On Sunday, 20 May 2012, I broadcast a new episode of my Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio. This week, we discussed questions on warning others about dangerous people, responding to an unjust firing, investment versus sacrifice, downloading music after hard drive failure, and more. Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers joined me on audio, and the audience posted comments and questions in a text chat.

Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio is a live, hour-long internet radio show, broadcast every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET via BlogTalkRadio. In each episode, I answer questions from the queue, applying rational principles to the challenges of real life.

As usual, if you can’t attend the live show, you’ll find the audio recording of the whole episode, as well as individual questions, posted to the episode’s archive page: Q&A Radio: 20 May 2012.

To automatically download every new episode, just subscribe to the Philosophy in Action Podcast RSS Feed in your music player:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader
  
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader

The Podcast: Episode: 20 May 2012

Listen Now

Duration: 1:06:50

• Download the Enhanced M4A File (16.2 MB)
  
• Download the Standard MP3 File (15.4 MB)

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

I’ll be travelling, then broadcasting from ATLOSCon 2012 next week! Due to those travels, I won’t be broadcasting my “Advice Radio” show on Wednesday evening.

Philosophy in Action’s broadcasts are available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing them, but they’re not free to produce: they require our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value our work, please contribute to our tip jar!

Question 1: Warning Others about Dangerous People (3:05)

Question: Should you warn others about vicious people in your community? If you know a person to be dishonest, but that person is well-regarded in your community, should you tell others in that community what you know? Does it matter if the person is in a position of authority (perhaps over an organization’s finances), such that he could do a whole lot of damage? What kinds of immorality would be serious enough to warrant warning others?

My Answer, In Brief: If you know of a wolf in sheep’s clothing threatening your values and your community, don’t remain silent. You need to speak and act – but do that carefully.

Question 2: Responding to an Unjust Firing (21:37)

Question: Should an employer have to explain and justify his firing of an employee? Should an employer be able to fire an employee for some alleged misconduct, even though the employer never bothered to verify the misconduct, nor asked the employee for his side of the story? For example, suppose that when the employee shows up for work he is simply told that he’s been fired because someone made a complaint about him. The employee could easily prove the complaint to be false but the employer isn’t concerned with proof or lack thereof. The employee’s reputation in the eyes of possible future employers is damaged, even if the employer never discusses the firing with anyone else. In such a case, should the employee be able to sue for having been fired without proper cause?

My Answer, In Brief: In a free society, absent a contract, employers are entitled to fire employees at will, including for unjust reasons or in unjust ways. An employee wrongfully fired should move on with his life, stating the facts about what happened as necessary to protect his reputation.

Links:

• Wikipedia: United Breaks Guitars

Question: What is the difference between “investment” and “sacrifice”? In your February 26, 2012 webcast, you indicated that you regard sacrifices as something very different from investments. But doesn’t sacrifice just mean giving up something? In that case, don’t investments in the future require sacrifice now? Or: What’s the difference between sacrificing some ease and comfort for your goal versus investing time and work to achieve a goal?

My Answer, In Brief: The term “sacrifice” is a confused mess that conflates loss for its own sake with loss for the sake of greater gain. A person ought to pursue his own life and happiness, which means pursuing investments, not sacrifices.

Question 4: Downloading Music After Hard Drive Failure (51:50)

Question: Does respecting intellectual property require me to re-purchase my music collection lost due to hard drive failure? Over the years I have purchased quite a bit of digital music and have built quite a large library. Recently, due to a computer crash and lack of backup, a large segment of that library was erased. Since I paid for all of the music that was lost, I would like to restore it, whether by copying from my friends or by downloading illegal copies from the internet. But I am not entirely sure what I have the right to do based on my original purchases. What do you think?

My Answer, In Brief: It’s perfectly moral to obtain new copies of intellectual property that you’ve lost, but be careful about your choice of means: obtain the lost files from friends, not piracy-peddling web sites.

Rapid Fire Questions (1:01:07)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

• What’s the proper meaning of the word “greedy”?

Support Philosophy in Action

Philosophy in Action’s broadcasts are available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing them, but they’re not free for us to produce: they require our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value our work, please contribute to our tip jar!

$5.00 USD – One Time $10.00 USD – One Time $20.00 USD – One Time $50.00 USD – One Time $100.00 USD – One Time Make A One-Time
Contribution

$10.00 USD – Monthly $20.00 USD – Monthly $30.00 USD – Monthly $50.00 USD – Monthly $100.00 USD – Monthly

Create A Monthly
Contribution

If you’d like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you’ve contributed to our tip jar! You make our work possible, and we’re so grateful for that! Also, whether you’re able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about Philosophy in Action to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming episodes.

That’s much appreciated!

As usual, if you can’t attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the Philosophy in Action Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader
  
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader

We hope that you’ll join the live webcast, because that’s more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 6 May 2012

Listen Now

Duration: 1:02:26

• Download the Enhanced M4A File (15.2 MB)
  
• Download the Standard MP3 File (14.3 MB)

• Subscribe to the Enhanced M4A Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader
  
• Subscribe to the Standard MP3 Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

I’ve been working on updates to Philosophy in Action, and I’m going to start preparing my talks for ATLOSCon 2012. And… Happy Birthday, Tammy!

Question 1: Forgiving Yourself (3:08)

Should we forgive ourselves? How can a person free himself from guilt over past errors and wrongs, particularly irrationality? Should such a person forgive himself – and if so, what does that entail?

My Answer, In Brief: The idea of “forgiving yourself” is somewhat metaphorical, but it’s useful for applying objective moral standards to yourself when recovering from a wrongdoing.

Links:

• Philosophy in Action: The Necessity of Forgiveness


• Philosophy in Action: The Process of Forgiveness


• Philosophy in Action: Unforgivable Acts

Can an ordinary person do something unforgivable? Could a friend act in a way that would make rational forgiveness impossible? Might a person do something so hurtful or unfair that you couldn’t ever trust them again? In such cases, how should the person wronged acted towards the unforgivable person?

My Answer, In Brief: People can do truly unforgivable things, particularly when they betray the fundamental basis of the relationship.

Links:

• Philosophy in Action: The Necessity of Forgiveness


• Philosophy in Action: The Process of Forgiveness


• Philosophy in Action: Forgiving Yourself

Does life have a purpose or meaning? Religious people say that God gives their lives meaning, purpose, and direction. Other people find meaning in doing good for others or society as a whole. As an atheist and egoist, what do you think the purpose of life is? Does it have any inherent meaning – or should a person arbitrarily decide its meaning? And shouldn’t a person think that something is more important than himself and his own petty concerns?

My Answer, In Brief: A person who fully values himself will reject the idea of an externally-imposed purpose, but instead identify and pursue his own central purpose by reason.

Links:

• Philosophy in Action: Finding a Central Purpose

Is downloading music from YouTube a violation of intellectual property rights? Given that content creators can remove YouTube videos that violate their intellectual property rights, is it wrong to assume that they consent to the posting if they’ve not asked to remove it? It is wrong to watch or share clips that seem to be uploaded without permission? It is wrong to download music from YouTube for my own personal use, whether uploaded by the creator or someone else?

My Answer, In Brief: It’s often difficult to judge whether online intellectual property is legitimate or not. Use common sense to judge whether likely legitimate or not, and don’t attempt to sneak out of paying.

Links:

• Philosophy in Action: The Morality of Pirating Music

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

• Could you give an example of a central purpose?


• Is it morally okay to associate with a religious charity if you believe in its secular mission?

Comments or questions? Contact us!

• Diana Hsieh: Philosophy in Action: diana@philosophyinaction.com


• Greg Perkins: Objectivist Answers: greg@eCosmos.com

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it’s not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we’re doing, please contribute to the webcast’s tip jar!

$5.00 USD – One Time $10.00 USD – One Time $20.00 USD – One Time $50.00 USD – One Time $100.00 USD – One Time Make A One-Time
Contribution

$10.00 USD – Monthly $20.00 USD – Monthly $30.00 USD – Monthly $50.00 USD – Monthly $100.00 USD – Monthly

Create A Monthly
Contribution

If you’d like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you’ve contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we’re so grateful for that! Also, whether you’re able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.

As usual, if you can’t attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader
  
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader

We hope that you’ll join the live webcast, because that’s more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 15 April 2012

Listen Now

Duration: 1:09:00

• Download the Enhanced M4A File (16.8 MB)
  
• Download the Standard MP3 File (15.8 MB)

• Subscribe to the Enhanced M4A Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader
  
• Subscribe to the Standard MP3 Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

I’ve been busy working on transferring NoodleFood over to WordPress on Philosophy in Action. It’s still a work in progress!

Question 1: The Morality of Breaking the Law (3:44)

When is it moral to break the law? Laws should be written to protect individual rights. Unfortunately, many laws today violate rights. When should I abide by a rights-violating law, and when is it proper to break it?

My Answer, In Brief: A person does not have any moral obligation to submit to violations of his rights. However, the proper course – whether complying with the law, breaking the law overtly, or breaking the law covertly – depends on the particulars of the situation. Mostly, get legal advice first!

Links:

• The Singing Revolution (NetFlix)

Where is the line between justice and vigilantism? When is it moral to take the law into your own hands – meaning pursuing, detaining, and/or punishing criminals as a private citizen? Suppose that you know – without a shadow of a doubt – that some person committed a serious crime against you or a loved one. If the justice system cannot punish the person due to some technicality, is it wrong for you to do so? If you’re caught, should a judge or jury punish you, as if you’d committed a crime against an innocent person?

My Answer, In Brief: The vigilante is not an agent of justice, but a threat to innocents and to the foundations of civilized society.

Links:

• “The Objectivist Ethics” in The Virtue of Selfishness

Should “stealing valor” be a crime? Rencently, a man was arrested by the FBI in Houston and charged with “stolen valor.” This is the charge made against someone who falsely poses as a decorated soldier. Is it proper to make this a crime? Why or why not?

My Answer, In Brief: Undoubtedly, “stealing valor” is reprehensible, but not everything reprehensible should be a crime. The legal response to “stealing valor” ought to be the same as for other kinds of credentials fraud, whether protect speech, civil fraud, or criminal fraud.

Links:

• Facebook: Discussion of Stolen Valor


• Criminal Fraud by Ellen Podgor


• Criminalizing Lying about Heroism by James Joyner


• Ninth Circuit: Lying About Military Honors Is Protected Speech by Doug Mataconis


• The Atlantic: Why It’s Criminal to Lie About Military Honors


• Knowingly False Statements of Fact and the First Amendment by Eugene Volokh


• Emotional Distress, Knowing Lies, Xavier Alvarez, Warren Spahn, and the Bronze Star by Eugene Volokh

What should a businessman do if he decides that his product or service is not really good? More specifically, what should a businessman do if he’s rises up in the business world on promoting a particular product or service, only to learn decades into the ventures that there are better alternatives? As a fictional example, let’s take a mattress manufacturer CEO. He has spent decades of his life trying to make the most comfortable mattresses possible, but then read scientific studies that concludes that there is no healthier sleeping surface than the solid floor, and in using his honest judgment he agrees. Being so high up and so long involved in the mattress world, what are the moral range of options for him?

My Answer, In Brief: Morality in business does not requires producing optimal products, but only good products for honest trade. In this case, the businessman has a range of options, including some moral pitfalls to avoid.

Links:

• Philosophy in Action: Overcoming Perfectionism

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

• Why are vigilante movies so popular?


• How is a citizen’s arrest different from vigilantism?


• Is there a lower threshold for when it’s okay to break a regulation?


• Given the lack of Antonin Scalia’s “New Professionalism” in police action, is the exclusionary rule is an important safeguard?


• If a government actor has ruined your life unjustly is vengeance a moral option?


• Is moral perfection a habit and if so is it one of yours?


• Must a political candidate be chosen by conflating him/her with the party they happen to be running under, or is it reasonable to select a candidate but not agree with the party they run under?


• Where does Ayn Rand talk about a “central purpose” – and what does she mean by it?

Comments or questions? Contact us!

• Diana Hsieh: Philosophy in Action: diana@philosophyinaction.com


• Greg Perkins: Objectivist Answers: greg@eCosmos.com

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it’s not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we’re doing, please contribute to the webcast’s tip jar!

$5.00 USD – One Time $10.00 USD – One Time $20.00 USD – One Time $50.00 USD – One Time $100.00 USD – One Time Make A One-Time
Contribution

$10.00 USD – Monthly $20.00 USD – Monthly $30.00 USD – Monthly $50.00 USD – Monthly $100.00 USD – Monthly

Create A Monthly
Contribution

If you’d like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you’ve contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we’re so grateful for that! Also, whether you’re able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.

As usual, if you can’t attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you’ll join the live webcast, because that’s more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 8 April 2012

Listen Now

Duration: 59:30

Download the Episode

• Download the Enhanced M4A File (14.5 MB)
• Download the Standard MP3 File (13.7 MB)

Subscribe to the Feed

• Subscribe to the Enhanced M4A Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader
• Subscribe to the Standard MP3 Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader

The Segments: Episode: 8 April 2012

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

I really enjoyed giving a talk on luck and responsibility at Liberty on the Rocks in Denver on Wednesday. Alas, much of my time for the rest of the week was consumed by WTFuffles. This week, I will finally complete the move of NoodleFood to Philosophy in Action!

Question 1: Cultivating Good Luck (3:04)

Can and should a person try to cultivate his own “good luck”? For example, a construction worker might leave his business card with neighbors in case they or anyone they might know happens to need his services in the future. Similarly, an investor might look to buy stock in companies with promising patents pending or forthcoming products. Is pursuing these kinds of uncertain opportunities a means of cultivating good luck?

My Answer, In Brief: Good luck is not a force in the universe that a person can cultivate. Rather, to the extent that a person extends his knowledge and control over his life, he minimizes the effects of luck in life. That’s the right approach.

Links:

• OCON Course: OCON: Luck in the Pursuit of Life by Diana Hsieh

Question 2: Public Breastfeeding (14:05)

Is breastfeeding children in public wrong? My wife and I want to have kids, and one question we have concerns public breastfeeding. Is it immodest or improper to breastfeed in public? Should stores permit or forbid it on their premises? Should public breastfeeding be restricted or banned by law as indecent?

My Answer, In Brief: People ought to support public breastfeeding, even if they prefer not to look at it. It’s not a sexual act, and mothers should be able to feed their babies when they’re out and about.

Links:

• Philosophy in Action: Appropriate Contexts for Nudity and Public Nudity and Rights

• Kelly Elmore’s Collection of Nursing Boobs

Question 3: National Identification Card (29:57)

Should the government institute a national id card? Periodically, politicians speak of instituting a national identification card in order to protect identify and track potential terrorists, prevent the hiring of illegal immigrants, stop welfare fraud, and more. Would such a national id card violate rights – or be unwise for other reasons? Are state-level identification cards sufficient? Are they proper?

My Answer, In Brief: A national ID card is not only unnecessary: it’s a grave threat to rights. A person should not have to show his papers to engage in ordinary activities.

Question 4: Mulling Over Memories (43:00)

Should I mull over my memories less frequently? Is it unhealthy for a person to continuously mull over previous events and specific memories? I go over past events in my mind on a constant basis. I try to recall specific details (i.e., things I was thinking at the time, etc.) and keep a perfect “image” of the memory/event in my mind as long as possible. Is this strange, unhealthy, or counterproductive?

My Answer, In Brief: You need to ask yourself: What’s the purpose and value of this practice? You need to make sure that it’s helping you live in reality, not serving as an escape from reality.

Rapid Fire Questions (49:04)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

• What do you think about the EU?

• What is the difference between someone who identifies themselves as rational but not an Objectivist and someone who identifies as rational and an Objectivist?

• Isn’t life meaningless without God?

• Why do you think that paganism has been almost entirely replaced by monotheism?

• How do you know that God doesn’t exist?

Conclusion (58:35)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

• Diana Hsieh: Philosophy in Action: diana@philosophyinaction.com

• Greg Perkins: Objectivist Answers: greg@eCosmos.com

Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it’s not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we’re doing, please contribute to the webcast’s tip jar!

$5.00 USD – One Time $10.00 USD – One Time $20.00 USD – One Time $50.00 USD – One Time $100.00 USD – One Time Make A One-Time
Contribution

$10.00 USD – Monthly $20.00 USD – Monthly $30.00 USD – Monthly $50.00 USD – Monthly $100.00 USD – Monthly Create A Monthly
Contribution

If you’d like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you’ve contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we’re so grateful for that! Also, whether you’re able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.

As usual, if you can’t attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you’ll join the live webcast, because that’s more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 1 April 2012

Listen Now

Duration: 1:02:45

Download the Episode

• Download the Enhanced M4A File (15.3 MB)
• Download the Standard MP3 File (14.4 MB)

Subscribe to the Feed

• Subscribe to the Enhanced M4A Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader
• Subscribe to the Standard MP3 Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader

The Segments: Episode: 1 April 2012

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

My mother has been visiting, so we’ve been having all kinds of fun. On Wednesday, I’m speaking at Liberty on the Rocks in Denver on luck and responsibility. Also, I plan to finally complete the move of NoodleFood to Philosophy in Action.

Question 1: Statutory Rape Laws (2:31)

Are statutory rape laws proper? Statutory rape laws criminalize seemingly consensual sex when at least one party is below the age of consent, but sexually mature, e.g. when an 18 year old has sex with a 15 year old. Are such laws proper? Should the over-age person be convicted if he or she didn’t know (or couldn’t reasonably know) that the under-age person was under-age? What if the under-age person lied about his or her age? What, if anything, should happen legally when both parties are under-age, e.g. when two 15 year olds have sex?

My Answer, In Brief: As currently written, statutory rape laws are unjust. The law can and ought protect sexually mature minors by focusing on consent, using shifting burdens of proof, and allowing parents to use restraining orders.

Links:

• Philosophy in Action: Consent in Sex
• Jailbait by Carolyn Cocca, Chapter 1 (PDF)
• Colorado Revised Statutes: Title 18, Article 3, Part 4

Question 2: Outing Anti-Gay Politicians as Gay (27:45)

Is it wrong to “out” a hypocritical anti-gay public figure who is secretly gay? Some conservative politicians have taken strongly anti-gay positions, but are secretly gay themselves. If one learns of this, is it wrong for gay activists to publicly “out” them? What if they don’t engage in public hypocrisy, but are just quietly “in the closet”? Should activists respect their privacy in that case?

My Answer, In Brief: People who publicly advocate meddling in other people’s private choices should not expect others to respect their private hypocrisy. They should be exposed, as a matter of justice.

Links:

• Huffington Post: “Outrage” Documentary: Activists Outing Gay Conservatives
• Philosophy in Action: Moral Standards for Public Figures

Question 3: Potential Employers Demanding Facebook Logins (34:58)

Should employers ask applicants for their Facebook logins and passwords? More employers are asking job applicants for their Facebook logins and passwords as part of a background check. Of course, applicants can decline, in which case they might not be considered for the job. Should employers be asking for this information? Is it proper to want to check on the online activities of potential employees? Is that an invasion of privacy? How should someone respond if asked by a potential employer?

My Answer, In Brief: For an employer to ask for your Facebook login and password is a serious invasion of privacy, breach of security, and display of distrust. An employer concerned about the online activities of its employees can and should use other methods.

Links:

• Denver Post: Privacy red flag raised as more job applicants asked to turn over Facebook passwords
• Facebook: Protecting Your Passwords and Your Privacy
• Wiseguy Pictures Short Video: Facebook Ruins Job Interview

Question 4: Enjoying Fantasy and Theology Literature (46:12)

Is an interest in fantasy and theology literature proper? I’m fascinated with fantasy as a literary genre. I find it easier to get excited about a fantastic story rather than about a realistic one, and I’m also really interested in fantasy with a certain sophistication: the extremely well-constructed world of Tolkien in Lord of the Rings, for example, or the mythological background of vampire stories and so on. Along the same lines, I am also fascinated with theology. For example, I found it extremely interesting to read Paradise Lost, and to read up on the many theological questions it raises and answers. Is such an interest proper – or am I indulging in some kind of evasion or escapism from reality? Does it matter that I want to become a writer? I find inspiration for my own potential stories this way.

My Answer, In Brief: A person can have wholly good reasons for an interest in fantasy, science fiction, and theology. Mostly, a person should approach such preferences not by focusing on judging himself, but rather on understanding himself.

Links:

• The Truth Machine by James Halperin

Rapid Fire Questions (54:07)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

• How do you know that God doesn’t exist?
• What do you think of the idea of “guilty pleasures”?
• Isn’t life meaningless without God?
• If the government didn’t own the roads, who would set and enforce traffic laws?
• What’s the proper meaning of the word “greedy”?
• What does it mean to be selfish versus selfless?
• What is the role of a proper government in regards to the unlicensed spectrum?
• Happy April Fool’s Day!

Conclusion (1:01:48)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

• Diana Hsieh: Philosophy in Action: diana@philosophyinaction.com
• Greg Perkins: Objectivist Answers: greg@eCosmos.com

Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it’s not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we’re doing, please contribute to the webcast’s tip jar!

$5.00 USD – One Time $10.00 USD – One Time $20.00 USD – One Time $50.00 USD – One Time $100.00 USD – One Time Make A One-Time
Contribution

$10.00 USD – Monthly $20.00 USD – Monthly $30.00 USD – Monthly $50.00 USD – Monthly $100.00 USD – Monthly Create A Monthly
Contribution

If you’d like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you’ve contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we’re so grateful for that! Also, whether you’re able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.

As usual, if you can’t attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you’ll join the live webcast, because that’s more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 25 March 2012

Listen Now

Duration: 1:03:27

Download the Episode

• Download the Enhanced M4A File (15.4 MB)
• Download the Standard MP3 File (14.6 MB)

Subscribe to the Feed

• Subscribe to the Enhanced M4A Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader
• Subscribe to the Standard MP3 Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader

The Segments: Episode: 25 March 2012

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

I was busy with SnowCon this past week… and my mother is coming to visit this week!

Question 1: Unfriendly Disputes in Online Communities (3:29)

Why are disputes so belligerent in online communities? I’ve noticed that people get into very loud and heated disputes online, whereas that doesn’t seem to happen in local communities. Disputes in local communities tend to be less frequent, less belligerent, and last for a shorter time – even when some people end up hating each other and refusing to have anything to do with each other in the end. Why is that? Also, why do people who are closest with each other (whether close friends, dating, or married) seem to agree more on hot-button issues? Are people more willing to reject a stranger’s arguments than those of a friend? Is that an error?

My Answer, In Brief: Conflicts with other people are inevitable in life. Online conflicts are often more belligerent, due to the differences between online and in-person communication. People should try to manage online conflicts in a sane way, with respect for facts about the limitations of the medium.

Question 2: Overcommittment in Projects (32:07)

How can I manage my projects better? Too often, I’m overwhelmed by the sheer volume of projects on my agenda. Because I’m overcommitted, I’ll miss important deadlines or allow some projects to be delayed into oblivion. Other times, my work is rushed and sloppy. Sometimes I feel so overwhelmed that I become paralyzed, and then I don’t get any work done. What can I do to manage my various work and home projects better, so that I keep making progress on what really matters to me?

My Answer, In Brief: If you tend to take on more projects than you can manage well, then you need to work on being more realistic and more selective. Otherwise, you’re just making false promises.

Links:

• Toggle (time tracker software)
• Getting Things Done by David Allen

Question 3: Talking About Selfishness (44:27)

Should I use the term “selfish” in conversation without explanation? According to Ayn Rand, selfishness means acting for your own long-range life and happiness, and that’s moral and proper. Yet most people think that selfishness means brutalizing other people, lying and cheating to satisfy your desires, or at least acting like an insensitive jerk. Should I avoid using the term unless I can explain what I mean by it? And how can I best explain its proper meaning?

My Answer, In Brief: When speaking to other people, make sure that you’re actually communicating what you mean to them. Most often, that will require explaining what you mean by “selfishness” or using another term.

Links:

• The Virtue of Selfishness

Rapid Fire Questions (56:40)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

• In today’s political climate, should one bother running for office anymore?
• Are some people born with more self-control than others? How can those of us lacking in self-control develop a more disciplined lifestyle?
• Would selling yourself into slavery require regarding yourself as property – or just agreeing to do whatever your master commands?
• Do you have a must-read book list (like Oprah)?

Conclusion (1:02:29)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

• Diana Hsieh: Philosophy in Action: diana@philosophyinaction.com
• Greg Perkins: Objectivist Answers: greg@eCosmos.com

Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it’s not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we’re doing, please contribute to the webcast’s tip jar!

$5.00 USD – One Time $10.00 USD – One Time $20.00 USD – One Time $50.00 USD – One Time $100.00 USD – One Time Make A One-Time
Contribution

$10.00 USD – Monthly $20.00 USD – Monthly $30.00 USD – Monthly $50.00 USD – Monthly $100.00 USD – Monthly Create A Monthly
Contribution

If you’d like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you’ve contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we’re so grateful for that! Also, whether you’re able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.

As usual, if you can’t attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you’ll join the live webcast, because that’s more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 11 March 2012

Listen Now

Duration: 1:19:23

Download the Episode

• Download the Enhanced M4A File (19.2 MB)
• Download the Standard MP3 File (18.2 MB)

Subscribe to the Feed

• Subscribe to the Enhanced M4A Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader
• Subscribe to the Standard MP3 Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader

The Segments: Episode: 11 March 2012

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

My “Think!” lecture on moral perfection went quite well! Next week, I’ll be busy with SnowCon 2012!

Question 1: Ayn Rand’s View of Women (3:23)

Did Ayn Rand regard women as inferior to men? I admire Ayn Rand, and I’ve used her philosophy in my business and personal life, but I disagree with her view of women. In her article “About a Woman President,” Ayn Rand said that “For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship – the desire to look up to man. ‘To look up’ does not mean dependence, obedience or anything implying inferiority.” Yet her view seems to imply inferiority in practice: Rand says that no woman should aspire to be U.S. President because that would put her in the psychologically unbearable position of not having any man to look up to. So, does Rand’s view imply that women are inferior to men? What is the factual basis of her view, if any? Do you agree with her?

My Answer, In Brief: Ayn Rand’s arguments against a woman president are puzzling and wrong, but they’re no reason to think that she regarded women as inferior to men.

Links:

• “About a Woman President” by Ayn Rand in The Voice of Reason
• Review of The Feminine Mystique by Edith Efron in The Objectivist Newsletter
• Philosophy in Action: The Proper Place of Women

Question 2: The Proper Place of Women (24:39)

Are women subservient to men in Objectivism like in Christianity? The Bible and Christians teach that God made women to be subservient to men and not to be their leader. Ayn Rand seems to think that women are naturally subservient to men and should not be their leader. Aside from the appeal to God, what’s the difference?

My Answer, In Brief: Ayn Rand’s views on sexual psychology, even if wrong, are not merely asserted without reason, as in Christianity, but rather are based on biological facts.

Links:

• Philosophy in Action: Ayn Rand’s View of Women
• Think Progress: Santorum Staffer Says Women Shouldn’t Be President Because It’s Against God’s Will
• Women and the New Testament Church by Bob Thiel, Ph.D.
• Psychology of Self Esteem by Nathaniel Branden, pg 205-6

Question 3: The Health of Cynicism and Sarcasm (45:16)

Are cynicism and sarcasm unhealthy? I know some very bright people who also frequently express cynicism and sarcasm towards world events, public figures, etc. Their remarks can often be quite witty and insightful. But is there something unhealthy about looking at the world in this way, or can that be an appropriate response to all the many real negative facts of reality?

My Answer, In Brief: Sarcasm is morally neutral as a form of humor, but cynicism is psychologically unhealthy and philosophically wrong.

Links:

• Smithsonian Magazine: The Science of Sarcasm? Yeah, Right
• Ayn Rand Lexicon: Malevolent Universe Premise and Benevolent Universe Premise

Question 4: Offers of Prayers for Atheists (59:13)

What should I do when other people offer to pray for me? Sometimes my friends and family members offer to pray for me – whether because I’ve got some problem in my life or because they know that I’m an atheist. How should I respond?

My Answer, In Brief: You should tailor your response to the context, but in most cases, you should be clear, firm, and kind in refusing the prayers of others.

Links:

• Philosophy in Action: Requests for Prayers by Diana Hsieh

Rapid Fire Questions (1:13:22)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

• Do Ayn Rand’s views on homosexuality constitute an error of morality? If so, are there any implications as to her moral perfection?
• Ayn Rand called her philosophy Objectivism, does that mean that every philosopher’s ideas should have a name and a set of authorized texts? Should your philosophy have its own name?

Conclusion (1:18:03)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

• Diana Hsieh: Philosophy in Action: diana@philosophyinaction.com
• Greg Perkins: Objectivist Answers: greg@eCosmos.com

Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it’s not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we’re doing, please contribute to the webcast’s tip jar!

$5.00 USD – One Time $10.00 USD – One Time $20.00 USD – One Time $50.00 USD – One Time $100.00 USD – One Time Make A One-Time
Contribution

$10.00 USD – Monthly $20.00 USD – Monthly $30.00 USD – Monthly $50.00 USD – Monthly $100.00 USD – Monthly Create A Monthly
Contribution

If you’d like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you’ve contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we’re so grateful for that! Also, whether you’re able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.

As usual, if you can’t attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you’ll join the live webcast, because that’s more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 4 March 2012

Listen Now

Duration: 1:04:06

Download the Episode

• Download the Enhanced M4A File (15.6 MB)
• Download the Standard MP3 File (14.7 MB)

Subscribe to the Feed

• Subscribe to the Enhanced M4A Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader
• Subscribe to the Standard MP3 Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader

The Segments: Episode: 4 March 2012

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

Happy Ten Year Blogiversary to NoodleFood today! On Tuesday, I’ll be speaking at CU Boulder on Should You Try to Be Morally Perfect?

Question 1: Giving the Benefit of the Doubt (2:52)

When should we give another person the benefit of the doubt? Often, people say that public figures facing some scandal should be given the benefit of the doubt? What does that mean in theory and in practice? When ought people give the benefit of the doubt? Is doing so a matter of generosity or justice?

My Answer, In Brief: To give someone the benefit of the doubt means that you’re not leaping to conclusions about wrongdoing, but considering their past actions and character, and hence, only condemning when the proof of wrongdoing is definitive. It’s proper to give someone the benefit of doubt when it’s likely that the person didn’t act wrongly, when you’re waiting for definitive evidence, or when your judgments are based on knowledge of character.

Links:

• Philosophy in Action: Mutual Unprovable Accusations of Wrongdoing by Diana Hsieh

Question 2: Requests for Prayers (20:22)

What is the proper response to requests for prayers? A relative of mine recently had surgery to have his appendix removed. I was asked by another relative to pray for the first relative, even though everyone in my family knows that I don’t believe in God or the power of prayer. I tried to let it slide during the conversation, but she was insistent. How should I respond to such requests for prayers, particularly when I don’t want to offend anyone or seem unconcerned?

My Answer, In Brief: You should tailer your response to the context, but in most cases, you should be clear, firm, and kind in saying that you do not pray.

Question 3: Selling Yourself into Slavery (30:13)

Why can’t a person sell himself into slavery? People often decry indentured servitude, whereby people paid for their travel to America with several years of service. But this seems like a perfectly sound trade given certain assumptions about the terms of that service, e.g. you can’t starve or abuse the servant. Is that right? If so, why can’t a person sell himself into slavery? For instance, suppose that my family is poor, so I arrange with someone to give my family money in exchange for me becoming their slave, i.e. literally becoming their property. Is that possible? Should the law forbid that?

My Answer, In Brief: It’s not merely wrong to sell yourself into slavery: it’s logically impossible.

Links:

• Liberty Now Wiki: Can you sell yourself into slavery?

Question 4: The Depth of Ayn Rand’s Fictional Characters (37:56)

Are the characters in Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged flat due to philosophic consistency? I’m reading the novel currently, and rather enjoying it. However, I’ve heard many people claim her characters are flat, one-dimensional, etc. I usually respond to this by saying that Ayn Rand’s characters are the incarnation of her ideas, the physical embodiment of her ideas: an individual is consumed with this philosophy, so much so that they are entirely logically consistent (or at least as much as humanly possible, they are human, and do make mistakes, e.g. Rearden’s marriage), thus, because of their abnormally extensive logical consistency within their philosophy, these characters merely appear to be ‘one-dimensional’. Is this an accurate understanding of Rand’s characters?

My Answer, In Brief: The criticism that Ayn Rand’s characters are flat is dead wrong, as is the response that they embody ideas.

Links:

• Explore Atlas Shrugged

Rapid Fire Questions (55:55)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

• Is everyone racially prejudiced, even just a little?
• What should one do as an individual in case a war with Iran breaks out, as seems likely?
• What’s the difference between the Jewish, Christian, or Muslim God and the “God of the Philosophers”?
• Do you think Objectivism is ‘a’ philosophy or ‘the’ philosophy for living on earth?

Conclusion (1:03:03)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

• Diana Hsieh: Philosophy in Action: diana@philosophyinaction.com
• Greg Perkins: Objectivist Answers: greg@eCosmos.com

Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it’s not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we’re doing, please contribute to the webcast’s tip jar!

$5.00 USD – One Time $10.00 USD – One Time $20.00 USD – One Time $50.00 USD – One Time $100.00 USD – One Time Make A One-Time
Contribution

$10.00 USD – Monthly $20.00 USD – Monthly $30.00 USD – Monthly $50.00 USD – Monthly $100.00 USD – Monthly Create A Monthly
Contribution

If you’d like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you’ve contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we’re so grateful for that! Also, whether you’re able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.

As usual, if you can’t attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you’ll join the live webcast, because that’s more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 26 February 2012

Listen Now

Duration: 1:15:06

Download the Episode

• Download the Enhanced M4A File (18.2 MB)
• Download the Standard MP3 File (17.2 MB)

Subscribe to the Feed

• Subscribe to the Enhanced M4A Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader
• Subscribe to the Standard MP3 Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader

The Segments: Episode: 26 February 2012

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

This week, Trey was visiting, but mostly I’ve ben sick. I’m also working on moving NoodleFood to Philosophy in Action – and from Blogger to WordPress.

Question 1: Consent in Sex (3:39)

What constitutes consent in sex? Can a person give tacit consent by his or her actions? Is explicit consent required for some sex acts? Once consent has been given, when and how can a person withdraw that consent? Does the legal perspective on these questions differ from the moral perspective?

My Answer, In Brief: To consent to sex requires communicating a willingness engaging in the act, whether by word or deed. Consent can be withdrawn at any point, and for the other person to ignore that constitutes sexual assault.

Links:

• Paul Hsieh’s summary of the law of consent in sex
• Law Prof on the Loose: Rape Law by Jon Siegel
• Rape charges dropped against Butler player
• Wikipedia: Rape and Spousal Rape
• Dept. of Justice: An Updated Definition of Rape
• Colorado Revised Statutes: Title 18, Article 3, Part 4
• Boston Globe: On campus, an absurd overregulation of sexual conduct by Cathy Young

Question 2: Terminating Online Versus In-Person Acquaintances (45:34)

What’s the proper threshold for cutting off a digital versus in-person acquaintance? Morally, when it is wrong to end your friendly interactions with an in-person acquaintance? And when is it wrong not to do so? Does the answer differ for a digital acquaintance – meaning, for example, someone that you know only via Facebook?

My Answer, In Brief: No hard and fast rules can apply here, simply because the nature of online and in-person relationships varies so much. However, every person ought to make sure that his relationships, whether primarily online, in-person, or a mixture of both, serve his purposes well.

Links:

• NoodleFood: Illusion in Social Media by Diana Hsieh

Question 3: Compensating the Victims of Your Negligence (51:48)

What should you do for a person that you injured in a car accident that was your fault? Does a person have moral obligations – over and above any legal obligations – to the victim, since the accident was due to your own carelessness or mistake?

My Answer, In Brief: If you’ve harmed someone by your negligence, your moral and legal obligation is to make them whole by compensating them for the harm you’ve caused.

Question 4: The Meaning of Faith (54:44)

Is it wrong to use “faith” to mean “trust and confidence in a person”? Some people talk about having “faith” in their friends or in themselves – and by that, they mean that they trust and have confidence in those people. Is it wrong to use “faith” in that way? In other words, blind faith is wrong, but is all faith blind faith?

My Answer, In Brief: The term “faith,” when used to refer to trust or confidence in a person, suggests that such is not justified or warranted based on facts. That’s why I avoid the term, and I suggest that others do the same. However, a person is not corrupt for using it.

Rapid Fire Questions (1:07:59)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

• Is a person rationally considered “male” or “female” based upon: (a) their genitals or other anatomical parts of their body which are involved in sexual reproduction, or (b) or their emotional and psychological wishes to be a man or a woman?Should states have referendums on gay marriage?
• Has social media or technology changed how people engage each other for sex?
• Has social media or technology changed how people engage each other for sex?
• Should states have referendums on gay marriage?

Conclusion (1:13:59)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

• Diana Hsieh: Philosophy in Action: diana@philosophyinaction.com
• Greg Perkins: Objectivist Answers: greg@eCosmos.com

Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it’s not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we’re doing, please contribute to the webcast’s tip jar!

$5.00 USD – One Time $10.00 USD – One Time $20.00 USD – One Time $50.00 USD – One Time $100.00 USD – One Time Make A One-Time
Contribution

$10.00 USD – Monthly $20.00 USD – Monthly $30.00 USD – Monthly $50.00 USD – Monthly $100.00 USD – Monthly Create A Monthly
Contribution

If you’d like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you’ve contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we’re so grateful for that! Also, whether you’re able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.

As usual, if you can’t attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you’ll join the live webcast, because that’s more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 19 February 2012

Listen Now

Duration: 1:08:17

Download the Episode

• Download the Enhanced M4A File (16.6 MB)
• Download the Standard MP3 File (15.7 MB)

Subscribe to the Feed

• Subscribe to the Enhanced M4A Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader
• Subscribe to the Standard MP3 Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader

The Segments: Episode: 19 February 2012

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

I visited my sister early this week, and now Trey Givens is visiting us!

Question 1: Judging Religions as Better and Worse (2:29)

Are some religions better than others? Do certain religions encourage rationality more than others? Do some promote better moral systems than others? I am curious both about different forms of Christianity (Catholic, Protestant, Unitarian, Mormon, etc.), as well as other religions (Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Baha’i, etc.). Should rational atheists respect followers of certain religions more than others?

My Answer, In Brief: Religions are better or worse in their core doctrines and in their effects on a culture. However, due to the complexity of religions – not merely as ideologies but also as a cultural movements – they can’t be easily judged as better or worse. Also, just because a person claims to be an adherent of a given religion doesn’t tell much about what he believes or practices, nor whether they are honest.

Question 2: Telling a Friend about Romantic Feelings (22:58)

Am I obliged to tell a friend that I’ve developed romantic feelings towards her? Recently, I’ve developed romantic feelings for a platonic friend. Is it dishonest to withhold this information from her and just continue our friendship? What should I do if she asks me a direct question about my feelings? When would it be wrong to withhold this information from her, if ever?

My Answer, In Brief: It’s not wrong to keep your feelings to yourself, but lying about them can cause serious harm to your character and your friendship.

Links:

• Philosophy in Action: Honesty

Question 3: Overfeeding a Child as Abuse (30:51)

Is overfeeding a child a form of abuse? In November, county officials in Ohio placed a third-grade child into foster care on the grounds that he’s over 200 pounds and his mother isn’t doing enough to control his weight. (See the news story.) The boy does not currently have any serious medical problems: he’s merely at risk for developing diabetes, hypertension, etc. The county worked with the mother for a year before removing the child, and it claims that her actions constitute medical neglect. Now his mother is only permitted to see him once per week for two hours. Did the state overreach its proper authority in removing the child from his home?

My Answer, In Brief: The state should only remove children from their parents when the parents are violating the rights of the child by inflicting permanent physical or psychological harm. This case of supposed overfeeding does not qualify, not by a long shot.

Question 4: Interest in a Lover’s Writings (42:22)

Should a person always be interested in the creative works of a romantic interest or lover? I’m romantically interested in a woman who writes as her career. While my admiration of her is based in her virtues and even heroic qualities, I’m don’t find the subjects of her writing to be particularly interesting. If I were to begin dating this woman, should I read everything that she’s written and writes?

My Answer, In Brief: It’s strange to be so uninterested in another person’s work at the outset of a relationship. You should be interested in your lover or spouse’s interests, not always for their own sake, but because your lover or spouse matters to you.

Rapid Fire Questions (49:29)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

• Should abused kids become wards of the State?
• Where do the GOP presidential candidates stand on issues that gays might care about?
• Is there a rational basis or explanation for “intuition?”
• Is tax evasion or tax fraud morally wrong? What about hiding one’s money in foreign banks?
• Are movies and TV getting better or worse over the years? What does that indicate about our cultural trends?
• Does social media benefit introverts or extroverts more?
• Is Objectivism some kind of cult?

Conclusion (1:07:02)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

• Diana Hsieh: Philosophy in Action: diana@philosophyinaction.com
• Greg Perkins: Objectivist Answers: greg@eCosmos.com

Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it’s not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we’re doing, please contribute to the webcast’s tip jar!

$5.00 USD – One Time $10.00 USD – One Time $20.00 USD – One Time $50.00 USD – One Time $100.00 USD – One Time Make A One-Time
Contribution

$10.00 USD – Monthly $20.00 USD – Monthly $30.00 USD – Monthly $50.00 USD – Monthly $100.00 USD – Monthly Create A Monthly
Contribution

If you’d like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you’ve contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we’re so grateful for that! Also, whether you’re able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.

As usual, if you can’t attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you’ll join the live webcast, because that’s more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 12 February 2012

Listen Now

Duration: 1:00:04

Download the Episode

• Download the Enhanced M4A File (14.6 MB)
• Download the Standard MP3 File (13.8 MB)

Subscribe to the Feed

• Subscribe to the Enhanced M4A Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader
• Subscribe to the Standard MP3 Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader

The Segments: Episode: 12 February 2012

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

Yesterday, I spoke on the foundations of rights and then a panel at a Liberty on the Rocks / Koch Foundation Workshop. I’ll be giving a “Think!” lecture at CU Boulder on March 6th on moral perfection in Ayn Rand and Aristotle. SnowCon plans are well underway. I’m going to be moving NoodleFood to Philosophy in Action. Now I’m off to visit my sister, her husband, and their baby for few days! Busy me!

Question 1: Low Passion for Career (3:19)

What should I do if I have a good job but not burning professional ambition? I have a good job that pays well. I perform my job well to the best of my ability. But I don’t feel about it the same way that Howard Roark felt about the field of architecture in The Fountainhead or that Dagny felt about the railroad business in Atlas Shrugged. I don’t hate my job – I do enjoy the work and the people I work with. But it’s not my burning passion. On a scale of 1-to-10, my paying job (and the overall field) is a 7, but I also have various non-paying outside hobbies and activities that are more of a 8 or 9 for me. Should I try to cultivate a strong passion for my paying job? Or look for a different line of work? Or ramp up my pursuit of various hobbies and outside activities that give me greater satisfaction on the side?

My Answer, In Brief: A person’s work should serve his life, and sometimes that means choosing the one career that you’re wildly passionate about, and sometimes that means choosing a career that you enjoy, but that enables you to pursue other values.

Links:

• NoodleCast: Career Choices by Diana Hsieh

Question 2: Patriotism as a Virtue (16:29)

Is patriotism a virtue? Is patriotism towards America a virtue? Should a person “love America” – or is that just jingoistic nationalism?

My Answer, In Brief: The value of loyalty depends on who you’re loyal to, and the value of patriotism depends on the nature of the country that you support, particularly its respect for individual rights.

Links:

• “The Cult of Moral Greyness” by Ayn Rand in The Virtue of Selfishness

Question 3: Artificial Intelligence (22:56)

Is artificial intelligence possible? Can consciousness be created on a purely logical system such as a computer? Might consciousness and even free will somehow “emerge” out of a purely logical system? Also, what do you think of the “Turing Test” as a test of intelligence?

My Answer, In Brief: The question is a scientific one, and it cannot be answered yet.

Links:

• Analytics on the Mind by Diana Hsieh

The Rediscovery of the Mind by John Searle
Wikipedia: Turing Test

Question 4: Boycotting Chick-Fil-A (33:37)

Should people boycott Chick-Fil-A for its hostility to gays? The fast food chain Chick-Fil-A is well-known for its promotion of Christian values. In recent years, the company has actively worked against gay marriage, in alliance with other organizations promoting the imposition of biblical commands by law. More generally, the company is hostile to same-sex couples. Given that Chick-Fil-A uses money from customers and shareholders to promote theocracy and other rights-violations, should people condemn and boycott the chain?

My Answer, In Brief: If a company takes a stand on some cultural or political issue, then potential customers can and should judge them on that basis. In some cases, a boycott is the right choice.

Links:

• Yes, Chick-fil-A Says, We Explicitly Do Not Like Same-Sex Couples
• “The Cult of Moral Greyness” by Ayn Rand in The Virtue of Selfishness

Rapid Fire Questions (48:47)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

• Are there any other Objectivist podcasts you would recommend?
• What should the US’s policy toward Israel be?
• What do you think of Obamacare/contraception controversy?
• How much weight should be given to a candidate’s words versus his past actions?
• What do you think of Bruce Springsteen, given that he’s thrown his weight behind some liberal causes but he was also very idealistic for most of his career?
• Is it wrong to use abortion as “birth control”?
• What is the paleo diet? Is it roast beast for breakfast, lunch, and dinner? What are the health benefits?

Conclusion (59:09)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

• Diana Hsieh: Philosophy in Action: diana@philosophyinaction.com
• Greg Perkins: Objectivist Answers: greg@eCosmos.com

Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it’s not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we’re doing, please contribute to the webcast’s tip jar!

$5.00 USD – One Time $10.00 USD – One Time $20.00 USD – One Time $50.00 USD – One Time $100.00 USD – One Time Make A One-Time
Contribution

$10.00 USD – Monthly $20.00 USD – Monthly $30.00 USD – Monthly $50.00 USD – Monthly $100.00 USD – Monthly Create A Monthly
Contribution

If you’d like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you’ve contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we’re so grateful for that! Also, whether you’re able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.

As usual, if you can’t attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you’ll join the live webcast, because that’s more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 5 February 2012

Listen Now

Duration: 1:07:25

Download the Episode

• Download the Enhanced M4A File (16.4 MB)
• Download the Standard MP3 File (15.4 MB)

Subscribe to the Feed

• Subscribe to the Enhanced M4A Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader
• Subscribe to the Standard MP3 Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader

The Segments: Episode: 5 February 2012

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

I’ve been busy making plans for SnowCon 2012! E-mail me if you’d like to share accommodations.

Question 1: Overcoming Perfectionism (3:30)

What is the problem with and solution to perfectionism? Lately, I’ve realized that I might have a problem with “perfectionism” – meaning that I hold myself to unrealistically high standards in some areas of my life. For example, I feel like I should be much more productive, to the point of being unrealistic about what I can do in a day. What’s the basic error of such perfectionism? And what can I do to overcome it?

My Answer, In Brief: For a person to seek perfection, based on rational standards that take account of his particular context, is often good. Perfectionism, however, means doing so based on out-of-context or unrealistic standards of perfection. A person with perfectionist tendencies needs to identify them, then think and act consistently based on standards appropriate to his purpose – whether seeking perfection, good enough, or merely adequate.

Links:

• Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics by Tara Smith, pg 236 to 243

Question 2: False But Beneficial Ideas (35:13)

Should you just keep quiet when a friend’s bad philosophy works for him? If someone you know pretty well believes in something mystical, such as “The Law of Attraction” (from “The Secret”), or “The Power of Prayer,” and this has helped them move their outlook on life toward a benevolent universe premise, and they are more productive and happier, is it better to leave them with their faulty metaphysics and avoid the topic, or should you try to show them the error? What do you say when they start trying to convince you of the truth of their view?

My Answer, In Brief: People in the grip of worse ideas are sometimes helped by less-bad ideas. If you’re both willing, you can discuss even better ideas with them. However, doing so is not obligatory.

Question 3: Possessiveness in Romance (46:46)

Is possessiveness wrong in a romantic relationship? I have a drawback: I’m extremely possessive. I expect that the person who loves and understands me – he being the only one who understands me – should be mine and only mine. I can accept other women in his life and contain my jealousy on the condition that he reveals to me every single of them who was, is, or will be. But he should love me the most. And I expect that he should stay with me till the end and that we spend the last days together reflecting on the past and life. Am I wrong in expecting all that from my partner? If so, what can I do to change?

My Answer, In Brief: To be possessive means treating your partner as an object to be controlled, rather than an independent individual who wants to share your life. For this depth of problem, therapy is the best option.

Links:

• NoodleFood: How to Find a Good Therapist by Diana Hsieh

Question 4: Term Limits for Politicians (54:58)

Are term limits necessary and proper for good government? Many people – usually conservatives – claim that term limits are essential to liberty. They say that the Founders never intended to have career politicians, and they blame the growth of government on those career politicians and their pork projects. Do you support term limits? Are they an important restraint on the growth of government?

My Answer, In Brief: Term limits might be part of the government of a free society, but they’re not a panacea.

Links:

• Wikipedia: Term Limits

Rapid Fire Questions (1:00:48)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

• Should President Obama be defeated, at any cost?
• What’s wrong with going with your gut feelings?

Conclusion (1:06:20)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

• Diana Hsieh: Philosophy in Action: diana@philosophyinaction.com
• Greg Perkins: Objectivist Answers: greg@eCosmos.com

Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it’s not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we’re doing, please contribute to the webcast’s tip jar!

$5.00 USD – One Time $10.00 USD – One Time $20.00 USD – One Time $50.00 USD – One Time $100.00 USD – One Time Make A One-Time
Contribution

$10.00 USD – Monthly $20.00 USD – Monthly $30.00 USD – Monthly $50.00 USD – Monthly $100.00 USD – Monthly Create A Monthly
Contribution

If you’d like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you’ve contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we’re so grateful for that! Also, whether you’re able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.

As usual, if you can’t attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you’ll join the live webcast, because that’s more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 29 January 2012

Listen Now

Duration: 1:05:33

Download the Episode

• Download the Enhanced M4A File (15.9 MB)
• Download the Standard MP3 File (15.1 MB)

Subscribe to the Feed

• Subscribe to the Enhanced M4A Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader
• Subscribe to the Standard MP3 Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader

The Segments: Episode: 29 January 2012

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

Unfortunately, I’ve been distracted by the WTFuffles this week. However, since the matter is of little significance to me, and I’ll be focusing on my real work this upcoming week, and I encourage others to do the same. Also, remember that SnowCon 2012 will be March 15th to 18th in mountains of Colorado.

Question 1: Being Pragmatic (5:51)

What’s wrong with being pragmatic? My dictionary defines being pragmatic as “dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.” What’s wrong with that, if anything? Is that the same as “pragmatism”?

My Answer, In Brief: Pragmatism is a philosophic view that rejects thinking long-range and on-principle in favor of short-term expediency. However, many people just use the term to mean “practical,” and others are honestly confused by all the bad theories and principles rampant in the culture.

Links:

• Pragmatism in Wikipedia and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• The Menace of Pragmatism by Tara Smith (original lecture)
• Leonard Peikoff’s History of Philosophy, Part 2, Lectures 7-8

Question 2: Feigning Indifference to Attract a Man (22:12)

Should I act uninterested in a man to attract him? One common theme in romance advice is that a woman should act aloof and unattainable in order to attract a man or to get him to commit to a relationship. Is that dishonest? Is it counterproductive?

My Answer, In Brief: It’s wrong to make people into conquests in romance. If you do, the kind of person that you’ll attract is not the kind of person that you’ll want to be with. And you’ll not be the kind of person that a good person will want to be with.

Links:

• Podcast for Sale on Finding Good Prospects for Romance and Friendship by Diana Hsieh

Question 3: Ignosticism Versus Atheism (28:57)

Should rational people describe themselves as “ignostics” rather than “atheists”? By rational principles, no cognitive consideration should be given to arbitrary assertions. Since the concept of God is invariably a floating abstraction and incoherent in its definition, shouldn’t the claim that God exists be dismissed as arbitrary and invalid – rather than being answered in the negative? If so, shouldn’t rational people describe themselves as ignostics? In contrast to atheism, ignosticism is “[the] view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless.” [Wikipedia]

My Answer, In Brief: “Atheism,” not “ignosticism,” is the proper name to describe a person who reject the claim that God exists, and that’s justified not only by the failure of the arguments for the existence of God, but also God’s impossible qualities.

Links:

• Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith
• Podcasts on Philosophy of Religion by Diana Hsieh
• God, Faith, and the Supernatural by Greg Perkins

Question 4: Explaining Atheism (39:36)

How can I effectively explain my atheism to religious believers? When I discuss religion with believers – mostly Christians – I find that I can’t easily explain why I don’t believe in God. Should I appeal to the principle of the “primacy of existence”? Should I explain the problems with the arguments for the existence of God? Or should I try a different approach?

My Answer, In Brief: The best way to discuss the reasons for rejecting belief in God depend on the context, particularly whether you are explaining your own views or trying to convince the other person. Either way, be patient and try to speak to their rational concerns.

Links:

• Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith
• Podcasts on Philosophy of Religion by Diana Hsieh
• God, Faith, and the Supernatural by Greg Perkins

Rapid Fire Questions (57:59)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

• Why did you and Paul choose to live in Colorado?
• Recently, Tim Thomas decided not to attend the Bruins trip to the White House. If you were a part of a team going to the White House, would you attend? What if you were personally invited to the White House?
• What is your opinion of the OPEN Act as an alternative to SOPA and PIPA?
• How can we start an American philosophical revolution that encourages students to value freedom, independent thinking, and rational egoism rather than altruism and egalitarianism?

Conclusion (1:04:36)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

• Diana Hsieh: Philosophy in Action: diana@philosophyinaction.com
• Greg Perkins: Objectivist Answers: greg@eCosmos.com

Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it’s not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we’re doing, please contribute to the webcast’s tip jar!

$5.00 USD – One Time $10.00 USD – One Time $20.00 USD – One Time $50.00 USD – One Time $100.00 USD – One Time Make A One-Time
Contribution

$10.00 USD – Monthly $20.00 USD – Monthly $30.00 USD – Monthly $50.00 USD – Monthly $100.00 USD – Monthly Create A Monthly
Contribution

If you’d like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you’ve contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we’re so grateful for that! Also, whether you’re able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.

As usual, if you can’t attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you’ll join the live webcast, because that’s more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 22 January 2012

Listen Now

Duration: 1:11:37

Download the Episode

• Download the Enhanced M4A File (33.6 MB)
• Download the Standard MP3 File (32.8 MB)

Subscribe to the Feed

• Subscribe to the Enhanced M4A Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader
• Subscribe to the Standard MP3 Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader

The Segments: Episode: 22 January 2012

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

Lately, I’ve been working on the Philosophy in Action Website. Also… Save the dates! SnowCon 2012 will be held from March 15 to 18th, likely based in Frisco, Colorado. We’ll play in the snow during the day, then enjoy informal lectures and discussions in the evening.

Question 1: Acquittals of the Guilty Versus Convictions of the Innocent (3:15)

Why is punishing an innocent man worse than failing to punish a guilty man? English jurist William Blackstone said that “better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” What does this mean, and is it true? Is some higher ratio of wrongly-punished to wrongly-released acceptable?

My Answer, In Brief: Tto convict an innocent person involves the same wrongs as acquitting guilty person, plus more. That’s why proper justice system presumes innocence, as well as limits and corrects errors of by scrupulous objectivity.

Links:

• Wikipedia: Blackstone’s formulation
• n Guilty Men by Alexander Volokh

Question 2: The Morality of the Death Penalty (15:37)

Is the death penalty moral? I understand why people are opposed to the death penalty when there might be genuine doubt as to whether the accused person really committed the crime. Certainly, we’ve seen cases where DNA evidence has exonerated someone who was convicted several years ago for a crime they didn’t actually commit. But if someone confesses to first degree murder and if there’s incontrovertible physical evidence to confirm their guilt, is the death penalty then appropriate?

My Answer, In Brief: To impose the death penalty for murder (and perhaps other heinous crimes) is morally proper, if the possibility of error in the criminal conviction can be eliminated. To eliminate not just “reasonable doubt” but also any “residual doubt” can be used to distinguish cases in which such errors have been excluded.

Links:

• “What is the Objectivist stand on capital punishment?” by Nathaniel Branden, The Objectivist Newsletter, January 1963
• Ayn Rand’s Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society by Craig Biddle, Footnote 46
• NoodleFood: Principled Punishment and the Death Penalty by Greg Perkins
• Philosophy in Action: Policy Lying to Suspects
• Innocence Project
• A (Genuinely) Modest Proposal Concerning the Death Penalty by Craig M. Bradley, Indiana Law Journal

Question 3: Alternatives to America (45:33)

What other countries besides America have a relatively healthy sense of life? Suppose America takes a bad turn politically and I need to relocate to another country. What other countries still have a relatively healthy “sense of life” and decent culture – in that they respect reason, accomplishment, and productiveness – even if their politics are left-leaning? Over the past few months, I’ve heard various people discuss Canada, New Zealand, Costa Rica, China, and India as possible places to relocate to. What do you think of the cultures of those countries?

My Answer, In Brief: I’m not the right person to answer that question. However, I’m committed to staying in the United States, absent some disaster, because I regard America as the best hope for reason and freedom. Fight for it!

Links:

• Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom
• Freedom House
• Reporters without Borders on Free Press

Question 4: Choosing a Place to Live (54:05)

Is it rational to value good weather over good politics when choosing a place to live? I currently live in a state with fairly good politics, with respect to taxes, gun rights, and so on. However, I have friends who live in California who say that the weather there is so good, that it’s worth it to them even if the taxes are high, the gun laws are terrible, and the overall political climate is abysmal. Is it rational to value something like good weather over good politics in choosing a place to live?

My Answer, In Brief: A person should judge where to live in the United States based on his whole range of values, not solely on the differences of degree between state governments.

Links:

• Index of Freedom in 50 States

Rapid Fire Questions (58:32)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

• What is the mistaken assumption in the question, “What is the purpose of life?” Is, “Does life have a purpose?” or “Can life have a purpose?” better?
• Where should a person interested in learning about Objectivism start?
• What do you think of what happened when the Costa Concordia ran aground?
• What do you think of Chris Christie?
• What does it mean to “assume positive intent”?

Conclusion (1:10:28)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

• Diana Hsieh: Philosophy in Action: diana@philosophyinaction.com
• Greg Perkins: Objectivist Answers: greg@eCosmos.com

Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it’s not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we’re doing, please contribute to the webcast’s tip jar!

$5.00 USD – One Time $10.00 USD – One Time $20.00 USD – One Time $50.00 USD – One Time $100.00 USD – One Time Make A One-Time
Contribution

$10.00 USD – Monthly $20.00 USD – Monthly $30.00 USD – Monthly $50.00 USD – Monthly $100.00 USD – Monthly Create A Monthly
Contribution

If you’d like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you’ve contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we’re so grateful for that! Also, whether you’re able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.

As usual, if you can’t attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you’ll join the live webcast, because that’s more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 15 January 2012

Listen Now

Duration: 1:07:28

Download the Episode

• Download the Enhanced M4A File (31.7 MB)
• Download the Standard MP3 File (30.9 MB)

Subscribe to the Feed

• Subscribe to the Enhanced M4A Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader
• Subscribe to the Standard MP3 Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader

The Segments: Episode: 15 January 2012

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

Paul and I spent last week having fun in the snow at Beaver Creek, and now… back to work!

Question 1: SOPA and Online Piracy (4:09)

Should SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) be supported or opposed? SOPA was recently introduced to the US House of Representatives, then shelved temporarily, and many people are urging businesses and their representatives to oppose it. Would the bill promote prosperity and creativity by protecting copyright? Or does it justify internet censorship and cripple free access of information through online media?

My Answer, In Brief: SOPA and PIPA claim to protect copyright, but in fact, they’d break the fundamental architecture of the internet, subject innocent people to major legal battles, destroy large internet sites, and establish government control over the internet. To top it off, these laws would not stop pirates. They should be opposed.

Links:

• Wikipedia: Stop Online Piracy Act and PROTECT IP Act
• CopyBlogger: The Problem with SOPA (And How to Stop It)
• United Liberty: 8 Political Reasons to Stop SOPA and PIPA and 8 Technological Reasons to Stop SOPA and PIPA by Ron Davis
• Fight for the Future: PROTECT IP / SOPA Act Breaks the Internet
• CNet: Molly Wood’s Video Explanation of SOPA
• Slate: The Internet’s Intolerable Acts by James Losey and Sascha Meinrath
• SOPA and PIPA are Bipartisan Bad Policy, Really Bad Policy by Tom Evslin
• Refusing REFUSED by Paul Vixie
• Politico: SOPA becoming election liability for backers
• CNet: GoDaddy bows to boycott, now ‘opposes’ SOPA copyright bill
• The Hill: Twitter, Facebook, Google endorse alternate online piracy bill
• Ars Technica: Under voter pressure, members of Congress backpedal (hard) on SOPA
• The Atlantic: SOPA’s Architect Is Finally Starting to Back Down
• The Hill: SOPA shelved until ‘consensus’ is found

Question 2: Mutual Unprovable Accusations of Wrongdoing (26:25)

How should a rational person evaluate unproven accusations of serious wrongdoing about people he deals with? I recently heard some information about a business associate’s dealings with another of his associates that, if true, would make me reconsider doing business with him. However, his side of the story is that the other person is the one who acted wrongly. This is a serious matter, and it’s clear that one or both of them acted very badly, but since I was not personally involved and the only information I have is of a “he said/she said” nature, I am not sure how to decide what I should do. Am I right to consider the information I heard at all, since I can’t confirm it?

My Answer, In Brief: Such dilemmas of moral judgment are difficult to navigate, and ideally, you either know enough about the characters of people in question or you can gather that information in order to come to an informed judgment. If you must choose between the two people now, then you should do so provisionally, as best as you can.

Question 3: Dealing with Temperamental People (34:36)

Should people be willing to “walk on eggshells” around temperamental people? Some people – often very talented – are known to be highly temperamental. They’ll explode in anger if others disagree with them, make innocent mistakes, or just act differently than they’d prefer. Is that a moral failing, and if so, what is its source? How should people around them act? When and how much should others try to placate them?

My Answer, In Brief: Temperamental people indulge their emotions when they don’t get their way because they don’t respect and value other people as autonomous individuals. If that irrationality is entrenched, then the best course is likely to refuse to deal with the person.

Question 4: Judging Young Adults Fairly (47:43)

Is it fair to judge a person’s intellect or other qualities of character purely based on his age? I am 16 and am facing problems with some people who seem to think that my views aren’t clear even to me just because “I am a lazy teen with no experience in life.” Is that unjust? Should I try to show them they are wrong about me or is it not worth it? If I should try, how might I be effective?

My Answer, In Brief: It’s wrong to make moral judgments based on statistics, and young adults deserve to be treated with respect, even if adults know that they have much to learn.

Rapid Fire Questions (54:46)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

• Do you think that the patent lawsuits are getting a little out of hand?
• Could Obama be effectively neutralized by gridlock?
• What do you think of Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow’s outspoken love for Jesus?
• Is it ever moral to wish that someone were dead (assuming you don’t actually plan on acting on that wish or otherwise violating someone’s rights)?
• Ayn Rand said she didn’t have much of an opinion on certain topics such as evolution or gun control. Does that mean that there is no Objectivist position on theses issues?

Conclusion (1:06:02)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

• Diana Hsieh: Philosophy in Action: diana@philosophyinaction.com
• Greg Perkins: Objectivist Answers: greg@eCosmos.com

Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it’s not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we’re doing, please contribute to the webcast’s tip jar!

$5.00 USD – One Time $10.00 USD – One Time $20.00 USD – One Time $50.00 USD – One Time $100.00 USD – One Time Make A One-Time
Contribution

$10.00 USD – Monthly $20.00 USD – Monthly $30.00 USD – Monthly $50.00 USD – Monthly $100.00 USD – Monthly Create A Monthly
Contribution

If you’d like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you’ve contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we’re so grateful for that! Also, whether you’re able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.

As usual, if you can’t attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you’ll join the live webcast, because that’s more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 8 January 2012

Listen Now

Duration: 1:04:12

Download the Episode

• Download the Enhanced M4A File (30.2 MB)
• Download the Standard MP3 File (29.4 MB)

Subscribe to the Feed

• Subscribe to the Enhanced M4A Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader
• Subscribe to the Standard MP3 Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader

The Segments: Episode: 8 January 2012

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

Welcome to 2012! Sadly, our friend and hero Objectivist historian John Lewis died on Tuesday. See John Lewis, Hero and Friend by me and Remembering John Lewis by Paul Hsieh. On the two week break, I’ve been doing lots of blogging at NoodleFood, plus updates to the Philosophy in Action. Mostly, I’m glad to be webcasting again!

Question 1: Tenacity in Pursuit of Goals (3:55)

How can I become more tenacious in pursuit of my goals? I find that I give up too easily on some of my goals, particularly when success is far away and much effort is required now. What can I do to make myself more tenacious?

My Answer, In Brief: Tenacity is an important quality of character to cultivate, but it must be used selectively. If tenacity is a problem for you, don’t wallow in guilt: find creative ways to motivate yourself.

Links:

• Trey Peden’s Whole30 and Crossfit Challenge
• Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics by Tara Smith, particularly Chapter 10

Question 2: Sex Without Love (19:19)

Is sex without love or romance irrational? Is it wrong to have sex with someone that you don’t love – or don’t love yet? (Here, assume that the person isn’t unworthy, but just that you’re not in love.) Couldn’t that be the start of romance? What if you don’t have any intentions of pursuing a romantic relationship with this person?

My Answer, In Brief: Sex is an inherently intimate act, requiring well-grounded respect, trust, and affection — even if not love.

Links:

• Philosophy in Action: The Nature of Love and Friends with Benefits

Question 3: The Ethics of Helping Inept Co-Workers (31:21)

Is it moral to help inept co-workers? On my team at work, we have only a very few people who use their time productively. We all get paid for 8 hours of “work”, every day, but most of my team would rather talk on their phone, hide from management, and underperform at their job. We also belong to a union, which makes it harder for management to fire the ones who don’t work despite being informed about the situation. I often find myself in the position of helping these people, or going in behind them and fixing their work. I am beginning to feel taken advantage of, and am getting fed up with most of my co-workers. Is it moral to continue helping people who do not take their own work seriously?

My Answer, In Brief: There’s no injustice or other moral problem with doing mission-critical work for your company, even if not your area, provided that you’re honest and compensated fairly.

Question 4: Giving Back to Your Communities (37:17)

Is a person ever obliged to “give back to the community”? Businesses often speak about their charitable work as “giving back to the community.” I know that’s wrong, because they didn’t take anything from it in the first place. But when a person benefits from a certain group or organization, should he “give back” to it by volunteering his time or donating his money? Why or why not?

My Answer, In Brief: A person isn’t obliged to volunteer at every opportunity, but he should want to volunteer for organizations that he derives great value from – for self-interested reasons.

Links:

• Philosophy in Action: Wealth and Social Responsibility
• Front Range Objectivism and Liberty Toastmasters

Rapid Fire Questions (55:27)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

• Why was Rick Perry not included in your discussion of four candidates?
• What did you think of Herman Cain?
• Would Hillary Clinton have been a better president than Obama?
• Does the fact that Newt Gingrich takes Catholicism seriously suggest that he is at least as bad as Mitt Romney?
• Is Ron Paul a closet Christian dominionist?
• By not voting for the Republican candidate, are you voting for Obama, in effect?

Conclusion (1:03:56)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

• Diana Hsieh: Philosophy in Action: diana@philosophyinaction.com
• Greg Perkins: Objectivist Answers: greg@eCosmos.com

Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it’s not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we’re doing, please contribute to the webcast’s tip jar!

$5.00 USD – One Time $10.00 USD – One Time $20.00 USD – One Time $50.00 USD – One Time $100.00 USD – One Time Make A One-Time
Contribution

$10.00 USD – Monthly $20.00 USD – Monthly $30.00 USD – Monthly $50.00 USD – Monthly $100.00 USD – Monthly Create A Monthly
Contribution

If you’d like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you’ve contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we’re so grateful for that! Also, whether you’re able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.

I’ve compiled our testimony into a single podcast, and you’ll find the videos below too. (I didn’t include Matt Arnold’s testimony for Clear the Bench Colorado in the podcast, but the video is at the bottom of this post.)

Listen Now

33:05 minutes

Download This Episode

• Enhanced M4A File (15.6 MB)
• Standard MP3 File (15.2 MB)

Subscribe to the Feed

• Subscribe to the Enhanced M4A Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader
• Subscribe to the Standard MP3 Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader

My testimony for the Coalition for Secular Government:

Paul Hsieh’s testimony for Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM):

Ari Armstrong’s testimony:

Again, although I didn’t include it in the podcast, here’s Matt Arnold’s testimony for Clear the Bench Colorado:

We’re taking the next two weeks off, so this is the last webcast of 2011! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

As usual, if you can’t attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you’ll join the live webcast, because that’s more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 18 December 2011

Listen Now

Duration: 1:12:53

Download the Episode

• Download the Enhanced M4A File (34.3 MB)
• Download the Standard MP3 File (33.4 MB)

Subscribe to the Feed

• Subscribe to the Enhanced M4A Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader
• Subscribe to the Standard MP3 Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader

The Segments: Episode: 18 December 2011

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

This week, Ari Armstrong, Paul Hsieh, and I attended and testified at a campaign finance hearing. You can submit written testimony until Friday December 23rd. Also, look for Ari’s and my article on abortion in The Objective Standard this week.

Question 1: Rationality in Face of Overwhelming Emotions (4:24)

How can a person regain his rationality in the face of overwhelming emotions? On occasion, I find my rational judgment swamped by strong emotions like anger and anxiety. In such cases, my thinking seems distorted by my emotions. While in the grip of such emotions, what can I do to re-establish my powers of rational thought? Also, how can I prevent myself from saying or doing things that I’ll later regret?

My Answer, In Brief: You need not be at the mercy of your emotions: you can take charge of own mind in friendly way. So when your emotions rage out of control, you should (1) notice them, (2) analyze them, (3) work to defuse them, and (4) later, prevent the same from happening again.

Question 2: The Value of Reading Literature (19:20)

What value do you gain from reading literature? I’ve never much connected with literature, particularly not the classics. I know that you read them routinely. What value do you find in them? Or, what am I missing?

My Answer, In Brief: Literature isn’t a value for everyone, but it can be an amazing window into other lives and other worlds, as well as a source of inspiration.

Links:

• Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte
• Pride and Prejudice, Persuasion, and Mansfield Park by Jane Austen
• North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell
• The Woman in White by Wilkie Collins
• The Hunchback of Notre Dame by Victor Hugo
• The Iliad by Homer
• Martin Eden and The Sea Wolf by Jack London
• Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe

Question 3: Balancing Introspection and Productive Work (34:13)

How can I achieve a better balance between introspection and productive work? Particularly I’ve made some mistake, I’ll get wrapped up in the process of introspection until I get the problem sorted out. However, that consumes time – and often my projects suffer and I miss deadlines. How can I find a better balance between these two important activities?

My Answer, In Brief: You should cultivate the discipline required to do less exciting work, but be sure to take the time to introspect. Also, deal with your mistakes in sensible way, with a focus on fixing any problems caused and preventing repetition.

Question 4: Optimism or Pessimism about the Future (40:59)

Should we be optimistic or pessimistic about the future of the culture? What do you think will happen to the culture in the next 20 to 50 years? Are you optimistic or pessimistic – and why? What do you think the value and certainty of such predictions based on philosophy are?

My Answer, In Brief: I’m pessimistic, because I see the direction in which the world is headed, particularly on economic issues. But not depressed, because I’m doing what I can and enjoying that.

Links:

• Philosophy in Action: Questions on Activism

Rapid Fire Questions (57:30)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

• If our emotions are affected by chemicals and other factors out of our control, does this call into question whether rationality is normal? In other words, do we need to learn how to reason?
• Why care about the drug war, when just about every politician is bad on that issue?
• Why worry about the president’s view of abortion given that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land?
• What should one think of a candidate that shifts positions?
• Do you think that private sector experience is a plus in a politician?
• Don’t you think another four years of Obama would all but guarantee a collapse of the last vestiges of the American republic?
• Should the US be an ally with Saudi Arabia?
• What are your thoughts on Chris Hitchens’ death?

Conclusion (1:11:46)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

• Diana Hsieh: Philosophy in Action: diana@philosophyinaction.com
• Greg Perkins: Objectivist Answers: greg@eCosmos.com

Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it’s not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we’re doing, please contribute to the webcast’s tip jar!

$5.00 USD – One Time $10.00 USD – One Time $20.00 USD – One Time $50.00 USD – One Time $100.00 USD – One Time Make A One-Time
Contribution

$10.00 USD – Monthly $20.00 USD – Monthly $30.00 USD – Monthly $50.00 USD – Monthly $100.00 USD – Monthly Create A Monthly
Contribution

If you’d like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you’ve contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we’re so grateful for that! Also, whether you’re able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.

As usual, if you can’t attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you’ll join the live webcast, because that’s more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 11 December 2011

Listen Now

Duration: 1:09:47

Download the Episode

• Download the Enhanced M4A File (32.8 MB)
• Download the Standard MP3 File (32.0 MB)

Subscribe to the Feed

• Subscribe to the Enhanced M4A Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader
• Subscribe to the Standard MP3 Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader

The Segments: Episode: 11 December 2011

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

On Wednesday, Ari Armstrong and I spoke about Colorado’s campaign finance laws at Liberty on the Rocks in Denver. We’ll be testifying on Thursday in favor of the proposed rule changes. That has been a huge amount of work for both of us.

Question 1: An Early Look at the 2012 Election (3:46)

What’s your view of the upcoming 2012 election? By what standards do you judge the presidential candidates?

My Answer, In Brief: In a presidential candidate, I’m not looking for either John Galt or “Anyone But Obama.” I’m looking for someone who will do more good than harm to the cause of liberty in America.

Links:

• Gallup Poll on Acceptable Nominees

Question 2: Mitt Romney for US President (11:14)

Should I support Mitt Romney for US President? What’s the proper evaluation of his principles and record on the budget and the debt, health care, foreign policy, immigration, the drug war, abortion, and gay marriage? Does Romney deserve the vote of advocates of individual rights in the primary or the general election?

My Answer, In Brief: Mitt Romney is a smooth talker, but his proposal reveal that he has no understanding of individual rights or the economic problems facing America. He’s no better than Obama – and likely worse, because the opposition will vanish. I cannot recommend voting for him in the primary or the general election.

Links:

• Mitt Romney’s campaign website: Fiscal Policy, Health Care, Foreign Policy, Plan to Turn Around the Economy, Remarks at Values Voter Summit

Question 3: Newt Gingrich for US President (20:28)

Should I support Newt Gingrinch for US President? What’s the proper evaluation of his principles and record on the budget and the debt, health care, foreign policy, immigration, the drug war, abortion, and gay marriage? Does Gingrinch deserve the vote of advocates of individual rights in the primary or the general election?

My Answer, In Brief: Newt Gingrich is explicitly theocratic, and a major threat to the separation of church and state. He advocates and practices “active governance,” meaning right-wing social engineering, not liberty. Like Obama, he is enamored of bold transformative ideas, which could be okay or horrible for liberty. I cannot recommend voting for him in the primary or the general election.

Links:

• Newt Gingrich’s campaign website: Jobs and Prosperity Plan, Health Care, Unleashing Growth and Innovation Beyond the Welfare State, Foreign Policy, Immigration, Protecting Life and Religious Liberty
• Politico: Newt Gingrich advised Freddie until takeover
• Objective Health Policy Center: Newt Gingrich: 3 hits and 3 misses on transforming healthcare
• Yahoo News: Newt Gingrich on Gay Marriage, Abortion and Other Social Issues
• Ripon Society Interview with Newt

Question 4: Ron Paul for US President (32:29)

Should I support Ron Paul for US President? What’s the proper evaluation of his principles and record on the budget and the debt, health care, foreign policy, immigration, the drug war, abortion, and gay marriage? Does Paul deserve the vote of advocates of individual rights in the primary or the general election?

My Answer, In Brief: Ron Paul is not even libertarian, but a neo-confederate conservative Christian, albeit with some grasp of basic economics. He’s a rationalist, driven by ideology, and not open to facts. He would be very dangerous to elect as president, not just for actual policies, but as a supposed advocate of liberty. I cannot recommend voting for him in the primary or the general election.

Links:

• Ron Paul’s campaign website: Plan to Restore America, The Economy, Big Dog Ad, Health Care, National Defense, Immigration, Abortion, Statement of Faith
• Amy Peikoff: Why I Won’t Vote for Ron Paul
• Daily Caller: Ron Paul: War on Drugs a ‘total failure’
• Yahoo News: Ron Paul on Gay Marriage and Abortion, Other Social Issues
• Ron Paul: Christmas in Secular America and We The People Act
• Nick Gillespie: Five Myths About Ron Paul

Should I support Gary Johnson for US President? What’s the proper evaluation of his principles and record on the budget and the debt, health care, foreign policy, immigration, the drug war, abortion, and gay marriage? Does Johnson deserve the vote of advocates of individual rights in the primary or the general election? Also, should supporters of Gary Johnson vote for him on a Libertarian Party ticket?

My Answer, In Brief: Gary Johnson is not John Galt. However, he’s fundamentally oriented toward facts, plus he has good basic principles about liberty. Alas, he was shut out from the race by the media and the establishment GOP. I recommend voting for him in the primary, as well as in the general election, if he runs as the Libertarian Party candidate. I still reject the Libertarian Party, but a protest vote can be delimited to endorse him and not the party.

Links:

• Gary Johnson’s campaign website: Economy and Taxes, Spending and the Deficit, Immigration, Drug Policy Reform, Civil Liberties
• Paul Hsieh: The Fable of the Cardiac Surgeon
• Greg Perkins: Libertarian vs. Objectivist Thinking

Rapid Fire Questions (1:06:19)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

• What do you think of Jon Huntsman for president?
• Would you ever vote for Obama, e.g. against Santorum?
• What do you think about the upcoming debate with Donald Trump?

Conclusion (1:08:42)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

• Diana Hsieh: Philosophy in Action: diana@philosophyinaction.com
• Greg Perkins: Objectivist Answers: greg@eCosmos.com

Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it’s not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we’re doing, please contribute to the webcast’s tip jar!

$5.00 USD – One Time $10.00 USD – One Time $20.00 USD – One Time $50.00 USD – One Time $100.00 USD – One Time Make A One-Time
Contribution

$10.00 USD – Monthly $20.00 USD – Monthly $30.00 USD – Monthly $50.00 USD – Monthly $100.00 USD – Monthly Create A Monthly
Contribution

If you’d like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you’ve contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we’re so grateful for that! Also, whether you’re able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.