as a issue committee with the state of Colorado. The state's own briefing in the case has admitted that, but for this single sentence, the paper would go entirely unregulated by the Colorado government. While Colorado does not ban books, it does demand burdensome reporting and disclosure. Registration requires reporting the names and addresses of people who give more than $20 to help a cause--even if it is free help with Web design by a family member. Registration also requires documenting which post office an organization uses, and from which Office Depot it purchases printer paper.

The costs of failing to file these extensive reports, or not filing properly, can be extreme. One day, Dr. Hsieh's house flooded and she was a day late with CSG's required report. She then faced a $50 per day fine. Fortunately, this fine was waived, but only after needing to plead with the Secretary of State's office. Even normal, non-flood-related compliance with Colorado's byzantine filing system frustrated Dr. Hsieh and left her in constant fear of fines or lawsuits, just because she wanted to weigh in with her philosophical views.

This is not the first time the registering and reporting burdens required of issue committees has come up in Colorado. In the 2010 case of Sampson v. Buescher, a small group of residents outside of Parker, Colorado, came together to fight being annexed into the City of Parker. These individuals had raised less than $1,000 for their cause when their opposition challenged the failure of the neighbors to register as an issue committee.

In assessing the homeowners' challenge, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Colorado's issue committee disclosure and reporting requirements "substantial[ly]" burdened the homeowners' First Amendment rights. The court relied on Citizens United and held that: "[t]he First Amendment does not permit laws that force speakers to retain a campaign finance attorney, conduct demographic marketing research, or seek declaratory rulings before discussing the most salient political issues of our day."

Unfortunately, the state of Colorado failed to heed the Tenth Circuit, and CSG had to call the legal team at the Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) for help. The CCP legal team filed a complaint alleging that, even though CSG plans to raise no more than $3,500 for updating and publishing their public policy paper, the state of Colorado appears to demand that CSG register as an issue committee. Once registered, CSG will again face all of the burdens of reporting their friends and allies, naming where they bought envelopes, and facing lawsuits and fines from the state for making even the slightest mistake.

Interestingly, CSG's case was initially brought before a federal court. But Colorado law is so ambiguous that the federal judge had to ask the Colorado Supreme Court just what the Colorado law means. As a result, CCP will be before the Colorado Supreme Court this May 8 arguing the merits of registering lengthy policy papers with only one sentence of express advocacy.

As the Citizens United Court noted, it does violence to freedom of speech when a citizen must hire an attorney just to be sure how to speak. Hopefully, the Colorado Supreme Court will agree with that principle.

For more, check out my prior blogging on campaign finance regulations.

Atheists Attending Religious Ceremonies: Philosophy in Action Podcast

2013-04-30T10:00:00.000-06:00

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on atheists attending religious ceremonies. The question was:

Is it wrong for an atheist to refuse to attend a sibling's religious ceremony? I've decided not to attend the religious ceremony of my younger sister's upcoming Bat Mitzvah. I'm an atheist, and while I don't think attending would be immoral, I don't want to support any kind of religiosity or connection to religion. Other family members have criticized me for that decision, saying that I should support my sister and not pressure her into agreeing with my own views. Should I attend? If not, how should I handle the family dynamics?

My Answer, In Brief: Other things being equal, the morality of attending a religious ceremony depends on the morality and religiosity of the ceremony. Here, attendance is optional, and you should explain your reasons to your sister kindly, and tell your family to mind their own business.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

Duration: 10:16
Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Atheism, Communication, Ethics, Family, Integrity, Judaism, Religion, Sanction, Siblings
To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on self-interest in marriage, atheists attending religious ceremonies, multigenerational space travel, drugs as treatment for mental illness, and more – is available here: Episode of 28 April 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

Atheist as a Negative Term: Philosophy in Action Podcast

2013-04-22T10:00:00.000-06:00

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on atheist as a negative term. The question was:

Should people define themselves using the negative term "atheist"? To me, a rational person sells himself short when he calls himself an "atheist": he's only saying what he doesn't stand for, not what he does stand for. Plus, to use the term "atheist" seems to be accepting the religious frame of reference. A rational person values individual healthy human life, and everything else he believes follows from that, such as respect for reality, reason, and rights. When a person defines himself in those positive terms, what he's against follows. So, can a person be more clear and persuasive when he focuses on what he's for rather than what he's against? If so, what terms might he use to describe himself?

My Answer, In Brief: The term "atheist" is a precise and economical way of designating lack of belief in god and the supernatural, yet it doesn't indicate what a person is for. That requires further explanation – and that's what really important.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

Duration: 7:56
Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Atheism, Communication, Epistemology, Relationships
To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on moral judgments of obese people, parental consent for abortion, atheist as a negative term, living longer, and more – is available here: Episode of 14 April 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

God, Tips, and Privacy

2013-04-18T10:00:00.000-06:00

Back in January, the internet was agog over the report that a pastor objected to the 18% gratuity added to her bill for being part of a large party by writing on the receipt, "I give God 10% why do you get 18?"

The proper answer, of course, is provided by Grumpy Cat:

Your waitress offers you a genuine service, in exchange for your tip... God, not so much.

However, what I find particularly interesting about the story from an ethical perspective lie in the details of what happened at the restaurant and afterwards.

[Chelsea Welch's co-worker [at an Applebee's in the St. Louis area] had waited on a large party hosted by Pastor Alois Bell of the World Deliverance Ministries Church in Granite City, Ill. As is common at many restaurants, an 18 percent tip was automatically added to the bill.

Pastor Bell crossed out the automatic tip and wrote "0" on the receipt, along with this message: "I give God 10% why do you get 18?"

Welch, who did not wait on Pastor Bell's table took a photo of the bill and uploaded it to Reddit where it soon went viral. "I thought the note was insulting, but it was also comical," Welch told TheConsumerist. "I posted it to Reddit because I thought other users would find it entertaining."

Bell, who did not see the humor in this, complained to the restaurant's manager. Bell told The Smoking Gun she did not expect her signature to be all over the Internet.

Applebee's confirms that Welch was fired. In a statement, the company says:

"Our Guests' personal information - including their meal check - is private, and neither Applebee's nor its franchisees have a right to share this information publicly. We value our Guests' trust above all else. Our franchisee has apologized to the Guest and has taken disciplinary action with the Team Member for violating their Guest's right to privacy. This individual is no longer employed by the franchisee."

Pastor Bell told The Smoking Gun she is sorry for what happened and points out that she left a $6.29 cash tip on the table.

"My heart is really broken," she told them. "I've brought embarrassment to my church and my ministry."

As this story makes clear, the waitress didn't intend for anyone to be able to identify the pastor in question, and she took measures to prevent that identification. Alas, the power of the internet was too great. Also, the waitress reports that the pastor "contacted her Applebee's location, demanding that everyone be fired, from the servers involved to the managers." (That's a quote from the article, not from the waitress.)

On the one hand, I understand why Applebee's fired the server who posted the receipt. The restaurant wants its customers to feel secure in their privacy while on premises, particularly in their dealings with their employees, particularly in their financial transactions.

Nonetheless, in this age of social media, people's expectations of privacy must change... or they will get burned. If you're in public, your antics might be broadcast far and wide across the internet for other people's amusement. Then, if you act petulant and bossy about that, as this pastor seemed to do, you'll be lambasted even more.

Ultimately, a person needs to be responsible for his own privacy. That requires thinking in advance about what he wishes to keep private or not. That requires attention to what he says and does in view or earshot of other people. That requires being selective about what emails or posts online. That requires providing appropriate context for public actions if he wants to avoid being misjudged.

A rational person does not broadcast his private activities to the world, then blame others for taking notice.

Parental Consent for Abortion: Philosophy in Action Podcast

2013-04-17T10:00:00.001-06:00

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on parental consent for abortion. The question was:

Should minor girls be required by law to obtain parental consent for an abortion? Normally, parents are legally empowered to make medical decisions for their minor children, and minors cannot obtain medical procedures without parental consent. How should that apply in the case of pregnancy? Should pregnancy and abortion be treated differently from other medical conditions? Should parents be allowed by law to force a daughter under 18 to carry a pregnancy to term or to abort against her will?

My Answer, In Brief: Parents should never be able to force a minor child to bear the burden and risk of carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth. Hence, parental consent should not be required for abortion. However, a minor child cannot impose the burden of caring for another child on her parents, and so she might need to emancipate herself if she does not wish to terminate the pregnancy but her parents do.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

Duration: 13:46
Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Abortion, Ethics, Health, Law, Parenting, Pregnancy, Religion, Rights, Sex, Young Adults

Links:

The "Personhood" Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception, particularly Section 4: Individual Rights and Abortion

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on moral judgments of obese people, parental consent for abortion, atheist as a negative term, living longer, and more – is available here: Episode of 14 April 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

Link-O-Rama

2013-04-15T10:00:00.000-06:00

Following Resignation, Top British Cardinal Acknowledges Sexual Misconduct: It's the Catholic Church... hence, I'm not surprised.
Father of all humankind is 340,000 years old: Nifty!
I'm Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage: Oh hai, Platonism, self-loathing, and repression. (Really, I find this immensely tragic.)
The landscape of abortion bans, in one must-see map: Thank you, Colorado!
Proposal would allow state religion in North Carolina: *HEADDESK*
RNC approves anti-gay marriage resolution: The GOP wants to continue to lose elections, apparently.

North Dakota Bans Abortion for Genetic Defects

2013-04-12T14:00:00.000-06:00

Babies with genetic diseases or developmental disorders deserve love, kindness, and respect... but embryos and fetuses are not babies. They exist inside the pregnant woman, wholly dependent on her alone for biological life-support. They do not have a right to life. Rather, the pregnant woman has a right to do whatever she pleases with her own body.

Fetal abnormalities are a darn good reason to terminate a pregnancy, as most people are not financially or emotionally prepared to care for a severely handicapped child, potentially in perpetuity. (Hence, the 90% abortion rate in such cases.)

North Dakota has banned such abortions. For people unable to travel out-of-state, the results will be disastrous.

Bart Ehrman in Colorado Springs on Thursday

2013-04-10T10:00:00.000-06:00

Bart Ehrman, the fabulous scholar of early Christian history, will be speaking in Colorado Springs on Thursday. I'll be there!

Who: Bart D. Ehrman
What: Lecture on "Misquoting Jesus"
When: Thursday, April 11, 2013, 7:00 PM
Where: Armstrong Theater, Colorado College

The address is 14 E Cache la Poudre St, Colorado Springs, Colorado. It's free and open to the public.

Dr. Ehrman is the author of a slew of books, as well as some of the finest courses available from The Teaching Company. The lecture looks like it will be based on his book by the same title, Misquoting Jesus.

The Validity of Gay Marriage: Philosophy in Action Podcast

2013-04-09T10:00:00.000-06:00

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on the validity of gay marriage. The question was:

Is "gay marriage" a valid form of marriage? Many people oppose gay marriage on the grounds that marriage is essentially religious, that procreation is central to marriage, or "traditional marriage" should be respected. Should gay unions be considered a valid form of marriage, legally or socially? Might civil unions be an acceptable alternative?

My Answer, In Brief: The various quasi-secular arguments against gay marriage fail, badly. Gay marriage is a matter of rights, and people ought to support it.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

Duration: 21:25
Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Christianity, Culture, GLBT, Law, Marriage, Politics, Religion, Romance

Links:

Philosophy in Action: State Involvement in Marriage and Gay "Conversion" Therapy
NoodleFood: Some Arguments Against Gay Marriage
Republican Liberty Caucus: The Rational Solution for Gay Marriage
Polling Data on Support for Gay Marriage Versus Civil Unions

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on the validity of gay marriage, the is-ought gap, the aftermath of a friendship, mixing politics and romance, and more – is available here: Episode of 7 April 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

Changing Minds on Gay Marriage: Sunday on Philosophy in Action Radio

2013-03-29T17:00:00.000-06:00

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on replying to intrusive inquiries, changing minds on gay marriage, dealing with overzealous ideologues, buying from chinese companies, and more.

I thought that the question on changing minds on gay marriage might be of particular interest That question is:

How might social conservatives be convinced to support gay marriage? Rob Portman, a Republican Senator from Ohio, recently decided to openly support gay marriage after his son came out to him and his wife. What can be done to help other conservatives see gay marriage in a new light – as a matter of liberty and individual identity?

This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 31 March 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later.

To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat.

If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Q&A: Protecting Privacy, Gay Marriage, Chinese Goods, and More. It will be posted on Monday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

I hope you join us on Sunday morning!

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Right to Your Body

2013-03-26T10:00:00.000-06:00

It is wrong -- morally wrong -- for the government to demand that any person sacrifice him or herself, particularly for the sake of the non-conscious clump of cells that is an embryo or early fetus.

Anyone opposed to abortion is, in effect, opposed to the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for pregnant women.

Valuing Life Versus Inflicting Suffering

2013-03-11T10:00:00.000-06:00

Here's a fascinating and horrifying story: "A surrogate's unimaginable dilemma." I wish that I could share a relevant tidbit, but alas, it's the kind of story that you just have to read from beginning to end... and it's very well-told.

(The story raises all kinds of thorny questions about abortion rights in the context of surrogacy, and I hope that someone submits a question on the topic to Philosophy in Action's queue.)

As a matter of morality, I think that to inflict a life of pain, suffering, and incapacity on a helpless infant is very wrong. The pregnancy could have been terminated when the abnormalities were discovered, and doing so would not have harmed any person or violated the rights of any person. That's because the fetus is not an independent person with rights or interests until born, as Ari Armstrong and I argued in our policy paper, The "Personhood" Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception.

I value human life, deeply. I'm nothing but delighted by and supportive of people who value their future children while still in the womb. When a culture denies the value of human life -- as Nazi Germany did -- the results are horrifying.

Yet I cannot relate to people seek to "value life" by prolonging any form of existence by any means possible. Such people seem to value life in some kind of abstract or formalistic way, without regard for the kind of life lived, including the suffering inflicted by the attempts to sustain that life. That's not the way that a rational and responsible adult values life, in my view. It's emotional self-indulgence... or religious dogmatism... or duty ethics. Mostly, I think, it's nothing good.

Being an Atheist in a Religious School: Philosophy in Action Podcast

2013-03-05T10:00:00.000-07:00

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on being an atheist in a religious school. The question was:

How can an atheist teenager maintain his integrity in a religious school? A few years ago, I read Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged" for the first time. After a year of struggling between faith and reason, I chose reason. Unfortunately, I am a teenager, and I am forced to attend church and a religious school. For a time, I was fine coexisting with religious people. However, in the next academic year, I will have to take a class entitled "Christian Apologetics" in which I will have to pretend to be a Christian theologian. Now my integrity is at stake. How should I confront my religious family about my atheism? How can I persuade them to enroll me a different school?

My Answer, In Brief: The student should talk to his parents, and then to his teacher, about what's required in the class and whether he can write papers that reflect his actual beliefs.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

Duration: 15:14
Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Academics, Atheism, Children, Communication, Education, Ethics, Integrity, Parenting, Religion
To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on the value of happiness, being an atheist in a religious school, privacy from government intrusion, the wrong of incest between consenting adults, and more – is available here: Episode of 3 March 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

Being an Atheist in a Religious School: Sunday on Philosophy in Action Radio

2013-03-01T17:00:00.000-07:00

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on the value of happiness, being an atheist in a religious school, the value of privacy, incest between adults, and more.

I thought that the question on being an atheist in a religious school might be of particular interest That question is:

How can an atheist teenager maintain his integrity in a religious school? A few years ago, I read Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged" for the first time. After a year of struggling between faith and reason, I chose reason. Unfortunately, I am a teenager, and I am forced to attend church and a religious school. For a time, I was fine coexisting with religious people. However, in the next academic year, I will have to take a class entitled "Christian Apologetics" in which I will have to pretend to be a Christian theologian. Now my integrity is at stake. How should I confront my religious family about my atheism? How can I persuade them to enroll me a different school?

This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 3 March 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later.

To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat.

If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Q&A: The Value of Happiness, Atheist Student, Privacy and More. It will be posted on Monday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

Secular Spiritual Values: Philosophy in Action Podcast

2013-02-27T10:00:00.000-07:00

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on spiritual values. The question was:

What are "spiritual" values? In your recent discussion of "Materialism in Marriage," you talked about the importance of "spiritual values." However, I found that confusing, since I've always associated "spirituality" with religion, often of the woozy variety. So what are spiritual values? How are they different from material values? Why are they important?

My Answer, In Brief: Understood rationally, "spiritual values" are values that sustain and nourish the mind. They are objective requirements of a person's life and happiness.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

Duration: 21:21
Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Art, Ethics, Friendship, Introspection, Pleasure, Spiritual Values, Values

Links:

Philosophy in Action: Materialism in Marriage

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on spiritual values, advancing liberty through a new political party, welfare reform versus immigration reform, declining a friend's plans for business partnership, and more – is available here: Episode of 24 February 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

Link-O-Rama

2013-02-25T10:00:00.000-07:00

Catholic Hospital Chain Wins Lawsuit by Arguing Fetus Is Not a Person: "A Catholic health provider has abandoned its beliefs by arguing that a dead fetus and a dead person are not the same thing in order to win a malpractice lawsuit." Well, that's not an example of sticking by principle, now is it? (Update: Bishops will review Catholic hospital's malpractice defense.)
Anti-Abortion Group to Lawmakers: Please, Let's Talk About Rape!: If Personhood USA was a front for Democrats, it would act... well, exactly as it does. Recall that every GOP presidential candidate except Romney willingly embraced "personhood for zygotes" in this last election and participated in Personhood USA's debates. (Alas, Romney then selected a personhood zealot for his running mate.) Such zealous social conservatism is a big part of why the GOP has been losing elections in Colorado and elsewhere... and why they'll continue to do so without serious reform.
WTF, Evolution?: "Honoring natural selection's most baffling creations. Go home, evolution, you are drunk." Oh creationists, what does your god have to say for himself now?
Vassar Uses Anti-Gay Protest to Raise Funds to Help Gay Youth: Kudos to Vassar for turning hateful speech by the Westboro Baptist nutters into fundraising for a good cause.
Cardinal Peter Turkson, Possible Pope Successor, Has Defended Legislation Like Uganda's 'Kill The Gays' Bill: Disgusting, but thoroughly biblical.
Fetuses Don’t Have Rights; Pregnant Women Do; This Distinction is Crucial: Fetuses are not persons with rights, but that doesn't mean that random people can intentionally or negligently cause the death of a fetus without legal penalty.

Democrats and Republicans: United for Rapists

2013-02-22T10:00:00.000-07:00

If you thought that only Republicans made idiotic comments about rape, think again. According to Colorado Democrat Joe Salazar, women on campus are incapable of understanding the basics of self-defense law, and so they should be disarmed so that they don't "pop a round at somebody."

Here's what he said:

There are some gender inequities on college campuses. This is true. And universities have ben faced with that situation for a long time. It's why we have call boxes. That's why we have safe zones. That's why we have the whistles. Because you just don't know who you're gonna be shooting at. And you don't know if you feel like you're gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone's been following you around or if you feel like you're in trouble -- and when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop, pop a round at somebody.

Basically, the Democrats want to disarm women, so that they can't fight off a rapist. Then the Republicans want to prevent those women from obtaining Plan B or an abortion, if they get pregnant. It's lovely to see both sides united in the "War Against Women."

Also, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs advises women to "Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating" and "Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone." Because nothing could go wrong with that, right? (Note: That wasn't posted in response to any of the recent debates about gun control, thankfully.)

Here's what I said about the importance of allowing concealed carry on campus in a prior blog post:

When I was a graduate student at CU Boulder, I had to walk a few blocks off-campus, through a residential neighborhood, to get to my car. I took classes in the evening on occasion, and during those times, my walk was dark and lonely. Like other students, I'd receive periodic reports of sexual assaults just off-campus, and that worried me.

The police chief's advice of carrying a "safety whistle" was pure absurdity to me. If I was attacked, that wouldn't do me a lick of good. Also, I knew that I couldn't hope to outrun my attacker: I'm a slow sprinter, and even in elementary school, I only ever beat the fat girl in running the 50-yard dash. Really, I wanted my "safety Ruger" -- because that could have actually kept me safe! Instead, I often took Kate, my German Shepherd with me to those late classes. She probably wouldn't have helped much if I'd been attacked, but she might have deterred a criminal.

Moreover, in the wake of school shootings, I hated to think of being disarmed and defenseless, particularly as a teacher in a classroom full of terrified students. I'd have an obligation to protect my students as best as I could, yet I'd be unable to do much of anything. I hated that with a passion.

I suspect (and even hope, somewhat) that the Democrats have reached their high-water-mark in Colorado with these new gun controls... if only the Republicans don't out-stupid them before the 2014 election.