NoodleFood

Video: Judging Religions as Better and Worse

2012-02-24T08:00:00.001-07:00

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast, I discussed judging religions as better and worse. The question was:

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.

Here's the video of my full answer:

If you enjoy the video, please "like" it on YouTube and share it with friends via social media, forums, and e-mail! You can also throw a bit of extra love in our tip jar.

Join the next Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live.

In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode, and our my YouTube channel. And go to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes.

Video: Telling a Friend about Romantic Feelings

2012-02-23T13:00:00.000-07:00

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast, I discussed telling a friend about romantic feelings. The question was:

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.

Here's the video of my full answer:

Illusion in Social Media

2012-02-23T08:00:00.001-07:00

Earlier this week, Trey Givens, Paul, and I discussed the questions of the upcoming webcast over dinner. (Trey was visiting us, which was super-lots-of-fun!) In our discussion of the differences between online and in-person relationships, Trey told us about a horrifying case in which an unfriending on Facebook led to a double homicide.

Obviously, that particular case wasn't really about Facebook: something like that only happens because some people involved are unstable and depraved. However, this general observation on social media in the article struck me as quite insightful:

Facebook crystallizes the dynamics of our friendships and social interactions -- bringing them a clarity that can be measured by clicks, visits, and comments. Having our social interactions brought into that level of focus means that a relationship that might have once ebbed over time naturally through avoidance and ignored phone calls can instead be cut off in a dramatic and confrontational way. Perhaps laying bare the end of a relationship in such a deliberate way means an intensified emotional reaction for those involved, or a sense of finality that one wouldn't usually get. (When I blocked an ex-boyfriend on Facebook years ago, he was angrier about that than at any other point in our breaking up.)

I've certainly found that to be the case, and I think that's why social media has the potential to cause so much disruption in online communities. (I've got a question on that topic in the webcast queue that needs your votes!)

Social media like Facebook and Twitter enable people to easily connect with others with similar interests -- more easily than ever. That capacity to find the kinds of people I like is one reason why I've been active on e-mail lists for nearly two decades, why I've maintained a personal web site for almost as long as the web has existed, and why I've blogged for almost a decade. I use those venues as a filtering mechanism, so that I can find the kinds of minds and souls that I enjoy knowing. However, those older internet venues tend to be more one-way than social media: it's too easy to be seen but not to see others. I like social media because people are more apt to speak out in large and small ways that reveal their personality, character, and values. That enables me to see others, and them to see me. So I can come to understand acquaintances better, as well as find likely potential friends.

However, that transparency comes at a price, as the article indicates. That price is not that people see the stupid, ignorant, annoying, and/or mean facets of distant acquaintances. Often, it's a bonus to see that from afar because then people know to keep their distance! Rather, the price is that that online interactions make people within a far-flung community seem closer than they really are. Then, when people in those communities conflict, as they inevitably will do, people often fail to recognize the true distance and insignificance of the relationships involved. As a result, minor annoyances and disagreements between people who barely know each other turn into nasty public conflicts. That level of social drama used to be saved for bitter divorces, not people who've never even met.

These problem will sort itself out with time, I think, as people come to a better understanding of the nature and limits of these new social mediums. Certainly, I've made mistakes myself, most notably in fostering some unhealthy acrimony in the debates about the 2006 election. My attitude toward that is "Yippee Mistakes!" I'm not indifferent to my mistakes, not by a long shot. However, since Paul has yet to build me a time machine, I can't undo those mistakes. I can apologize and make amends as needed, but mostly, I can use those mistakes as prime opportunities for discovering how to do better in the future. I can't control what others do, but I hope they adopt the same approach.

Mostly though, I'd like to see a warning sticker on social media -- something like the warning on passenger-side mirrors on cars: "People on your screen are further than they appear." Taking that to heart could do a whole lot of good for online communities.

Preview: Philosophy in Action Webcast

2012-02-22T08:00:00.000-07:00

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll answer questions on consent in sex, terminating online versus in-person acquaintances, compensating the victims of a your negligence, the meaning of faith, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we apply rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy, and free lives!

What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins

When: Sunday, 26 February 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET

Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live

Here are the questions that I'll answer this week:

Question 1: Consent in Sex: 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?

Question 2: Terminating Online Versus In-Person Acquaintances: 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?

Question 3: Compensating the Victims of a Your Negligence: 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?

Question 4: The Meaning of Faith: 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?

After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions."

If you can't attend the live webcast, you can listen to these webcasts later as audio-only podcasts 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

Be sure to connect with us on social media too.

You can listen to full episodes or just selected questions from any past episode in the Webcast Archive. Also, don't forget to submit and vote on the questions that you'd most like me to answer from the ongoing Question Queue.

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

NoodleCast #118: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

2012-02-20T08:00:00.002-07:00

On Sunday, 19 February 2012, I broadcast a new episode of my live Philosophy in Action Webcast, where I answer questions on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a virtuous, happy, and free life in a live, hour-long webcast. The webcast is broadcast live every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. In the webcast, I broadcast on video, Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers is on audio, and the audience is in a text chat.

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

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!

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.

Video: Liking But Not Loving Your Career

2012-02-16T16:00:00.000-07:00

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast, I discussed liking but not loving your career. The question was:

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.

Here's the video of my full answer:

Preview: Philosophy in Action Webcast

2012-02-16T08:00:00.000-07:00

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll answer questions on better and worse religions, telling a friend about romantic feelings, overfeeding a child as abuse, interest in a lover's writings, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we apply rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy, and free lives!

What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins

When: Sunday, 19 February 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET

Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live

Here are the questions that I'll answer this week:

Question 1: Better and Worse Religions: 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?

Question 2: Telling a Friend about Romantic Feelings: 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?

Question 3: Overfeeding a Child as Abuse: 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?

Question 4: Interest in a Lover's Writings: 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?

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

NoodleCast #117: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

2012-02-13T08:00:00.002-07:00

On Sunday, 12 February 2012, I broadcast a new episode of my live Philosophy in Action Webcast, where I answer questions on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a virtuous, happy, and free life in a live, hour-long webcast. The webcast is broadcast live every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. In the webcast, I broadcast on video, Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers is on audio, and the audience is in a text chat.

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

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

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

Rights Are Inalienable But Forfeitable

2012-02-09T14:00:00.000-07:00

In my recent Philosophy in Action Webcast discussion of the death penalty, I mentioned Craig Biddle's discussion of the fact that rights are inalienable but forfeitable. As promised, here's footnote 46 of his excellent essay, Ayn Rand's Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society

... If rights were somehow inherent in man by virtue of his being man, then we could never punish people who violate rights--because using retaliatory force against them would violate the "rights" that they "inherently" have and that they thus always retain by virtue of being human. Because Rand's theory is based on and derived from the observable requirements of man's life, it is not afflicted with contradictions regarding those requirements. On Rand's theory, rights are inalienable, in that others cannot take away or nullify one's rights; but they are also forfeitable, in that one can relinquish one's own rights by violating the rights of others. If and to the extent that a person violates the rights of others, he relinquishes his own rights and may be punished accordingly. His choice to violate rights places him outside the purpose of the principle and thus the scope of its protection. Again, one cannot claim the protection of a principle that one repudiates in action.

If rights were inherent in human nature, based purely on DNA or species-membership, then the advocates of "personhood for zygotes" would be right: the fertilized egg would have a right to life. However, on an objective theory of rights, rights cannot apply until the fetus is biologically separated from the woman. Only then does the fetus -- then a baby -- enter the social context necessary for rights. For further details, see Ari Armstrong's and my recently-published essay, "The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties.

Preview: Philosophy in Action Webcast

2012-02-09T08:00:00.000-07:00

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll answer questions on low passion for career, patriotism as a virtue, artificial intelligence, boycotting chick-fil-a, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we apply rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy, and free lives!

What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins

When: Sunday, 12 February 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET

Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live

Here are the questions that I'll answer this week:

Question 1: Low Passion for Career: 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 my greater satisfaction on the side?

Question 2: Patriotism as a Virtue: Is patriotism a virtue? Is patriotism towards America a virtue? Should a person "love America" – or is that just jingoistic nationalism?

Question 3: Artificial Intelligence: 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?

Question 4: Boycotting Chick-Fil-A: 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?

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

Video: Overcoming Perfectionism

2012-02-08T08:00:00.002-07:00

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast, I discussed overcoming perfectionism. The question was:

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.

Here's the video of my full answer:

NoodleCast #116: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

2012-02-06T08:00:00.003-07:00

On Sunday, 5 February 2012, I broadcast a new episode of my live Philosophy in Action Webcast, where I answer questions on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a virtuous, happy, and free life in a live, hour-long webcast. The webcast is broadcast live every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. In the webcast, I broadcast on video, Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers is on audio, and the audience is in a text chat.

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

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

Video: Feigning Indifference to Attract a Man

2012-02-03T14:00:00.004-07:00

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast, I discussed feigning indifference to attract a man. The question was:

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.

Here's the video of my full answer:

Dealing with Inept and Shirking Co-Workers

2012-02-03T08:00:00.000-07:00

In my January 8th Philosophy in Action Webcast, I answered the following question on the ethics doing the work of inept (and shirking) co-workers:

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?

You can find my the audio of my answer in the archive of Philosophy in Action.

Here, I want to offer the answer given by another. Rachel Garrett posted the following remarks to OProducers, and I'm reposting them with her permission. Her advice is excellent -- and her way of framing the issue in terms of your obligation to your employer definitely helped my own analysis.

Without further ado, here's Rachel's answer to the question:

If the extra help to co-workers is getting in the way of fulfilling your own job responsibilities, you would need to devise strategies to cut down on the amount of assistance you render. But since you didn't say that, I will assume that's not the case.

It's frustrating to be in a situation where your productive energy is getting drained by people who don't perform their own job responsibilities. However, I would be cautious of how you've framed the question. You've given yourself an alternative: either continue helping these lazy co-workers and be taken advantage of; or refuse to help them (telling yourself it's the moral thing to do).

The important thing to focus on is: What is my contractual obligation to my employer? What is my job? If you are getting paid for eight hours of productive work, and you finish your own assigned task in six, then the right thing to do is to spend the remaining two hours as productively as possible on your employer's behalf. This may include teaching others how to do their job better, finishing tasks that others have left undone, and fixing others' mistakes.

You're not a manager of this environment, so the work atmosphere is not your responsibility. It's your employer's problem that they are getting crap for productivity from this part of their workforce. Going "on strike" and withdrawing your help, in order to force others to do their own work, would not be appropriate. Managers are the ones who should be monitoring and evaluating employees' performance, and motivating them to do better. That job's not yours to do. If management is not doing their job, there is nothing you can do that will fill that gap.

The best course of action largely depends on how good of a relationship you have with your own manager, how you're evaluated, and how you envision your future at this company. If this is just a job, it's perfectly fine to tell yourself, "I'm just here for the paycheck," and stop caring about your co-workers. If the company is not connected to your long-term goals, then your co-workers' goofing off shouldn't mean anything more to you than a grouchy grocery clerk -- something unfortunate that inconveniences you for a while, but doesn't affect you much. If you can't let it go, do everything within your power to find a new job before you become embittered and lose perspective.

If you have a decent working relationship with your manager, I would suggest logging all your extra work and fixes, for a week or two. Ask your manager if you can add a phrase to your job responsibilities ("Train other departmental personnel on X and Y procedures...") that would help this count toward your upward development. Or perhaps you could find a job responsibility that you enjoy, and that would fill up your time and make you unavailable to pick up others' slack. (Whatever you do, don't sound complainy. You have a right to complain and you deserve sympathy from rational people who value their work, but complaining is almost certainly a bad strategy to get what you want from your manager.)

There are also some smaller things you can change or do...
Make people work for your help. "Sure, Amanda! I'd LOVE to help you get that month-end report fixed! I tell you what, I've gotten this question a lot, so how about I walk you through it and you take notes so you can write up the procedure. Then next month, we can use that as reference."
It's wrong for your co-workers to spend time on non-work activities when there is work to be done. However, most people do want to do things the right way and feel good about what they got accomplished. Your co-workers have the same human need for productive work that you do. They may be mismanaged and socially pressured, or they may have a genuine rotten attitude. There's no way to reach inside and see. So give them the benefit of the doubt.
When you think about the situation, don't use judgmental labels like "lazy"; use factual words like "unproductive".
Reach out to your company's Quality department for Six Sigma training. Identify common snags and mistakes in your department's processes. Run a process improvement project(s) to fix them.
Increase your skill/knowledge level of Microsoft Office or whatever other software/systems you're using. Learn how to automate and error-check to help avoid mistakes.
Read the book Crucial Conversations -- I think it would be a great help in having some of the conversations you may need to have with your manager and/or co-workers.
I hope some of this helps.

Indeed it does! Thank you, Rachel. for that excellent advice!

Video: What's Wrong with Being Pragmatic?

2012-02-02T14:00:00.002-07:00

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast, I discussed being pragmatic. The question was:

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.

Here's the video of my full answer:

The Conspiracies of Ron Paul

2012-02-02T08:00:00.002-07:00

A few weeks ago, an unknown Ron Paul's supporter (or supporters) created a stir with a video attacking John Huntsman. Reuters reports:

Republican presidential hopeful Jon Huntsman and members of his family expressed outrage on Friday at an advertisement targeted at his adopted daughters by a group supporting rival Ron Paul.

An online ad authored by "NHLiberty4Paul" shows footage of Huntsman with daughters Gracie, who was adopted from China, and Asha, adopted from India, when they were infants.

"American values. Or Chinese," the ad asks to a soundtrack of Chinese music. It calls Huntsman "the Manchurian Candidate" and ends with an image of Huntsman dressed as China's former communist leader Mao Zedong, and the words "Vote Ron Paul."

Here's the video, and I definitely recommend watching it:

So what is Ron Paul's response?

Paul, a Texas congressman, disavowed the ad during an interview on Friday on CNN, but said he could not control the actions of all his supporters.

"I couldn't even hear it, haven't looked at it, but people do that, and they do it in all campaigns," Paul said.

(Update: Apparently, Ron Paul's campaign did attempt to sue to discover the author of the video, but they were rebuffed by the courts.)

Unfortunately, Ron Paul has a long history of tolerating these and other varieties of racist, homophobic, and otherwise disreputable supporters. He distances himself in tepid terms, and refuses to condemn them in anything remotely like the strong language that they deserve. That's why he's got problem after problem with downright frightening supporters.

Ron Paul's 2008 campaign had such problems in spades, particularly for refusing reject donations from neo-Nazis. In this 2010 campaign, Ron Paul's campaign welcomed the endorsement of a Christian dominionist pastor in Iowa who -- consistent with his overall theology -- advocates the death penalty (!!!) for homosexuality. (Please go read the whole story, because it's quite remarkable.) The announcement on Ron Paul's web site welcoming this fothermucker's endorsement was deleted, but as far as I can tell, Ron Paul never repudiated the endorsement.

Moreover, Ron Paul has never adequately explained or repudiated the viciously racist and homophobic comments in his newsletters.

How should the lunatic fringe be handled in a campaign? Consider the reaction of Bob Barr's campaign to a racist endorsement when he ran for president in 2008 on the Libertarian Party ticket:

The Barr campaign is not going to be a vehicle for every fringe and hate group to promote itself. We do not want and will not accept the support of haters. Anyone with love in their heart for our country and for every resident of our country regardless of race, religion, nationality or sexual orientation is welcome with open arms.

Tell the haters I said don't let the door hit you on the backside on your way out!

I'm not a fan of Bob Barr, but *pow* *pow* *pow* -- that's how it's done!

Instead of doing that -- or anything like it -- Ron Paul tolerates dangerous idiots, only setting them at arm's length when exposed by the media. This pattern of actions reveals something amiss with Ron Paul's character and judgment, I fear. He's not a racist, I don't think: he's said and done too much too clearly against that. So is he just willing to tolerate and pander to dangerous nonsense in the hope of a few more votes? I don't think that explains the pattern, not when he sticks to his guns on economics.

I suspect that a major cause of these problems is that he's got a serious but mostly hidden penchant for conspiracy theories. This fascinating NY Times article explores that in some detail. For example:

In a 1990 C-Span appearance, taped between Congressional stints, Paul was asked by a caller to comment on the "treasonous, Marxist, alcoholic dictators that pull the strings in our country." Rather than roll his eyes, Paul responded, "there's pretty good evidence that those who are involved in the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations usually end up in positions of power. And I believe this is true."

Paul then went on to stress the negligible differences between various "Rockefeller Trilateralists." The notion that these three specific groups -- the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Rockefeller family -- run the world has been at the center of far-right conspiracy theorizing for a long time, promoted especially by the extremist John Birch Society, whose 50th anniversary gala dinner Paul keynoted in 2008.

Wow, just wow. By all means, go watch the video for yourself. He just smooth talks right in and out of the conspiracies.

Judged by the standards of a rational epistemology, conspiracy-theorism is nearly at the bottom of the barrel. The mind of the conspiracy theorist is in complete disarray, utterly unable to evaluate evidence or stick to facts. It's engaging in a constant process of invention, and then confusing those inventions with facts.

For that to be the basic psycho-epistemology of the US President... well, that would be frightening.

Preview: Philosophy in Action Webcast

2012-02-01T08:00:00.003-07:00

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll answer questions on overcoming perfectionism, false but beneficial ideas, possessiveness in romance, term limits for politicians, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we apply rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy, and free lives!

What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins

When: Sunday, 5 February 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET

Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live

Here are the questions that I'll answer this week:

Question 1: Overcoming Perfectionism: 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?

Question 2: False But Beneficial Ideas: 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?

Question 3: Possessiveness in Romance: 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?

Question 4: Term Limits for Politicians: 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?

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

NoodleCast #115: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

2012-01-30T08:00:00.000-07:00

On Sunday, 29 January 2012, I broadcast a new episode of my live Philosophy in Action Webcast, where I answer questions on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a virtuous, happy, and free life in a live, hour-long webcast. The webcast is broadcast live every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. In the webcast, I broadcast on video, Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers is on audio, and the audience is in a text chat.

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

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

Preview: Philosophy in Action Webcast

2012-01-27T08:00:00.000-07:00

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll answer questions on being pragmatic, feigning indifference to attract a man, explaining atheism, "ignostic" versus "atheist", and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we apply rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy, and free lives!

What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins

When: Sunday, 29 January 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET

Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live

Here are the questions that I'll answer this week:

Question 1: Being Pragmatic: 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"?

Question 2: Feigning Indifference to Attract a Man: 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?

Question 3: Explaining Atheism: 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?

Question 4: "Ignostic" Versus "Atheist": 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]

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

Rick Santorum on Free Speech

2012-01-24T08:00:00.001-07:00

In this video, Rick Santorum answers a question on SOPA. He doesn't express an opinion about the bill, but he does explain his view that he regards all rights as limited and subject to regulation, including free speech rights:

Here are some highlights, but I recommend listening to the whole video:

My general feeling is that we have a free market and a free market should work. But like any freedom, there has to be regulation. We're not unlimited in any right, even rights that we have within our Constitution: they're not unlimited rights. There is, and can be, limitations on that. Freedom of speech, there are things that you can't say: you can't cry "fire" in a crowded theater. There are limitations to all freedom: there are no absolute rights. There are rights that have responsibilities that come with them. If you abuse those rights -- piracy -- if you abuse those rights, then you have a consequence of abusing that right. ...

I would make the case that ... there are limits to freedom on the internet. The internet is a powerful source for good. And, as we all know, it has been a powerful source for bad in this country. So the idea that we should just "hands-off" -- and it's a moral-free zone, it's a regulation free-zone, and that people should be able to do whatever they want -- I don't know of any other zone in America where that's the case. Why should the internet be different than everything else?

So I would say that responsible, well-[something], discussed regulation -- if there is abuse, taking someone's private property -- if there is abuse, as there is in pornography and a lot of other areas where we are destroying the moral fabric of our country -- to say, "well, it's just tough, let people to whatever they want -- let a 12 year old -- let them do whatever they want."

There are limitations that have to be put in place because your free speech rights can be incredibly harmful to someone else. Your desire to go a grab something that doesn't belong to you can be very harmful to someone else. ...

Rick Santorum views liberty as mere license to indulge in whims, including stealing from others. That's an utterly corrupt conception of rights. A person does not have the right to violate the rights of others! Yet on Santorum's view, protecting intellectual property from theft is on par with banning pornography to protect the moral fabric of society. They're both a matter of limiting rights to prevent harm to others.

Oy vey.

NoodleCast #114: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

2012-01-23T08:00:00.003-07:00

On Sunday, 22 January 2012, I broadcast a new episode of my live Philosophy in Action Webcast, where I answer questions on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a virtuous, happy, and free life in a live, hour-long webcast. The webcast is broadcast live every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. In the webcast, I broadcast on video, Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers is on audio, and the audience is in a text chat.

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

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

Video: Dealing with Temperamental People

2012-01-20T16:00:00.001-07:00

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast, I discussed dealing with temperamental people. The question was:

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.

Here's the video of my full answer:

If you enjoy the video, please "like" it on YouTube and share it with friends in e-mail and social media! You can also throw a bit of extra love in our tip jar.

All posted webcast videos can be found in the Webcast Archives and on my YouTube channel.

Video: Mutual Unprovable Accusations of Wrongdoing

2012-01-20T12:00:00.000-07:00

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast, I discussed mutual unprovable accusations of wrongdoing. The question was:

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.

Here's the video of my full answer:

MPAA on the SOPA/PIPA Blackout

2012-01-19T13:00:00.000-07:00

Senator Chris Dodd, Chairman and CEO of the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) released the following statement (PDF) about the blackout of web sites to protest SOPA and PIPA. (Emphasis added by me.)

Only days after the White House and chief sponsors of the legislation responded to the major concern expressed by opponents and then called for all parties to work cooperatively together, some technology business interests are resorting to stunts that punish their users or turn them into their corporate pawns, rather than coming to the table to find solutions to a problem that all now seem to agree is very real and damaging.

It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information and use their services. It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today. It's a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests.

A so-called "blackout" is yet another gimmick, albeit a dangerous one, designed to punish elected and administration officials who are working diligently to protect American jobs from foreign criminals. It is our hope that the White House and the Congress will call on those who intend to stage this "blackout" to stop the hyperbole and PR stunts and engage in meaningful efforts to combat piracy."

Such words, particularly the paragraph in bold, could be straight from the mouth of that slimy villain Bertram Scudder of Atlas Shrugged. "The gall of these companies to stop offering their free services to the world for so much as a single day! What appalling ingratitude to the state, which is already is so generous in permitting them to operate at all! As for all that disinformation they're spreading... we'll have to do something about that."

Or, as I saw on Facebook:

The MPAA calls the Internet going dark in protest of SOPA and PIPA an "abuse of power." In related news, the Eye of Sauron accuses hobbits of terrorism.

As I stated in my webcast discussion of SOPA and PIPA, to defend intellectual property rights is hugely important. However, such must be done in the context of a general understanding of and respect for individual rights, including rights to property, contract, and free speech.

It's a moral crime to attempt to protect some rights by willfully violating other rights. Alas, the MPAA doesn't or won't understand that.

Preview: Philosophy in Action Webcast

2012-01-19T08:00:00.000-07:00

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll answer questions on wrongful convictions of the innocent and the guilty, the morality of the death penalty, alternatives to America, choosing a place to live, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we'll apply rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous and happy lives!

What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins

When: Sunday, 22 January 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET

Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com

Here are the questions that I'll answer this week:

Question 1: Wrongful Convictions of the Innocent and the Guilty: 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?

Question 2: The Morality of the Death Penalty: 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?

Question 3: Alternatives to America: 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?

Question 4: Choosing a Place to Live: 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?

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

You can also listen to full episodes or just selected questions from any past episode in the Webcast Archive. Also, don't forget to submit and vote on the questions that you'd most like me to answer from the ongoing Question Queue.

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!