Politics without God

Should You Try to Be Morally Perfect?

2015-04-03T10:00:00.000-06:00

Off-topic but perhaps of interest...

Back in March 2012, I gave a lecture titled "Should You Try to Be Morally Perfect?" as part of the CU Boulder Philosophy Department's "Think!" series. In the lecture, I explored Ayn Rand's concept of moral perfection, arguing that it's necessary for a happy, fulfilled, and moral life.

Yesterday, I posted the podcast of that lecture... finally! It's "premium content" for Philosophy in Action, so it's available for $10. (If you're a regular contributor to Philosophy in Action's Tip Jar, it's free to you, so just email me for free access.) Anyone can preview the first 14 minutes of the lecture here before buying: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/perfection

Here's the abstract of the lecture:

Most people dismiss any ideal of moral perfection as beyond their reach. "I'm only human," they say. That view is a legacy of Christianity, which teaches that moral perfection is possible to God alone and that any attempt at moral perfection is the sin of pride. In sharp contrast, Ayn Rand argues that moral perfection is not only possible to ordinary people, but also necessary for anyone who wants to live a virtuous and happy life. Hence, pride, understood as moral ambitiousness, is one of her seven major virtues – as seen in the heroes of her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

This talk explores Ayn Rand's views of moral perfection, ambition, and pride. What does she think that morality demands? How can people achieve that? How should people respond to their own moral wrongs and errors? We will compare Rand's answers to these questions to those of Aristotle. We will find that, despite some differences in each philosopher's conception of virtue, they share the compelling view that seeking moral perfection is crucially important to a person's life and happiness.

The lecture is a friendly introduction to some of the principles of Ayn Rand's egoistic ethics for people unfamiliar with that, and it's got plenty of fresh red meat for long-time Objectivists too.

Again, you can preview and purchase the podcast of that lecture here: Should You Try to Be Morally Perfect?

The Right to Die: Philosophy in Action Podcast

2015-01-20T15:17:00.002-07:00

On Sunday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on the right to die. The question was:

Should a person who does not wish to live be forcibly prevented from committing suicide? John doesn't like living. He finds no joy in life, and only lives because it would upset other people if he ended his life. He has tried counseling and medication, but he simply has no desire to continue to live. He makes no real contribution to society, nor does he wish to be a part of society. If John wants to die, he can, but the state will attempt to stop him at every turn, even to the point of incarceration. Is there a point when the law (and other people) should simply respect his wishes and allow him to end his life – or perhaps even assist him in doing so?

My Answer, In Brief: A person's right to his own life includes the right to commit suicide. The law's sole job is to ensure that a person's choice to die reflects his considered judgment, freely made, as well as to differentiate between helpers and murderers.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

Duration: 22:48
Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Assisted Suicide, Crime, Death, Government, Law, Rights, Suicide

Links:

Philosophy in Action: Selling Yourself into Slavery

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

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on the right to die, marriage without love, creating art, and more – is available here: Episode of 18 January 2015.

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 Thursday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Participating in Superstitious Rituals: Philosophy in Action Podcast

2015-01-06T10:00:00.000-07:00

On Sunday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on participating in superstitious rituals. The question was:

Is it wrong to participate in superstitious rituals without taking them seriously? If I make some perfunctory observance or participation in some superstitious ritual, and do not believe the superstitious ritual is of any literal importance, am I still promoting irrationality? If I regularly read the horoscope in the newspaper, but do not believe astrology has any real impact on my life, does reading the horoscope promote irrationality? Likewise, in Hawaii, almost all retail establishments possess what are called "good-luck cats." A good-luck cat is a relatively inexpensive Asian figurine depicting a cat with one paw raised. Having this figurine is supposed to bring good luck to your business. You can commonly see such good-luck cat figurines in doctor's offices in Honolulu, and for your retail establishment not to have such a figurine would easily strike people as strange. If I spent just a little money on such a good-luck cat to decorate my business, and I didn't literally believe the figurine itself affected my fortunes, would the purchase be a concession to irrational thinking? Would such a gesture be "social proof" that would help other people rationalize more obviously pathological forms of irrationality, such as wasting hundreds of dollars on fortune tellers and psychic hotlines?

My Answer, In Brief: Belief in horoscopes, superstitions, and the like is irrational and destructive. If you're tempted by that kind of thinking, perform some scientific experiments. If you live in a community where it's taken seriously, don't encourage it by seeming to endorse it.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

Duration: 30:09
Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Business, Communication, Ethics, Holidays, Humor, Rationality, Religion, Sanction, Science, Superstition

Links:

Wikipedia: Witch trials in the early modern period

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

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on participating in superstitious rituals, punishing yourself, and more – is available here: Episode of 4 January 2015.

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

New Policy Paper on the "Personhood" Movement

2014-10-09T13:04:00.000-06:00

Despite the defeats of "personhood" measures in 2008 and 2010, Colorado voters will once again vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to grant all the rights of born persons to zygotes, embryos, and fetuses in November 2014.

The Coalition for Secular Government is pleased to announce an updated and expanded paper on the "personhood" movement by Ari Armstrong and myself, titled "The 'Personhood' Movement Versus Individual Rights: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception." The paper is currently available for download as a PDF or for reading as an HTML page.

Formats: HTML / PDF
Please share it with friends and on social media!

Here's our media release on it:

New Paper Criticizes "Personhood" Movement and Colorado's Amendment 67

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

Coalition for Secular Government: http://www.SecularGovernment.us

A new paper criticizes the "personhood" movement and Colorado's Amendment 67, a measure that would treat abortion as murder under the law; outlaw abortion even in cases of rape, incest, risks to a woman's health, and severe fetal deformity; outlaw some types of birth control; outlaw common forms of in vitro fertility treatments; and ban embryonic stem-cell research.

The 54-page paper, coauthored by Diana Hsieh and Ari Armstrong, offers extensive historical and scientific background on the "personhood" movement, abortion, and related matters. The paper also offers philosophic arguments supporting a woman's right to seek an abortion.

"Amendment 67 is extremely misleading in its language," Hsieh said. "The proponents of the measure apparently want voters to believe that it is about protecting pregnant women from vicious criminal attacks, but the reality is that the measure would treat women as murderers for getting an abortion or even for using certain types of birth control or in vitro fertility treatments."

Amendment 67 seeks to extend full legal protections to "unborn human beings," which its sponsors define as all embryos from the moment of conception.

As the new paper discusses, Colorado law already establishes criminal penalties for harming a pregnant woman's embryo or fetus against her consent.

If you have any questions about the paper, please email me.

Campaign Finance Trial on Friday

2014-10-01T22:02:00.000-06:00

This Friday, the Coalition for Secular Government will be in federal court, arguing that Colorado's campaign finance regulations on "issue committees" violate our free speech rights. (Our case is being argued by the fine attorneys of the Center for Competitive Politics.)

Basically, I don't want to have to do the equivalent of filing taxes every two weeks just so that Ari Armstrong and I can publish a very wonkish policy paper on abortion rights. Our policy paper isn't like a campaign ad, yet it's treated like one by the law... which sucks. (For details, read my December 2011 testimony to Colorado's Secretary of State.)

If you want to see litigating for liberty in action, the trial will be held on Friday, starting at 10 am, in the federal courthouse at 901 19th Street in Denver. We're before Judge Kane.

We have a good shot at making a dent in these unjust laws... and I'm very excited!

Last Chance to Pledge to Fund a New Paper on Abortion Rights!

2014-08-19T19:00:00.000-06:00

I'm delighted to report that the pledge drive to fund Ari Armstrong's and my new policy paper in defense of abortion rights is rolling along on schedule. So far, we've received 28 pledges for $1,560. That's over the threshold -- HOORAY! So thank you, thank you to everyone who has pledged so far!

However, I'd love to collect a bit more in funds before tomorrow's deadline, if possible. Why? First, some people don't pay their pledges, so I'd like a bit of wiggle room for that. Second, I'd love to use any extra funds to promote the paper after it's completed. Third, a bit more money raised would be good for CSG's court challenge to Colorado's campaign finance laws.

You have until tomorrow at midnight to pledge. Please do pledge, if you want to support this project! Any amount is welcome, and your pledge is not due until the paper is published on September 17th.

You can find out more about Colorado's 2014 "personhood" ballot measure here. If you have any questions about the project or pledging, please email me.

Here are some of the comments that people have made while pledging... which I'm sharing because I appreciate them so much:

While we need staunch defense of abortion rights everywhere, this project is of personal interest to me because my daughters live in Colorado, and I want them to have the fullest protection of their rights possible there.

Thank you for using sane reasoning to argue for positions that I care about. I support your cause, and wish that as a student I could contribute more. Hopefully soon as a professional I can help more.

It's very important that you write this. Personhood laws destroy reproductive rights, and destroys Republicans' commitment to and reputation for supporting freedom and individual rights.

I am looking forward to the updated paper. I found the original very interesting and informative.

Keep up the good work! Look forward to the update and to the defeat of Amendment 67.

Me too!! Again, please pledge before tomorrow at midnight if you want to support the writing and promotion of a new paper in defense of abortion rights!

Pledge to Fund a New Paper on Abortion Rights!

2014-08-01T18:31:00.000-06:00

After a hiatus in 2012, I'm sorry to report that "Personhood for Zygotes" is on the ballot again in Colorado in 2014. However, I'm pleased to announce that Ari Armstrong and I will update 2010 policy paper in defense of abortion rights in light of the very much changed political landscape. Once again, we need your support to make that happen!

Colorado's New "Personhood for Zygotes" Amendment

Despite the defeats of "personhood" measures in 2008 and 2010, the crusaders against abortion rights have returned with yet another attempt to grant the full legal rights of personhood to fertilized eggs.

The ballot question reads:

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution protecting pregnant women and unborn children by defining "person" and "child" in the Colorado criminal code and the Colorado wrongful death act to include unborn human beings? (Full Text)

If successful, this measure would outlaw therapeutic and elective abortions, common fertility treatments, and popular forms of birth control. It would subject women and their doctors to intrusive police controls and unjust criminal prosecutions. It would force Coloradoans to abide by the deeply religious and sectarian view that the fertilized egg is imbued with rights from God.

Due to its misleading wording -- particularly its talk of "protecting pregnant women" -- 2014's Amendment 67 will likely fare significantly better in the polls than the "personhood" amendments proposed in 2008 and 2010. It's unlikely to pass, but that doesn't mean that abortion rights are secure. The dangerous ideology of "personhood" has spread like wildfire in the past four years among religious conservatives. In the 2012 presidential election, every Republican candidate except Mitt Romney endorsed "personhood for zygotes."

The ideology of "personhood for zygotes" must be steadfastly opposed -- based on a firm understanding of rights in pregnancy -- not merely because "it goes too far."

Support a 2014 Paper in Defense of Abortion Rights

To combat the dangerous ideology of "personhood" and defend abortion rights on principle, Ari Armstrong and I will publish a new version of their policy paper on the "personhood" movement. The updates to the paper will focus on the new language in 2014's Amendment 67, the widespread embrace of "personhood" by the Republican Party in the 2012 election, the synergy between "incremental" and "personhood" approaches to abortion bans, the defeat of a "personhood" amendment in Mississippi, and more.

However, that work depends on your support! The update to the paper will only go forward if at least $1500 is pledged by August 20th. That will help pay for the many hours of work this update will require. If sufficient funds are pledged, the 2014 paper will be published by September 17th.

So, if you want to help defend abortion rights in this 2014 election, please pledge! Any amount is welcome, and your pledge is not due until the paper is published.

Note: Due to efforts of the Center for Competitive Politics on CSG's behalf, Diana hopes that she will not have to report on funds collected for this project, as she's been obliged to do in prior elections. Time -- or rather the judge -- will tell. In any case, pledges for this paper are helping us have a viable case with which to challenge Colorado's onerous campaign finance laws.

If you have any questions about the project or pledging, please email me.

Conservative Allies in Politics: Philosophy in Action Podcast

2014-07-21T21:26:00.002-06:00

On Sunday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on conservative allies in politics. The question was:

Aren't politicians like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul allies in the struggle for liberty? Although I'm an atheist and a novice Objectivist, I've always wondered why so many advocates of individual rights oppose candidates and movements that seem to agree with us on a great many issues. Despite their other warts, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are the most likely men to promote our causes. The notion that they evangelize is dubious. And even if true, are there better alternatives today? I've also seen this attitude towards Libertarian candidates and their party. Ronald Reagan was the only President who advanced the ball towards free markets in the last fifty years, and yet people condemn him because of his position on abortion and because of his religious/political partnerships. I've never understood this. Shouldn't we embrace the advocates of free markets out there today, even if not perfect?

My Answer, In Brief: The Republicans – including "better" Republicans like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul – are a dangerous mixture of some economic liberty, nationalism, and theocracy. Instead of discrediting liberty by supporting them, focus on the issues.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

Duration: 25:38
Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Abortion, Activism, Conservatism, Elections, Free Society, GLBT, Immigration, Politics, Progressivism, Voting

Links:

Philosophy in Action: Objectivism Versus Libertarianism and The Libertarian Party
With God On Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America by William Martin
The "Personhood" Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh
The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh
Rand Paul on immigration and Ted Cruz on immigration
Sen. Rand Paul introduces 'fetal personhood' bill to outlaw abortion
Denver Post: How the Republicans Lost My Vote by Paul Hsieh

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

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on conservative allies in politics, flunking a student, guilt about refusing requests, and more – is available here: Episode of 20 July 2014.

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

Proposals to Ban Muslim Immigration: Philosophy in Action Podcast

2014-06-10T10:00:00.000-06:00

On Sunday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on proposals to ban Muslim immigration. The question was:

Does the lack of respect for rights among some Muslim immigrants justify banning all Muslim immigrants? Sometimes, I hear people say that immigrants from Muslim countries are so illiberal (in the classical sense) that they ought to banned from entering the United States and Western Europe. The anti-immigrationists say that when people from Muslim countries are allowed to reside in the West, such immigrants remain committed to political Islam, honor-kill their own daughters, rape native-born women, and plot to impose sharia law on the West through "stealth jihad." Is the illiberalism of some (or even many) Muslim immigrants grounds for limiting immigration from Muslim countries? What is the proper response to this problem?

My Answer, In Brief: Muslims are a diverse group of people, just like every other immigrant group. They are not a unique or special threat to the rights of Americans. Terrorists and criminals should be excluded when possible – and prosecuted if they commit crimes in the United States.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

Duration: 23:10
Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Conservatism, Crime, Discrimination, Ethics, Foreign Policy, Immigration, Islam, Justice, Law, Politics, Religion, Security, Terrorism

Links:

Philosophy in Action: Proper Immigration Policy
Islam in the United States
Philosophy in Action: Positive Change in Islam
Wikipedia: No True Scotman Fallacy
The Objective Standard: Immigration and Individual Rights by Craig Biddle
GOP Daily Dose: Muslim Booted From Hair School For Refusing To Remove Her Hijab

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

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on overcoming an abusive childhood, proposals to ban Muslim immigration, correcting a cashier's mistake, and more – is available here: Episode of 8 June 2014.

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

Defending Abortion Rights: Philosophy in Action Podcast

2014-04-22T10:00:00.000-06:00

On Sunday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on defending abortion rights. The question was:

How can abortion rights be more effectively defended? Although the biblical case against abortion is weak, the religious right has gained much traction against abortion rights in the last decade or two. The "personhood" movement is growing every year, and incremental restrictions on abortion have mushroomed. Even more alarming, the demographics seem to be against abortion rights: young people are increasingly opposed to abortion. What can be done to more effectively defend abortion rights? Can any lessons be drawn from the success of the campaign for gay marriage?

My Answer, In Brief: The advocates of abortion bans are largely motivated by the divine command, "Thou Shalt Not Kill," which is then often cast in the language of the "right to life." To combat that, those people need to be confronted with the reality of what abortion bans mean to women and couples.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

Duration: 29:00
Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Abortion, Communication, Conservatism, Ethics, Politics, Pregnancy, Rights

Links:

The "Personhood" Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh
The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh

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

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, being virtuous but not happy, defending abortion rights, and more – is available here: Episode of 20 April 2014.

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.

The Value of Studying Theology: Philosophy in Action Podcast

2014-04-08T10:00:00.000-06:00

On last Sunday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on the value of studying theology. The question was:

Can a rational atheist extract any value from studying theology? Theology includes a mix of arguments for the existence of God, plus views on ethics, and more. It's the earliest form of philosophy. Can a person benefit by cherry picking ideas from theological teachings or does the mysticism and other faults outweigh any benefits?

My Answer, In Brief: A rational atheist can extract quite a bit of value from studying the arguments for the existence of God, religious scriptures, and contemporary religious beliefs and practices. He can better his understanding of the culture, become more culturally literate, understand people better, and develop well-justified views on religion.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

Duration: 15:44
Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Activism, Epistemology, Ethics, Literature, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Relationships, Religion, Society, Theology

Links:

Bible: New Revised Standard Version: web, hardcover, and kindle
Atheism: The Case Against God by G.H. Smith
From Jesus to Constantine by Bart Ehrman, available via The Great Courses

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

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on evolution's ethical implications, cultivating a healthy body image, the value of studying theology, and more – is available here: Episode of 30 March 2014.

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

Asking for Rape?

2014-01-21T10:00:00.000-07:00

I found that photo on Facebook a while back, with the following caption:

This photo was posted on STFU, Conservatives Tumblr page last night [here]. The reason why I'm sharing it is not because of the photo itself (which is epic in it's own right), but for the comments it generated.

One person wrote, "but then again, its kind like putting a meat suit on and telling a shark not to eat you".

STFU responded (with bolded text):

We (men) are not fucking sharks!

We are not rabid animals living off of pure instinct

We are capable of rational thinking and understanding.

Just because someone is cooking food doesn't mean you're entitled to eat it.

Just because a banker is counting money doesn't mean you're being given free money.

Just because a person is naked doesn't mean you're entitled to fuck them.

You are not entitled to someone else's body just because it's exposed.

What is so fucking difficult about this concept?

Bravo.

Indeed. Also, Laura Jedeed has some really excellent comments on rape and this image too.

Happily, the rights of women in western countries are more widely recognized and better protected today than at any other time in human history. That's a huge achievement, and part of why I'm grateful to live in modern America.

However, more progress awaits us. One example was in the news last year:

A recent court case just exposed a barbarity in California law, namely that it's not rape to trick an unmarried woman into sleeping with you by pretending to be her boyfriend.

Julio Morales was convicted and sentenced to three years in state prison for entering an 18-year-old woman's bedroom and instigating sex with her while she was asleep after a night of drinking at a house party in 2009. According to prosecutors, it wasn't until "light coming through a crack in the bedroom door illuminated the face of the person having sex with her" that she realized Morales wasn't her boyfriend. Holy shit.

But a panel of judges overturned the conviction this week because of a law from 1872 that doesn't give women the same protections as married women because, as we all know, single women are always down for nonconsensual sex, even when they're asleep and/or purposefully tricked into the act.

The court admitted that "If the woman had been married and the man had impersonated her husband" it would be rape. But since there was no ring on her finger, it's not!

Eugene Volokh had some comments here. I agree that rape by fraud shouldn't be a punishable offense, except in cases of impersonation of a lover or spouse. (I'm not sure of the case of mere friends.) As Eugene says of such impersonation:

It is, thankfully, apparently a rare sort of lie; it is very far outside the normal level of dishonesty that people expect might happen in their relationships; it is one for which there is no plausible justification or mitigation; and criminalizing it is unlikely to sweep in the garden variety lies that, unfortunately, often appear in people's sexual and romantic lives.

California law obviously needs to be updated.

Here's another example. The 2012 election was replete with politicians making ridiculous and offensive comments about rape in order to rationalize their across-the-board opposition to abortion. Most notable was Todd Akin's justification for denying abortions to women pregnant due to rape:

... from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.

Conservatives need to recognize that forced pregnancy -- not just pregnancy due to rape but any unwanted pregnancy -- is a morally abhorrent violation of rights, not a gift from God.

Alas, the third example hits closer to home for me. In a February 2012 podcast, Leonard Peikoff said that a man is entitled to force himself on a woman if she has a few drinks with him and then goes up to his hotel room. Thankfully, he corrected that a few weeks later, but only in part. By a rather strange analysis, Peikoff concluded that a woman cannot withdraw consent after penetration. In reality, that means that the man can do whatever he pleases to the woman after penetration, even as she kicks and screams and yells and cries in protest. That's seriously, seriously wrong -- and dangerous too.

On a more positive note, you'll find my own views on the nature and limits of consent in sex in this podcast. (It's a pretty lengthy discussion... about over 40 minutes.)

Ultimately, my point here is that the rights of women matter -- and they're not yet fully protected. The image at the top of this post reminds us of that. The fact that she's half-naked doesn't make her any less of a person with the absolute right to forbid another person access to her body.

That's a lesson that some people still need to learn, unfortunately.

The Morality of Elective Abortion: Philosophy in Action Podcast

2014-01-07T10:00:00.000-07:00

On Sunday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on the morality of elective abortion. The question was:

Is elective abortion morally wrong? Some people support abortion in the cases of rape or incest, as well as in cases of serious medical problems with the fetus or the pregnancy. However, they regard the termination of a normal, healthy pregnancy as morally wrong, particularly as irresponsible. Are such abortions wrong? Does the judgment change if the couple used birth control or not?

My Answer, In Brief: Abortion is a moral choice whenever a pregnancy – let alone raising a child – would be a sacrifice of herself, her goals, and her happiness. For many unwanted pregnancies, an early-term abortion is a far better option than adoption or becoming a parent.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

Duration: 25:07
Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Abortion, Adoption, Children, Duty, Ethics, Obligation, Parenting, Responsibility, Sacrifice, Self-Sacrifice, Sex

Links:

The "Personhood" Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh
Philosophy in Action: Adoption Versus Abortion

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

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on the morality of elective abortion, liability for injuries on the job, guilt over self-sacrifice, and more – is available here: Episode of 5 January 2014.

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

Objectivism Versus Secular Humanism: Philosophy in Action Podcast

2013-12-12T10:00:00.000-07:00

On Sunday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on Objectivism versus secular humanism. The question was:

What are the similarities and differences between Objectivism and secular humanism? Objectivism and secular humanism are two secular worldviews. What are their basic points? Are they hopelessly at odds? Or do they share some or even many attributes?

My Answer, In Brief: Secular humanism is an attempt to meld secularism with altruistic and collectivist ethics, plus leftist politics. It's not a coherent philosophy – or well-grounded in facts. I urge secular humanists to honestly consider at Ayn Rand's philosophy as an alternative.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

Duration: 18:18
Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Epistemology, Ethics, Metaphysics, Objectivism, Philosophy, Politics, Secular Humanism

Links:

American Humanist Association: Definitions of Humanism and 1933 Humanist Manifesto

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 secular humanism, moral judgment of European colonizers, the right time to declare love, and more – is available here: Episode of 8 December 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

Positive Change in Islam: Philosophy in Action Podcast

2013-11-27T10:00:00.000-07:00

On Sunday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on positive change in Islam. The question was:

Can Islam change for the better? Many critics of Islam claim that the religion is inherently totalitarian, violent, and repressive – and hence, that change for the better is utterly impossible. An Islamic reformation or enlightenment will never happen, they say. Is that true? More generally, what are the limits of a religion's ties to its own scriptures?

My Answer, In Brief: As in every other religion, Muslims are not bound to the barbaric elements of Islamic texts. Islam can change – and hopefully will, for the better.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

Duration: 26:54
Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Christianity, Foreign Policy, Islam, Judaism, Philosophy, Religion

Links:

Can Islam Be Reformed? by Daniel Pipes
Wikipedia: Islamic Golden Age
Nothing Less than Victory: Decisive Wars and the Lessons of History by John Lewis

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

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on positive change in Islam, self-esteem and appearance, and more – is available here: Episode of 24 November 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

Responsibility & Luck: Now Available

2013-10-24T10:00:00.000-06:00

I'm delighted to announce that my first book, Responsibility & Luck: A Defense of Praise and Blame, is now available for purchase in paperback, as well as for Kindle and Nook.

The book defends the justice of moral praise and blame of persons using an Aristotelian theory of moral responsibility, thereby refuting Thomas Nagel's "problem of moral luck." It's an academic work but accessible to anyone with an interest in philosophy.

About Responsibility & Luck

Does the pervasive influence of luck in life mean that people cannot be held responsible for their choices? Do people lack the control required to justify moral praise and blame?

In his famous article "Moral Luck," philosopher Thomas Nagel casts doubt on our ordinary moral judgments of persons. He claims that we intuitively accept that moral responsibility requires control, yet we praise and blame people for their actions, the outcomes of those actions, and their characters -- even though shaped by forces beyond their control, i.e., by luck. This is the "problem of moral luck."

Philosopher Diana Hsieh argues that this attack on moral judgment rests on a faulty view of control, as well as other errors. By developing Aristotle's theory of moral responsibility, Hsieh explains the sources and limits of a person's responsibility for what he does, what he produces, and who he is. Ultimately, she shows that moral judgments are not undermined by luck.

In addition, this book explores the nature of moral agency and free will, the purpose of moral judgment, causation in tort and criminal law, the process of character development, and more.

For more information, including two sample chapters and the detailed table of contents, visit the book's web page.

Again, you can purchase Responsibility & Luck in paperback, as well as for Kindle and Nook.

Like every author, I depend on good reviews of the book on Amazon, social media, and elsewhere. So once you've read Responsibility & Luck, please review it!

Atheists Patronizing Religious Businesses: Philosophy in Action Podcast

2013-09-18T10:00:00.000-06:00

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

Is it wrong for an atheist to patronize religious businesses? Is it an endorsement of religion or failure of integrity for an atheist to buy goods or services from a religious business, such as hiring an explicitly religious (and advertised as such) plumber or joining the local YMCA?

My Answer, In Brief: Most people are religious, and they're good trading partners. However, when a person injects his religion into his business, that's increasing the likelihood of unwanted proselytizing, as well as seeming to endorse his religiosity. In that case, find another person to do business with, if possible.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

Duration: 6:15
Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Atheism, Boundaries, Business, Integrity, Justice, Religion, Respect, Sanction
To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on identifying a central purpose, Immanuel Kant on sex, becoming an educated voter, atheists patronizing religious businesses, and more – is available here: Episode of 15 September 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

Becoming an Educated Voter: Philosophy in Action Podcast

2013-09-16T10:55:00.001-06:00

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on becoming an educated voter that might be of interest. The question was:

How should I educate myself so that I can cast informed votes in elections? I'm 25, and I've never voted in any local, state, or national election. I have good reason for that, I think: I've never been able to educate myself sufficiently on the candidates to be certain of who to vote for. Also, as a marketing student with a passion for advertising and public relations, I don't think I could vote until I'd seen the inside of a campaign team as a member of it, so that I have a personal understanding of how much the candidate presented is real or idealized. I know that that is unrealistic, because I wouldn't know which candidate to work for. Instead of that, what steps could I take to inform myself, without consuming too much time, so that I could vote in the next presidential election?

My Answer, In Brief: A person ought to educate himself before voting, and that's relatively easy to do with a bit of research into the candidate's positions and record.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

Duration: 12:58
Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Elections, Politics, Voting

Links:

Philosophy in Action: Dr. Eric Daniels on Why Voting Doesn't Matter

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

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on identifying a central purpose, Immanuel Kant on sex, becoming an educated voter, atheists patronizing religious businesses, and more – is available here: Episode of 15 September 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

Coalition for Secular Government Cited in the Wall Street Journal

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

I'm delighted to report that the Coalition for Secular Government was mentioned in a recent column in the Wall Street Journal: Bradley Smith: The Supreme Court and Ed Corsi's Life of Political Crime. Here's the relevant tidbit:

In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), and again in Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (1986), the Supreme Court held that the regulatory requirements of operating a political action committee could not be imposed on groups that lacked the primary purpose of supporting or defeating political candidates in elections. But across the country, states are flouting that command, imposing rigid requirements on ordinary citizens who are trying to express their political opinions.

In Colorado, for example, a group of friends calling themselves the Coalition for Secular Government operate a website on which they posted a long policy paper on abortion and church-state relations. The paper concluded by urging Coloradans to vote "no" on a ballot measure. For that, the state says they must register as a political committee and report their activities, income and expenses.

The article begins with an even more egregious case than ours, and it's well worth reading.

Link-O-Rama

2013-08-19T10:00:00.000-06:00

Some social conservatives threaten to abandon GOP: Here, let me open the door for you...
George Takei Responds To "Traditional" Marriage Fans: So.Much.Awesome
Video: Meet the 12-year-old Egyptian boy who wonderfully explains his country’s crisis: Wow, this kid is amazingly perceptive and articulate... and definitely not a theocrat!
Vatican City Explained by CGPGrey: It's crazypants run wild!
Lady In Black: 'Burka Avenger' Fights For Pakistan's Girls: "A caped crusader is on the loose in the mountains of Pakistan, but she's not your traditional superhero. The Burka Avenger wears a flowing black veil — only her brown eyes are visible — as she fights corrupt politicians and religious zealots. Her weapons of choice: pens and books."
Tennessee judge, citing Jesus, changes baby's name from "Messiah": "A Tennessee woman named her baby Messiah, but she and the boy's father couldn't agree on whose last name he should bear. So they went to court. Except at a hearing in Cocke County Chancery Court on Thursday, Child Support Magistrate Lu Ann Ballew changed Messiah's first name. 'The word Messiah is a title, and it's a title that has only been earned by one person, and that one person is Jesus Christ, the judge told WBIR-TV, a local channel." I'd like to introduce this judge to the concept of "separation of church and state."

Tom Varik on Gay Marriage and Spousal Privilege: Philosophy in Action Podcast

2013-08-12T10:00:00.000-06:00

On Wednesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I interviewed attorney Tom Varik about "Gay Marriage and Spousal Privilege." The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading. You'll find it on the episode's archive page, as well as below.

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

Podcast: Tom Varik about "Gay Marriage and Spousal Privilege"

As the cause of gay marriage gains ever-more traction, many have wondered whether marriage really matters. Attorney Tom Varik argues that it does. In this interview, he discussed the legal status and importance of gay marriage, including the recent Supreme Court cases, as well as the history and limits of spousal privilege.

Tom G. Varik is an attorney in Cleveland, Ohio, where he currently works for the Social Security Administration. He attended the University of Akron School of Law, earning a JD in 2009. Before that, he studied motion picture production at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio, where he produced several short films featured in various international underground film festivals, and earned a BFA in 2006.

Listen or Download:

Duration: 1:03:30
Download: Standard MP3 File (21.8 MB)

Topics:

The nature of spousal privilege
Testimonial privilege
Communication privilege
A few examples
The history of spousal privilege: Funk v. US (290 U.S. 371) (1933), Hawkins v. US (358 U.S. 74) (1958), Wyatt v. US (362 U.S. 525) (1960), Wolfe v. US (291 U.S. 7) (1934), and Trammel v. US (445 U.S. 40) (1980)
The proper rule and proper justification for spousal privilege
A parent-child privilege?
The relevance of spousal privilege to gay marriage
Elements of marriage for which people cannot contract
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
The recent Supreme Court Case: Windsor
The effects of the patchwork of state laws on gay marriage
The Full Faith and Credit Clause
The Proposition 8 Supreme Court Case
The cultural acceptance of gays

Links:

Same-Sex Marriages and the Federal Spousal Privileges by Tom G. Varik

Tags:

Culture, GLBT, Law, Marriage, Politics, Rights

Evolution and Objectivism: Philosophy in Action Podcast

2013-08-09T10:00:00.000-06:00

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

Does evolutionary theory contradict the principles of Objectivism? I am new to atheism and Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, and I embrace both wholeheartedly. However, I take issue with the theory of evolution. Atheism seems to imply evolution, but evolution seems to clash with Objectivism. Evolution holds that man is an insignificant piece of the larger, grander picture of the randomness that is life, that man is just one small insignificant step in the collective evolution of the earth, and that man is one with Mother Earth, not superior to it. In contrast, Objectivism holds that man has a purpose and that man is the most significant being, supreme over all other life. Also, Objectivism holds that "A is A" and that "Existence exists." Evolution, in contrast, claims that life came from non-life, fish came from non-fish, and man came from non-man – meaning that A came from non-A. Am I correct in my criticisms? Might some theory other than evolution be more compatible with Objectivism?

My Answer, In Brief: This question is based on major misunderstandings not only of evolutionary theory, but Objectivism too. Evolutionary theory is proven scientific theory that doesn’t conflict with Objectivist principles in the slightest.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

Duration: 12:39
Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Egoism, Epistemology, Ethics, Evolution, Human Nature, Logic, Meaning, Metaphysics, Objectivism, Rationalism, Science

Links:

The Blind Watchmaker and The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins
Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne

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

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on identifying dangerous people, evolution and Objectivism, and more – is available here: Episode of 4 August 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

Tom Varik on Gay Marriage and Spousal Privilege: Wednesday on Philosophy in Action Radio

2013-08-06T10:00:00.000-06:00

On Wednesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll interview attorney Tom Varik about "Gay Marriage and Spousal Privilege." This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Wednesday, 7 August 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later.

As the cause of gay marriage gains ever-more traction, many have wondered whether marriage really matters. Attorney Tom Varik argue that it does. He will discuss the legal status and importance of gay marriage, including the recent Supreme Court cases, as well as the history and limits of spousal privilege.

Tom G. Varik is an attorney in Cleveland, Ohio, where he currently works for the Social Security Administration. He attended the University of Akron School of Law, earning a JD in 2009. Before that, he studied motion picture production at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio, where he produced several short films featured in various international underground film festivals, and earned a BFA in 2006.

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: Tom Varik on Gay Marriage and Spousal Privilege. It will be posted on Thursday 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 Wednesday evening!

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.

Eric Daniels on Why Small Government Isn't the Answer: Philosophy in Action Podcast

2013-08-05T10:00:00.000-06:00

On Wednesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I interviewed historian Eric Daniels about "Why Small Government Isn't the Answer." It's not directly related to the cause of secular government, but it's useful to anyone interested in political activism for individual rights. The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading. You'll find it on the episode's archive page, as well as below.

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

Podcast: Eric Daniels about "Why Small Government Isn't the Answer"

Is "big government" the fundamental problem of American politics? Historian Eric Daniels will explain why this common formulation is misleading, wrong, and even dangerous to liberty.

Dr. Eric Daniels teaches history and works on curriculum development at the LePort Schools in Irvine, California. He has previously taught at Clemson, Georgetown, and Duke Universities. He has a Ph.D. in American History from the University of Wisconsin.

Listen or Download:

Duration: 1:15:05
Download: Standard MP3 File (25.8 MB)

Topics:

The problem with "big government" versus "small government"
The proper debate: individual rights
The two axes of size versus rights
Big government like judicial activism
Three categories of government action
Violating rights versus failing to protect rights
The Founders' view: not size but the proper ends of government
The failure of the Articles of Confederation
19th century rights violations
The rights of women
Violations of rights by local governments, particularly based on race
The real-life effects of failing to protect rights
Judges riding the circuit, too small criminal justice system
Measuring the size of government
Measuring the growth of government
The problem of the inessential
Skewing the political debate toward anarchism
The appeal to Somalia
The terms "limited government" and "minarchism"
Advice for activists
Eric's new job at LePort Schools

Links:

The Objective Standard: Why "Big Government" is Not the Problem by Eric Daniels
Vices of the Political System of the United States by James Madison
lePort Schools

Tags:

Activism, America, Anarchism, Crime, Culture, Epistemology, Government, History, Law, Libertarianism, Politics, Racism, Rights, Self-Defense, Sexism

Today's Feminist Movement: Philosophy in Action Podcast

2013-07-16T10:00:00.000-06:00

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on today's feminist movement. The question was:

How should the feminist movement be judged? Do today's feminist causes have any merit? Or is the feminist movement merely seeking special favors for women at the expense of men – perhaps even via violations of the rights of men? If the movement is mixed, how should it be judged, overall? Should better feminists eschew the movement due to its flaws – or attempt to change it from within? Can advocates of reason, egoism, and capitalism ally themselves with selected feminist causes without promoting the worse elements thereof?

My Answer, In Brief: Despite its many problems, feminism has been a major force for political, economic, and social change for the better. Today, just as with any other ideologically mixed movement, alliances with feminists should be made in a careful and ad-hoc way.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

Duration: 19:26
Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Activism, Culture, Feminism, History, Law, Politics, Politics, Rights, Sexism

Links:

The Legal Status of Women, 1776-1830
The Feminist Papers: From Adams to de Beauvoir, edited by Alice Rossi
Philosophy in Action: The Wrong of Anti-Discrimination Laws
iFeminists.net

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

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on today's feminist movement, the morality of jailbreaking, racism versus moral decency, the objectivity of color concepts, and more – is available here: Episode of 14 July 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