dianahsieh

It’s often difficult to challenge your own entrenched beliefs. Habits of thought die hard, particularly when your values or way of life seems to depend on those beliefs. (“But but but… XYZ must be true!”) When confronted with challenging new ideas, I try to approach them carefully, so as to avoid any knee-jerk emotional reaction in favor of my existing beliefs. Ideally, here’s what I do: I remind myself that I don’t need to agree or disagree right away. Instead, I focus on understanding the ideas and arguments fully. Then, once that’s done, I take some time to mull over those ideas — perhaps days, weeks, or months. I gather empirical evidence for and against the idea. I consider new angles, arguments, and implications. I discuss those ideas with smart people, as they often have fresh insights. Finally, I come to a judgment about the truth of those new ideas. If I take that time, I’m far less likely to err in my evaluation — meaning, to dismiss right ideas or embrace wrong ideas. That’s a win! But… uh… of course, that’s not always what happens. Yet even when I have that dreaded knee-jerk reaction against some new idea, I can exert my better judgment: I can choose to evaluate it objectively. If I have to eat crow at the end of that process, that’s better than persisting in dogmatic commitment to falsehoods. Note: I published a version of the above commentary in Philosophy in Action’s Newsletter a while back. Subscribe today! Link to Original

On Wednesday’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I interviewed entrepreneur Jason Crawford about “Free Objectivist Books for Students.” The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading. You’ll find it on the episode’s archive page, as well as below. Remember, you can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Podcast: Jason Crawford about “Free Objectivist Books for Students” The Free Objectivist Books for Students web site aims to help more students read Ayn Rand. It does that by enabling donors to send books by Ayn Rand or about her philosophy of Objectivism to students eager to read them. Jason Crawford explained how the project works – including the unusual way it connects donors and recipients – and why he thinks students should read Ayn Rand. Jason Crawford is a software developer and entrepreneur in San Francisco. He was co-founder and CTO of startup Kima Labs, and has worked at Amazon and Groupon. He was introduced to Objectivism in 1992 and has been a part of the Objectivist movement ever since. Listen or Download: Duration: 56:04 Download: Standard MP3 File (19.3 MB) Topics: How “Free Objectivist Books for Students” works Why students should read Ayn Rand The statistics: how many books sent Why students want to read Ayn Rand Why can’t the students buy or borrow the books The six primary books The most common book Sending to students outside the United States The response of the students The benefit for donors and volunteers How donors select students This peer-to-peer model versus traditional models Ayn Rand on charity The program as self-interested for students and donors Asking students to donate later or lend books Jason’s introduction to Objectivism Lessening the effect of luck in finding Ayn Rand’s ideas The current bottleneck Expanding the project in future This project as a model for other activist endeavors Advice to people interested in promoting Objectivism in the culture Links: Free Objectivist Books for Students Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand We the Living by Ayn Rand The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff Diana Hsieh’s Explore Atlas Shrugged podcasts Tags: Activism, Atlas Shrugged, Education, Objectivism, Young Adults Episode Sponsor This episode is sponsored the incomparable Audible.com. I’ve subscribed to Audible since 2005. With my “Platinum Annual Membership,” I enjoy 24 books per year for just under $10 per book. I read more books, thanks to Audible. I listen to books while in my car, as well as while cooking, cleaning, gardening, and more. I enjoy books more too, particularly fiction: a good reader adds a rich layer of color to the text. If you want to try the delights of listening to books, be sure to take advantage of our special podcast-only offer of free 30-day trial subscription. You’ll get a great deal, and you’ll support Philosophy in Action in the process. It’s a win-win – and I love that! About Philosophy in Action Radio Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives. Remember, Philosophy in Action Radio is available to anyone, free of charge. That’s because our goal is to spread rational principles for real life far and wide, as we do every week to thousands of listeners. We love doing that, but each episode requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value our work, please contribute to our tip jar. We suggest $5 per episode or $20 per month, but any amount is appreciated. You can send your contribution via Dwolla, PayPal, or US Mail. Link to Original

On Wednesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll interview entrepreneur Jason Crawford about "Free Objectivist Books for Students." This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Wednesday, 29 May 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. The Free Objectivist Books for Students web site aims to help more students read Ayn Rand. It does that by enabling donors to send books by Ayn Rand or about her philosophy of Objectivism to students eager to read them. Jason Crawford will explain how the project works – including the unusual way it connects donors and recipients – and why he thinks students should read Ayn Rand. Jason Crawford is a software developer and entrepreneur in San Francisco. He was co-founder and CTO of startup Kima Labs, and has worked at Amazon and Groupon. He was introduced to Objectivism in 1992 and has been a part of the Objectivist movement ever since. To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Jason Crawford on Free Objectivist Books for Students. It will be posted on Thursday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Wednesday evening... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in this topic! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

PJ Media recently published my latest OpEd, “Is Obamacare’s Fatal Flaw Taking Effect?” I discuss how ObamaCare requires voluntary cooperation of people who will be harmed by the law — which gives Americans a powerful weapon. Don’t be a willing accomplice to a law you don’t support! I’d also like to thank Dr. Megan Edison for allowing me to quote her. Update: I’m also encouraged by the fact that some former supporters of the law appear to now be having second thoughts: “Unions break ranks on ObamaCare” (The Hill, 5/21/2013) Link to Original

It’s commonly said that tone is lost in email in such a way that often exacerbates conflicts. Certainly, that’s true. Recently, I realized part of the reason why that’s true. Email is just words, and tone is largely communicated by vocal patterns and body language. Hence, tone is not communicated well via email. That’s a problem, since the same words, delivered malicious or benevolently, have very different effects. However, that’s not the core problem in and of itself. The core problem is that tone is a hugely important element of communication, such that readers will infer tone from whatever information they have available to them. With email, that means that tone is largely inferred from background knowledge about and judgments of the writer. When a relationship is well-established as friendly (or malignant), the absence of tone in the communication isn’t much of a problem: the tone intended will likely be the tone inferred. However, when people are in conflict, the fact that tone isn’t communicated but rather inferred is a recipe for disaster. In such cases, the reader will easily read a tone into the text that the writer didn’t intend without being aware of doing so. So a perfectly ordinary statement might be interpreted as snide or mean if the reader feels vulnerable and defensive due to an unresolved conflict with the writer. As a result, the conflict will often escalate suddenly, even though the writer intended the opposite. That possibility is why it’s so important to pick up the phone to have some kind of real conversation when in the midst of a conflict with another person. (Better yet, meet with the person in person or via video call.) That’s often really hard for people. It’s really hard for me. I’m not concerned about the greater precision of writing, as some people are. Rather, I prefer the emotional distance of email for the simple reason that conflict is difficult and unpleasant. Alas, that greater precision and distance often comes at a steep price — namely, prolonging or worsening the conflict. That’s worth remembering, I think, when considering whether to write that email or not. Link to Original

This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine): 23 May: Hsieh PJM OpEd: Is Obamacare’s Fatal Flaw Taking Effect? by Paul Hsieh 22 May: Trusting the Navigators? by Paul Hsieh 20 May: Catron on IRS and Medical Records by Paul Hsieh Follow FIRM on Facebook and Twitter. This week on Politics without God, the blog of the Coalition for Secular Government: 20 May: Arranged Marriages: Philosophy in Action Podcast by Diana Hsieh Follow the Coalition for Secular Government on Facebook and Twitter. This week on The Blog of The Objective Standard: 26 May: Innovative Doctors Save Infant’s Life with 3D Printing by Ari Armstrong 22 May: There is No Right to Religious Proselytizing in U.S. Military by Natalie Ogle 21 May: Apple’s Tax Avoidance Justifies Moral Outrage—Toward those Harassing and Smearing Apple by Ari Armstrong 20 May: Committee for Justice Fights for Free Speech via Property Rights by Ari Armstrong Follow The Objective Standard on Facebook and Twitter. This week on The Blog of Modern Paleo: 26 May: Hsieh PJM OpEd: Is ObamaCare’s Fatal Flaw Taking Effect? by Paul Hsieh 25 May: Philosophy Weekend: News from Philosophy in Action by Diana Hsieh 24 May: The Paleo Rodeo #163 by Diana Hsieh Follow Modern Paleo on Facebook and Twitter. Link to Original

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on the ethics of open relationships, innate personality, conceiving again to save a child, the justice of alimony payments, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 26 May 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. This week's questions are: Question 1: The Ethics of Open Relationships: Can open relationships be moral? Can it ever be moral to have sex with someone else while in a relationship, assuming that you're honest with everyone involved? If not, why not? If so, what might be some of the pitfalls to be aware of? For example, should the criteria for selecting sexual partners be stricter than if you were single? How should you navigate the tricky territory of opening a previously closed relationship? Question 2: Innate Personality: Can personality be innate? In past shows, you've indicated that you think that some aspects of personality are innate, rather than acquired by experience. What does that mean? What is the evidence for that view? Moreover, wouldn't that be a form of determinism? Wouldn't that violate the principle that every person is born a "blank slate"? Question 3: Conceiving Again to Save a Child: Is it wrong for parents to have another baby to save the life of their sick child? In 1990, Marissa Ayala was born in the hope that she might be able to save her 16-year-old sister Anissa from a rare form of leukemia. (The parents went to extraordinary lengths to conceive.) Happily, Marissa was a suitable bone marrow donor, and Anissa's life was saved. At the time, many people criticized the decision as "baby farming" and treating the new baby as a "biological resupply vehicle." Yet today, the Ayalas are a close family, Anissa is alive and well, and Marissa is happy to have been born. Were the Ayalas wrong to attempt to save the life of one child by having another? What moral premises would lead a person to condemn this act? Question 4: The Justice of Alimony Payments: Should alimony payments upon divorce be abolished? Traditionally, a man was obliged to financially support his ex-wife upon divorce. Recent reforms have decreased the amount and duration of alimony in some states, as well as made it gender neutral (in theory). But are such payments ever justifiable? If so, under what conditions? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Q&A: Open Relationships, Innate Personality, Alimony, and More. It will be posted on Monday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Sunday morning... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

London in 1927… in color! The video description says: Incredible colour footage of 1920s London shot by an early British pioneer of film named Claude Frisse-Greene, who made a series of travelogues using the colour process his father William – a noted cinematographer – was experimenting with. It’s like a beautifully dusty old postcard you’d find in a junk store, but moving. Music by Jonquil and Yann Tiersen. I love early color photographs and videos. The past seems so much more real in color. Link to Original

If you’d not offer the same excuses for the scandals and wrongs of the opposite party — e.g. “What does it matter?” or “The President couldn’t have known what these low-level government employees were doing” or “We shouldn’t pry since it’s a matter of national security” or “It’s for the children!” — then you’re just a partisan hack. Now that some scandals are bearing down on Obama’s Administration, I’m seeing that in spades from my progressive friends. Next time the GOP wins the White House, I’ll see lots of the same from my conservative friends. Objectivity in politics can be difficult, but too many people don’t even try. Link to Original

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on individualism versus anti-social atomism, poor communication from the boss, visibility of disabled children, arranged marriages, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 19 May 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. This week's questions are: Question 1: Individualism Versus Anti-Social Atomism: Does individualism imply social isolation and atomism? Many critics of Ayn Rand argue that her individualism is hostile to love, concern, and respect for other people. They claim that her "atomistic individualism" doesn't permit, let alone support, groups or community. Are these criticisms true? What is the right view of human society and sociability? Question 2: Poor Communication from the Boss: How can I make my boss more communicative? My boss hardly ever tells me company news affecting my projects, even when critical. As a result, I've wasted days and weeks on useless work, and I've gotten into needless conflicts with co-workers. I'm always guessing at what I should be doing, and I just hate that. What can I do to make my boss to be more communicative with me? Question 3: Visibility of Disabled Children: Should disabled kids be kept out of the public eye? Recently, a waiter at a restaurant refused to serve one party after hearing them make fun of a child with Down's Syndrome sitting with his family in a nearby booth. Both parties were regulars to the restaurant. Some people have praised the waiter's actions because he took offense at overhearing the first party say "special needs kids should be kept in special places." He called them on their rudeness and refused to serve them. Others think he was wrong: his catering to the party with the disabled kid is indicative of a culture that embraces mediocrity and disability. What is the proper assessment of the remark made and the waiter's response? Should people with disabilities be kept from public view? Question 4: Arranged Marriages: Are arranged marriages legally and socially valid? A coworker of mine in his early 20s grew up in India. His parents have arranged his marriage to a young woman who also now lives in the US. He appreciates that his parents selected a wife for him: he doesn't want to spend the time or take the risk of finding a wife himself. Should such a marriage be considered legally valid? Is it just a marriage of convenience? Is the practice of arranged marriages immoral and/or impractical? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Q&A: Individualism, Disabled Children, Arranged Marriages, and More. It will be posted on Monday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Sunday morning... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

On Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I’ll answer a question on whether disabled kids be kept out of the public eye. The question was inspired by this story of a waiter who refused to serve a table of customers due to their unpleasant remarks about a five-year-old child with Down’s Syndrome at another table. The child was not being loud or disruptive, and he was known and liked by the waiter. The people at the other table reportedly said that “special needs kids should be kept in special places.” Apparently, that view has some currency among Objectivists, starting with Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand Answers includes the following Q&A: OY. I’m not a fan of mainstreaming disabled children in schools, except on a case-by-case basis, when everyone benefits thereby. However, the idea that disabled children ought to be kept away from normal children just flabbergasts me. It’s simply a fact that some people in this world of ours suffer from mental and/or physical disabilities. Even otherwise normal people suffer from disabilities on occasion — not just injuries and illness, but the effects of aging too. Disabled people are morally entitled to live their lives, pursuing their values to the best of their ability — just like everyone else. That means they’ll be out in the world, where children might see and/or interact with them. Hence, parents should speak to their children about disabilities, including how to interact with disabled people in a morally decent way. That’s an important part of a child’s moral education — if you don’t want little Johnny to push Grandma down the stairs because she was walking too slowly for his tastes, that is. The moral education required here isn’t rocket science. Disabled people should be treated with civility and respect — just like everyone else. They might merit the effort of a bit of kindness, such as holding open a door or speaking slowly — just like everyone else. Of course, disabled people can be rude or disruptive or offensive or bothersome too. That’s pretty standard behavior for normal people too, albeit with less excuse. The sensible response is not to demand that disabled people be hidden from sight, but rather to put some distance between yourself and the bothersome person. See? Not rocket science! Well… I’d better stop there, before I dive into a full-blown rant. I have plenty more to say on this topic on Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Radio… so I hope that you join us! Link to Original

(I wrote this for Philosophy in Action’s Newsletter back in September 2012, but it’s still relevant.) A few days ago, I was riding my horse in our neighborhood arena while a father was attempting to teach his son to ride a bike in the grass. The father would push the son forward on the bike, and the son was supposed to pedal. However, even from a distance, I could tell that the son was getting scared and freezing. Instead of pedaling, he’d put his feet down into the grass and come to stop. The father had an excellent opportunity to talk to his son about overcoming fears. Alas, that’s not what happened. Even from a distance, I could hear the father yell to his son in frustration, “If you’d only pedaled when I told you!” and “Why aren’t you listening to me?” Obviously, that didn’t help the boy pedal any better! The father was making a very serious mistake in taking his son’s failure personally. He was seeing it as a failure to obey, rather than focusing on the son’s actual problem — namely, the difficulty of overcoming fears. As a result, the son was not only deprived of useful help about managing those fears, but also burdened with feelings of guilt too. Even worse, the father was telling the son that the son’s own judgment (including his fears) were not nearly as important as obeying the father’s commands. Oy. Happily though, the father seemed to muster some better control over himself after that burst of anger. He stopped yelling, and the tension seemed to ease. Hopefully, he realized his error. Hopefully, he’ll stop himself sooner next time. I’m not immune from the error of atttemping to dictate others — whether children, animals, co-workers, friends, or husband. I suspect that I’m not alone in that! So here are a few suggestions, which you can take or leave: When you find yourself growing frustrated by the fact that other people aren’t doing what you’ve told them to do, remind yourself that they’re not likely attempting to spite you. Perhaps you didn’t give clear instructions. Perhaps you’ve asked too much of them. Perhaps they saw problems with your plan that you missed. Perhaps their goals don’t mesh well with yours. Instead of stewing over their failure to obey, consider how you might be genuinely helpful. You might want to ask them if they want help. You might want to clarify your instructions. You might want to just keep your mouth shut. Whatever the circumstances, acting like a petty tyrant is always the wrong answer. Nothing alienates rational thinkers — young and old — more quickly. Link to Original

I always delete random illiterate religious spam from Philosophy in Action’s Facebook Page … but not until I’ve made proper fun of it. Link to Original

On Wednesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll interview Freedom Party of Ontario Leader Paul McKeever about "Advancing Liberty via a Political Party." This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Wednesday, 15 May 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. Can a political party help advance the cause of liberty? Perhaps so, in a parliamentary system. Paul McKeever will explain how and why he advocates for individual rights via the Freedom Party of Ontario. Paul McKeever is the Leader of Freedom Party of Ontario. Paul joined Freedom Party in 1992. He first ran as a candidate for Freedom Party in Ontario's 1999 election. He became a Freedom Party spokesperson that year in 1999, and the party leader in 2002. To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Paul McKeever on Advancing Liberty via a Political Party. It will be posted on Thursday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Wednesday evening... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in this topic! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Many moons ago, shortly after I published my podcast on Finding Good Prospects for Romance and Friendship, Stella Zawistowski sent me this set of excellent ideas for first dates, particularly geared toward city-dwellers. If you live near a college, university, or especially a conservatory for the arts, be sure to get on the school’s mailing list or check posted schedules regularly for free or low-cost performances. You’ll frequently find Shakespeare, dance productions, recitals, orchestra concerts, and sometimes even opera. Ballroom dance studios often offer free or low-price guest nights to attract new students. You can enjoy the free beginners’ lesson, then apply your new skills dancing with your date for the rest of the night. Many pubs and bars offer trivia nights. You and your date can be a two-person team. Some bars and restaurants offer themed wine-tasting nights. Picnic in the park. Bonus points if you make the food yourself and/or have a dog that likes to play. Follow dinner or drinks with board games instead of a movie. In the summer, many cities have food festivals or street fairs that it’s fun to browse with a date. If you and your date are sports fans, try minor-league or college games. Minor-league baseball is a particularly fun date, and usually costs the same or less than a movie ticket! If there’s no minor-league team in your area, catch a game at a sports bar. Go on a hike (but don’t pick too strenuous a trail; you want to be able to converse with your date). Visit your local zoo or botanical gardens to enjoy nature harnessed for man’s enjoyment. If your city has a Time Out magazine, subscribe to it (or visit timeout.com) to find all kinds of events. Many farmer’s markets offer free or low-cost cooking demonstrations. See how a dish is made, then buy the ingredients, go home and prepare it with your date. Any other ideas? Post them in the comments! If you’re interested in purchasing the podcast, that’s still available for just $20. You can find more information — and purchase it — here: Finding Good Prospects for Romance and Friendship. Link to Original

As I mentioned in this post, I’ll be speaking on the concept of “Moral Amplifiers” at ATLOSCon in less than two weeks. (Yes, you can still register… and you should too!) Here, again, is the abstract of my talk: Objectivism upholds seven major virtues as indispensable to our lives. Yet what of other qualities of character — such as ambition, courage, spontaneity, liveliness, discretion, patience, empathy, and friendliness? Are these virtues, personality traits, or something else? Diana Hsieh will argue that such qualities are best understood as “moral amplifiers,” because their moral worth wholly depends how they’re used. She will explain why people should cultivate such qualities and why they must be put into practice selectively. When I introduce people to the concept of “moral amplifiers,” people often want examples thereof. (Yay!) My standard go-to examples are persistence and ambition. Everyone sees that these qualities are often beneficial, but they’re not always so. Plus, I love to use Lance Armstrong as an example of ambition gone wrong. Interestingly, the list of moral amplifiers is really quite long — because most of the qualities that people think of as virtues are, in fact, moral amplifiers rather than virtues. Here’s the list of moral amplifiers that I created — based on lists of virtues such as this one — when preparing my proposal for ATLOSCon: Ambition Agreeability Assertivenesss Calmness Charity Charisma Cautiousness Charitablity Choosiness Compassion Conscientiousness Cooperativeness Courage Courteousness Creativity Curiosity Decisiveness Dependability Determination Diligence Directness Discernment Discrimination Discretion Discipline Easygoingness Eloquence Empathy Endurance Enthusiasm Equanimity Exactingness Fairness Fidelity Flexibility Forbearance Fortitude Friendliness Frugality Generosity Gentleness Helpfulness Humorousness Idealism Inventiveness Joviality Kindness Liberality Lightheartedness Liveliness Loyalty Magnaminity Mindfulness Neatness Openness Optimism Orderliness Passionateness Patience Perseverence Persistence Persuasiveness Pessimism Predictability Prudence Punctuality Reliability Resiliance Respectfulness Resourcefulness Self-Confidence Self-Control Self-Directing Sensitivity Simplicity Sincerity Spontaneity Steadiness Tact Temperance Thrift Thoughtfulness Tolerance Toughness Trustworthiness Zealousness Clearly, I’m not going to run out of material in my talk! I plan to pick just a few of these to discuss, as I have lots of theory related to Aristotle’s and Ayn Rand’s differing conceptions of virtue that I wish to cover too. I’ll explain how Ayn Rand’s conception of virtue is really something quite distinct from traditional conceptions of virtue — and how those differences represent a major advance in thinking about ethics. SO MUCH FUN! Link to Original

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on taxes versus slavery, infanticide after abortion, emergency medical care, poor communication from the boss, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 12 May 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. This week's questions are: Question 1: Taxes Versus Slavery: Are high taxes comparable to slavery? On Facebook, some friends suggest that America is becoming more like Nazi Germany. Others share images comparing Americans workers to slaves picking cotton in the antebellum south due to our ever-higher taxes. I think these comparisons go way too far: Americans are still some of the freest people the world has ever known. No doubt, our freedom is being chipped away, but are we really like slaves or serfs? Question 2: Infanticide After Abortion: Is killing a baby born after an abortion a form of murder? Kermit Gosnell is currently on trial for murder, due to accusations that he killed infants who were delivered in abortions at his clinic. If the facts are as reported, should he be convicted of murder? What should be done when a baby is born alive during an abortion? What are the likely cultural and political implications of this trial? Question 3: Emergency Medical Care: Do people have a right to emergency medical care? EMTALA (a.k.a. the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act) is a federal law that requires ERs to stabilize any patient with an emergency medical condition, regardless of the patient's ability to pay. Is that proper? Is that the same as a right to medical care? Question 4: Poor Communication from the Boss: How can I make my boss more communicative? My boss hardly ever tells me company news affecting my projects, even when critical. As a result, I've wasted days and weeks on useless work, and I've gotten into needless conflicts with co-workers. I'm always guessing at what I should be doing, and I just hate that. What can I do to make my boss to be more communicative with me? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Q&A: Taxes, Infanticide, EMTALA, Communication, and More. It will be posted on Monday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Sunday morning... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

NPR recently ran a fascinating story on the origins of social prejudice: What Does Modern Prejudice Look Like? The article discusses a new book — Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People (kindle) by Mahzarin Banaji and Anthony Greenwald — on how people tend to render assistance to strangers based on some kind of value-connection, thus inadvertently entrenching social boundaries and biases. Here’s a story from the article that illustrates the power of such value-connections with strangers: In the book, Banaji writes that Kaplan once had a terrible kitchen accident. “She was washing a big crystal bowl in her kitchen,” Banaji says. “It slipped and it cut her hand quite severely.” The gash went from Kaplan’s palm to her wrist. She raced over to Yale-New Haven Hospital. Pretty much the first thing she told the ER doctor was that she was a quilter. She was worried about her hand. The doctor reassured her and started to stitch her up. He was doing a perfectly competent job, she says. But at this moment someone spotted Kaplan. It was a student, who was a volunteer at the hospital. “The student saw her, recognized her, and said, ‘Professor Kaplan, what are you doing here?’ ” Banaji says. The ER doctor froze. He looked at Kaplan. He asked the bleeding young woman if she was a Yale faculty member. Kaplan told him she was. Everything changed in an instant. The hospital tracked down the best-known hand specialist in New England. They brought in a whole team of doctors. They operated for hours and tried to save practically every last nerve. Banaji says she and Kaplan asked themselves later why the doctor had not called in the specialist right away. “Somehow,” Banaji says, “it must be that the doctor was not moved, did not feel compelled by the quilter story in the same way as he was compelled by a two-word phrase, ‘Yale professor.’” Kaplan told Banaji that she was able to go back to quilting, but that she still occasionally feels a twinge in the hand. And it made her wonder what might have happened if she hadn’t received the best treatment. Basically, the authors argue that much prejudice in the modern society is not the product of overt hatred, but rather patterns of favoritism. The article explains: The insidious thing about favoritism is that it doesn’t feel icky in any way, Banaji says. We feel like a great friend when we give a buddy a foot in the door to a job interview at our workplace. We feel like good parents when we arrange a class trip for our daughter’s class to our place of work. We feel like generous people when we give our neighbors extra tickets to a sports game or a show. In each case, however, Banaji, Greenwald and DiTomaso might argue, we strengthen existing patterns of advantage and disadvantage because our friends, neighbors and children’s classmates are overwhelmingly likely to share our own racial, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds. When we help someone from one of these in-groups, we don’t stop to ask: Whom are we not helping? Now, I don’t think that such forms of benevolence should be regarded as “biased” or “wrong” in any way. People should exercise their benevolence and charity on causes and people that matter to them! However, I’d add that people should think hard about the importance of their values, as some make a better basis for generosity than others. The fact that someone lives near your childhood home, for example, doesn’t reveal anything special about that person. That the person is a friend of a friend is more instructive, provided that you choose your friends well. Similarly, if you want to be a decent doctor, you don’t ignore the patient when she tells you that her hand function really matters to her, but then pull out all the stops when you learn that she’s a Yale professor. That being said, for a person to deliberately aim to help worthy but “underserved” people is not altruism. By doing that, your generosity gets more bang for the buck — and that might easily outweigh any tenuous value-connection. Personally, that’s how I tend to direct my non-activist charitable dollars: I don’t give to causes that everyone posts about on Facebook, but rather to the less-popular cases in which help is desperately needed. Here’s another example: Many dogs are waiting to be adopted, but large black dogs often languish for months or years longer than others. Personally, I don’t care much about the color of my dog, although I’m passionate about rescue. So why not look for that fabulous large black dog that others have overlooked? That seems like a win-win to me! Back to the NPR article… the book definitely looks interesting to me, as I want to think more deeply about issues of charity and generosity. (I expect that I’ll disagree with aspects of it, of course.) The book is Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People by Mahzarin Banaji and Anthony Greenwald. It’s available in hardcover or kindle. Link to Original

Jason Crawford recently posted this announcement to OActivists, and I’m reposting it here with his permission. This is a great project, definitely worthy of support! Free Objectivist Books You may be familiar with my website Free Objectivist Books, where students sign up to read books by Ayn Rand or about Objectivism, and donors can choose which ones to sponsor. To date we have had over 2,000 students apply and have granted over 800 requests. Until now, donors have been responsible for sending the books themselves (in the mail or online). Some of you wanted to participate but found this to be too much administrative work. An easier way to donate Now there is an easier way to donate, with no hassle. Instead of sending books yourself, you can make a contribution on the site to cover the cost of your books, and one of our site volunteers will send the book on your behalf. If you’re not already a donor, I encourage you to sign up here. Volunteers needed too! If you would prefer to give time and not money, we also need more volunteers. Volunteering can be done online in as little as 30 minutes/week. Contact me personally to sign up. Hundreds of open requests There are almost 500 students with open applications, such as John Guarco, studying economics at Duke, who wants The Virtue of Selfishness and says: “I want to learn more about the philosophy of Objectivism. After reading Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, I want to delve more and learn more about Ayn Rand’s tantalizing philosophy.” Or Shanae Brown, studying neuroscience and philosophy at Ohio State, who says: “I’ve only heard good things about Atlas Shrugged. As a student working and interested in politics I think it would be immensely beneficial to educate myself with the (objectivist) beliefs of Rand–especially in today’s highly entitlement minded society.” You choose the requests, you receive a personal thank-you from the students, and you hear when they have finished the book and what they thought of it. Not convinced? Read these testimonials from students and donors. Free Objectivist Books is the simplest and easiest way to get Ayn Rand’s ideas into the hands of students who want to read them. I recently donated. I particularly enjoyed seeing the requests of the students and getting their thank-yous, such as this one: “Thank you very much! Just got the book today. 5/6/2013 and starting to read……… NOW! Thanks again ” I love that! Link to Original

On Wednesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll interview emergency medicine physician Dr. Doug McGuff about "Avoiding the Emergency Room." This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Wednesday, 8 May 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. People often think of major medical disasters as unpredictable "black swan" events. In fact, emergency physicians see the same injuries from the same causes time and again, and ordinary people can lessen those risks by their own choices. Dr. McGuff will explain the risks, how to mitigate them, and how to best cope if you or a loved one lands in the emergency room. Dr. Doug McGuff is an emergency medicine doctor practicing in South Carolina. He graduated from the University of Texas Medical School at San Antonio in 1989, and then trained in Emergency Medicine at the University of Arkansas, where he served as Chief Resident. From there, Dr. McGuff served as Faculty in the Wright State University Emergency Medicine Residency and was a staff Emergency Physician at Wright-Patterson AFB Hospital. Today, Dr. McGuff is a partner with Blue Ridge Emergency Physicians. I interviewed Dr. Doug McGuff about fitness, weightlifting, and high-intensity exercise in December 2012. To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Dr. Doug McGuff on Avoiding the Emergency Room. It will be posted on Thursday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Wednesday evening... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in this topic! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Dr. Beth Haynes of the Benjamin Rush Society has a nice OpEd in the Huffington Post, “Almost All Americans Lack Health Insurance“. She adds much-needed conceptual clarity in the discussion over health policy by discussing the nature of genuine insurance, as opposed to our current system. From her piece: What is insurance ? Think about your auto, life and homeowner’s insurance. Each of these is designed as a means to pay for unexpected, unpredictable, very expensive occurrences outside of the control of the policyholder. Insurance is a means of financially protecting people from the risk of unlikely but high-cost events. To build up sufficient funds, the insured pays a premium calculated on their specific chance of experiencing a covered event. Insurance companies can only stay solvent if what they take in as premiums is greater than what they pay out in claims (plus business expenses and a competitive profit). So what is it we have that we call health insurance but isn’t? We have the prepayment of medical expenses. We expect our “insurance” to cover predictable, relatively inexpensive events like health maintenance checks, minor illnesses and injuries — and to pay for them with minimal out of pocket spending. Under Obamacare, these expectations will be mandated by law. The new law actually makes it illegal for insurance companies to charge individuals premiums equal to their risk of making claims. It’s like having a law requiring homeowner’s insurance to pay for lawn care, house painting and water heater replacement, while at the same time prohibiting the companies from operating an actuarially sound business. Instead of genuine insurance, we are moving towards a system of bad pre-paid care. For more details, read the full text of “Almost All Americans Lack Health Insurance“. And by the way, under Dr. Haynes’ leadership, the Benjamin Rush Society has been sponsoring an excellent series of debates on important health policy issues. Go check out their website for details and videos! Link to Original

This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine): 2 May: Oregon Surprise by Paul Hsieh 1 May: Haynes: Almost All Americans Lack Health Insurance by Paul Hsieh 30 Apr: Wolf: “Not Obamacare, but Patientcare” by Paul Hsieh 29 Apr: Catron: “Can One Iraq Vet Stop Obamacare?” by Paul Hsieh 29 Apr: Lewis On ObamaCare and Business Strategy by Paul Hsieh Follow FIRM on Facebook and Twitter. This week on Politics without God, the blog of the Coalition for Secular Government: 30 Apr: Atheists Attending Religious Ceremonies: Philosophy in Action Podcast by Diana Hsieh Follow the Coalition for Secular Government on Facebook and Twitter. This week on The Blog of The Objective Standard: 5 May: Penny Nance’s Strange Bedfellows by Ari Armstrong 4 May: Estimated Oil in the Bakken Region Doubles by David Biederman 4 May: Latest Lesson from the Sequester: It’s Time to Privatize Air Traffic Control by Zachary Huffman 3 May: Louis C.K. Schools David Itzkoff on the Cause of Success by Daniel Wahl 2 May: Pope Absurdly Blames Unemployment on Profit by Ari Armstrong 2 May: The “Marketplace Fairness Act”: A Morally Unacceptable Gimmick by Michael A. LaFerrara 1 May: Think You Have Health Insurance? Think Again, Explains Beth Haynes by Ari Armstrong 30 Apr: Portrait of Joshua Lipana, by Bryan Larsen by Craig Biddle Follow The Objective Standard on Facebook and Twitter. This week on The Blog of Modern Paleo: 4 May: Philosophy Weekend: News from Philosophy in Action by Diana Hsieh 3 May: The Paleo Rodeo #160 by Diana Hsieh Follow Modern Paleo on Facebook and Twitter. Link to Original

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on personality and sense of life, helping a self-destructive friend, taxes versus slavery, concern for the rights of rights-violators, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 5 May 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. This week's questions are: Question 1: Personality and Sense of Life: What is the relationship between personality and sense of life? What is the difference between them? How does a person's sense of life relate to his personality? Does understanding someone's sense of life help us to understand his personality and vice versa? Question 2: Helping a Self-Destructive Friend: Am I obliged to help a friend in trouble due to her own poor choices? I have a friend who is emotionally draining to me, and she is especially "down on her luck" this month. However, her situation is a direct result of especially poor personal choices over the last year, and there is no good path to get her out of the hole of poverty and depression. We don't have much in common other than similar-aged kids, and active participation in a local moms' group, but because I have come to her aid in the past, I feel an unspoken obligation to continue. (Maybe it's guilt, or pity, or empathy?) What are my obligations in a friendship that has recently become more taxing than beneficial? I don't dislike her, and we have many mutual friends, but I just don't think I can muster the time, financial resources, or energy this time to help bail her out of the latest fiasco. Is it morally acceptable to refuse to help? Should I talk to her about why now – or wait until she's less vulnerable? Question 3: Taxes Versus Slavery: Are high taxes comparable to slavery? On Facebook, some friends suggest that America is becoming more like Nazi Germany. Others share images comparing Americans workers to slaves picking cotton in the antebellum south due to our ever-higher taxes. I think these comparisons go way too far: Americans are still some of the freest people the world has ever known. No doubt, our freedom is being chipped away, but are we really like slaves or serfs? Question 4: Concern for the Rights of Rights-Violators: Is it wrong to be indifferent to the rights-violations of people who advocate rights-violations? Some celebrities actively promote the violation of rights by lending their support to political groups. For example, former American Idol contestant Krista Branch has actively campaigned against gay marriage on behalf of Focus on the Family. However, in a recent interview, Branch complained that people were pirating her songs. I know that Branch's intellectual property rights should be respected, and I would never pirate her music. Yet I can't feel any sympathy for her, given that she advocates violating other people's rights. I'm of the opinion that people who advocate for the use of force against others should not be spared from the consequences of the kind of culture that creates. Is that wrong? Am I being malevolent? Should I defend her rights, even though she advocates violating my rights? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Q&A: Sense of Life, Taxing Friendship, Rights-Violators, and More. It will be posted on Monday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Sunday morning... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

I’m delighted to report that, thanks to promotion from BlogTalkRadio, Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio had over 18,000 listens just from BlogTalkRadio alone. That’s the most-listened-to episode I’ve ever had. Hooray! Just based on my BlogTalkRadio statistics, here are the ten most heard episodes of Philosophy in Action Radio: Q&A: Marriage, Religious Ceremonies, Space Travel, and More: 346 live + 18222 archived = 18568 total Q&A: Cloning, Hypocritical Allies, Beauty, and More: 98 live + 17794 archived = 17892 total Q&A: Judging Others, Chivalry, Blue Laws, and More: 56 live + 8644 archived = 8700 total Q&A: Right to Work, Deception in a Crisis, Gifts, and More: 483 live + 7478 archived = 7961 total Q&A: Nihilism, Radical Honesty, Psychology, and More: 140 live + 7015 archived = 7155 total Q&A: Addiction, Government Unions, Materialism, and More: 505 live + 6502 archived = 7007 total Q&A: Rape Fears, Family Conflict, Atheist Prayer, and More: 64 live + 5714 archived = 5778 total Q&A: Psychic Powers, Office Politics, Freedom, and More: 50 live + 5537 archived = 5587 total Q&A: Third Parties, Selfish Parenting, Bigotry, and More: 42 live + 5515 archived = 5557 total Q&A: Federal Government, Empty Threats, and More: 43 live + 4842 archived = 4885 total So thank you, thank you to all y’all who contribute to our tip jar. That reach is a big part of what you make possible… and I’m so grateful! Link to Original

Just before my March radio discussion of how government control encourages short-range thinking, Tim Lee sent me the following example, which I blog with his permission: The Federal Reserve has taken control of the future by dictating interest rates. The capital budgeting decision essentially depends on an interest rate tied to reality, an interest rate that connects actual savings to loanable funds. The now vs. later decision involves a discounting of future cash flows using an interest rate that functions as a reference. Whether it makes sense to build a factory or not depends ultimately on the specific interest rate at which capital can be borrowed. But since the Fed arbitrarily sets interest rates, that means business owners have been denied the basis on which to plan. Moreover, since the practice of driving interest rates below the natural rate has the consequence of generating the boom/bust cycle, an added level of uncertainty is added that not even the Fed can predict. A restoration of the gold standard and naturally determined interest rates is required to make long range planning possible. This article discusses the economic crisis and how interest rate manipulation caused it: Interest-Rate Targeting During the Great Moderation by Roger W. Garrison That’s an excellent example, unfortunately. (FYI: I’ve not read the article in question, and I don’t have the technical background in economics to judge it.) On a related topic: Objectivists and other free-market advocates often talk of the need to return to a gold standard. That seems wrong to me. Yes, our current system of fiat currency should be replaced by hard currency. (By “hard currency,” I mean commodity-backed currency, not merely stable currency.) However, that need not entail the gold standard. In a truly free market, the government might choose to accept only gold-backed currency, but that choice shouldn’t be imposed on anyone else. Banks might choose to issue silver-backed or platinum-backed currency. Heck, a bank in a free market could issue currency backed by any fungible good, from crude oil to large eggs. The best option, it seems to me, would be money issued by banks backed by a “basket of commodities.” That would help stabilize prices in cases of major changes in the supply or demand of a single commodity. So, for those of you who advocate for the gold standard: What do you mean by that? Do you mean that the government would issue legal tender backed only by gold? If so, how is that consistent with free market banking? If not, then why advocate for a “gold standard” rather than hard currency? I’m not being snotty here. I’m not any kind of expert in economics, and I want to know if I’m missing something! Link to Original