dianahsieh

On Wednesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll interview gun rights litigator Jim Manley about "Concealed Carry on Campus." This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Wednesday, 1 May 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. Many people assume that college campuses are – and should be – gun free zones. Jim Manley will explain why concealed carry permit holders should be permitted to carry on campus. Jim Manley is a Staff Attorney at Mountain States Legal Foundation. He received his J.D. from the University of Colorado Law School, where he served as an Associate Editor of the Law Review and President of the Federalist Society. Jim was the lead attorney on the many Mountain States Legal Foundation cases concerning firearms, including Students for Concealed Carry on Campus v. Regents of the University of Colorado, which was a state court challenge to the University's ban on licensed concealed carry on campus. 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: Jim Manley on Concealed Carry on Campus. 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.

Bob Levy, the Chairman of Cato’s Board, comes out in favor of background checks in the New York Times: A Libertarian Case for Expanding Gun Background Checks. Extending background checks to unlicensed sellers shouldn’t be cause for alarm. Background checks are already required for purchases from federally licensed dealers, whether at stores or gun shows, over the Internet or by mail. Moreover, gun buyers would be exempt from background checks if they had a carry permit issued within the last five years. That’s all the argument that he gives on that point, which shows a remarkable lack of concern for the well-grounded fears that background checks lead to registration, bans on sales, and then confiscation. On the other hand, we have this compelling argument: Gun-rights advocates should use this interval to refine their priorities and support this measure, with a few modest changes. If they don’t, they will be opening themselves to accusations from President Obama and others that they are merely obstructionists, zealots who will not agree to common-sense gun legislation. GRRR. Granted, many Objectivist intellectuals have been lukewarm on gun rights, and they’ve said far worse. Still, I think that libertarians like Bob Levy know better — and that’s what makes this kind of aggressive compromise-peddling so worrisome to me. Based on my interview with John McCaskey on libertarianism’s moral shift, I have to think that we’ll see even more such calls for compromise in future. Link to Original

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on self-interest in marriage, attending religious ceremonies, multigenerational space travel, drugs as treatment for mental illness, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 28 April 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: Self-Interest in Marriage: Can marriage be self-interested? Most people describe marriage as requiring compromise, sacrifice, and concession. Is that right? Is a happy and fulfilling marriage possible where each person pursues his or her own values, without such compromise, sacrifice, or concession? Is some different approach to marriage required? Question 2: Attending Religious Ceremonies: Is it wrong for an atheist to refuse to attend a sibling's religious ceremony? I've decided not to attend the religious ceremony of my younger sister's upcoming Bat Mitzvah. I'm an atheist, and while I don't think attending would be immoral, I don't want to support any kind of religiosity or connection to religion. Other family members have criticized me for that decision, saying that I should support my sister and not pressure her into agreeing with my own views. Should I attend? If not, how should I handle the family dynamics? Question 3: Multigenerational Space Travel: Is multigenerational space travel immoral? According to a panel at SETICon 2012, the designs for multi-generational space ships are already in the works. Are there ethical problems with people bearing children who will never see Earth, and likely never set foot on a planet? Would they be robbed of any ability to determine their own fate? Or is it a moot point since had the circumstances been different, they might not have ever been born at all? Question 4: Drugs as Treatment for Mental Illness: Is taking antidepressants and other prescribed drugs for mental problems a form of evasion? I'm new to the philosophy of Objectivism, and I've seen that it's rapidly helping cure the last parts of a depression I went through last year. I started taking Adderal about eight months ago, and it has helped tremendously. But I wonder: Is taking these drugs or other antidepressants conflicting with the principle that a person should never evade reality? 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: Marriage, Religious Ceremonies, Space Travel, 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.

Check out this blog post from the Republican Liberty Caucus about the looming internet sales tax. You can use their form to write your senators too. Here’s what I wrote: I am an internet entrepreneur — a philosopher and a radio host — and I am adamantly opposed to this internet tax. It would make my work much, much more difficult. I already refuse to sell physical goods to Colorado residents because complying with the slew of local taxes is simply not worth the legal risk and headache. So you’re going to “solve” that problem by imposing the same for every sale in America? Are you kidding? Do you really wish to destroy entrepreneurs and small business people? That’s what this bill would do. STOP IT. Apparently, the bill is going up for a vote on Friday, so please write them to oppose this monstrosity today! Link to Original

As y’all know, Philosophy in Action is financially powered by the enthusiastic support of our generous fans. Although I don’t yet earn nearly as much as I’d like, the radio show couldn’t survive without those tips. Heck, I couldn’t motivate myself to prepare and broadcast every week — even knowing that thousands are listening — without the moral support of people implicitly saying, by their contributions, “Hey, I really value the work that you’re doing. Really!” I have tons and tons and tons of development work to do with Philosophy in Action in future, including offering more in writing and more exclusive benefits to contributors. That work is underway, albeit slowly. I hope that will grow my audience, as well as my revenue. In the meantime, I can’t properly express how much I appreciate contributions with with messages like this one: I’ve been reading NoodleFood for many years, and it has been a huge boon to my life. I started reading it just after I read Atlas Shrugged, back when I was an Objectivist infant. You’ve helped clarify my thinking on so many issues. And the work you’re doing now in your podcasts is better equipping me to pursue my own life and happiness. I’m thrilled to support your work in whatever small way I can. Thank you so much. And: Diana, Thank you for your continued work in presenting well thought out answers to questions that are relevant today. You and Greg do an excellent job, and I am a happy listener. Here’s another, recently received via the old-fashioned method of snail mail: See? That’s just awesome. As April draws to a close, I just want to remind you not to neglect the hard work of your personal philosopher. If you enjoy my blogging and radio shows but you’ve not yet contributed (or you’ve not contributed lately), please consider throwing some love in the tip jar. That really makes a dig difference to me, financially and spiritually. You’ll find the buttons to contribute below. You can contribute via Dwolla, PayPal, or US Mail. (I recommend that you use Dwolla: it’s a payment system with lower fees, stronger security, and better interface design than PayPal. A Dwolla account is free and easy to create.) However… I know that some of you aren’t financially able to contribute, even though you enjoy and appreciate my work. In that case, please know that I notice and cheer whenever you share the announcements of upcoming shows, as well link to podcasts of past shows and blog posts, on Facebook and Twitter. That helps grow my audience, and I appreciate that show of support too. Contribute Via PayPal Using PayPal, you can make a one-time contribution or create a monthly contribution: Contribute Once $5.00 USD $10.00 USD $20.00 USD $50.00 USD $75.00 USD $100.00 USD $200.00 USD $500.00 USDVia PayPal Contribute Monthly $10.00 USD $20.00 USD $30.00 USD $50.00 USD $75.00 USD $100.00 USD $200.00 USD $500.00 USDVia PayPal If you’d like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. You can cancel a monthly contribution at any time using your list of Pre-approved PayPal Payments. To change the amount of a monthly contribution, you must cancel the existing monthly payment in your list of Pre-approved PayPal Payments, then you can create a new monthly payment using the button above. Contribute Via Dwolla Using Dwolla, you can make a one-time contribution or create a recurring contribution in any amount. Contribute Once $5.00 USD $10.00 USD $20.00 USD $50.00 USD $75.00 USD $100.00 USD $200.00 USD $500.00 USDVia Dwolla Contribute Weekly $5.00 USD $10.00 USD $20.00 USD $50.00 USD $75.00 USD $100.00 USD $200.00 USD $500.00 USDVia Dwolla Contribute Monthly $5.00 USD $10.00 USD $20.00 USD $50.00 USD $75.00 USD $100.00 USD $200.00 USD $500.00 USDVia Dwolla You can adjust the amount and frequency of your contribution on the next page — or you can use this link. You can cancel a monthly contribution at any time using your list of Recurring Payments. Contribute Via U.S. Mail To contribute via check or money order, please mail it to: Diana Hsieh P.O. Box 851 Sedalia, CO 80135 Please write “P/A Radio” in the memo field. Again, my hearty thanks to everyone who has contributed to Philosophy in Action of late. I couldn’t do what I do without your support! Link to Original

In my discussion of online privacy on March 10th’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I talked about how people need to take active measures to protect their privacy online, just as they do in real life. Also, just as in real life, criminals should be of concern. Hence, good passwords should be of concern. I’ve long known that many people use insecure passwords — such as ordinary words, reusing the same password across many sites, or using an easy-to-guess pattern. However, I didn’t realize just how careless many people are until I read this article: PIN Analysis. Basically, the author analyzed the data from various databases of exposed four-digit passwords — 3.4 million PINs in total. Here are a few of his findings: The most popular password is 1234 … it’s staggering how popular this password appears to be. Utterly staggering at the lack of imagination … nearly 11% of the 3.4 million passwords are 1234 !!! The next most popular 4-digit PIN in use is 1111 with over 6% of passwords being this. In third place is 0000 with almost 2%. A staggering 26.83% of all passwords [are the table of top 20 passwords listed in the article]! (Statistically, with 10,000 possible combination, if passwords were uniformly randomly distributed, we would expect these twenty passwords to account for just 0.2% of the total, not the 26.83% encountered) For more fun facts, check out the article: PIN Analysis. If you’re now thinking that perhaps you should have more secure passwords… good! I’d recommend using a password program such as LastPass or 1Password. If you’re already using nothing but super-secure passwords, even better! I’ve used 1Password to generate random passwords for me, store them securely, and access them on my phone and in my web browser for many years now, and I’d hate to go back to my old (and far less secure) methods! Note: This commentary was originally published in Philosophy in Action’s Newsletter before the broadcast. Subscribe today! Link to Original

This is an amazing story of a lone juror who refused to convict a black man of rape based on flimsy evidence, despite pressure by the prosecutor. The actual rapist confessed to the crime a few months later. (I’ve left the spelling and grammatical errors as is.) In 1994 I was called to be a jury in a rape case. A black man had supposedly attacked a young woman in a park, and raped her. He was apprehended by the police only hours later and faced up to 30 years in jail (including aggravated assault). I received the letter one morning and immediately was angry at it as it would waste much of my time in the coming months. However, I have a strong sense of honor, and felt it was my duty. The interview was kind of weird. After the first questions by the judge, both parties went to ask questions about me and my opinions. First, the defendant had a public defendant who asked me almost no questions (for those not familiar with the law, with a jury trial, both parties select jury members according to strict rules). The prosecutor was very direct and, in my mind, completely unethical. He asked me some VERY direct questions. It went something like this: PROSECUTION: Hello sir Glad to see you here. In your mind, do you think the defendant is guilty or not? ME: Uhhhh… I don’t know, I didn’t hear all the case details… PROSECUTION: Yes, but considering he was arrested by the police and they have a whole file on him… ME: I will wait to see the whole file on him. At this point, I understood something. If I acted like I was racist, surely would they dismiss me from being part of the jury!! I thought about it for a second, thought about the month of underpaid work I’d saved, and decided it was worth a shot. PROSECUTION: Consider the defendant. Do you think his ‘situation’ make him more likely to commit this crime? ME: Huhh… I don’t know… PROSECUTION: A poor woman was viciously attacked, beat and raped. I think we can both agree it was a horrible crime? ME: Yes, absolutely. PROSECUTION: She described the man exactly as he is standing there. He was arrested and interrogated by the police. Do you agree this man might have committed this crime? ME: Yes, I do. PROSECUTION: What is your view on black people? ME(lies): Not particularly dislike them, but not particularly like them. PROSECUTION: Explain? ME(lies): They are human and they have a right to live, but I don’t see them exactly like us. The prosecution party seemed satisfied of the answers. Keep in mind this was in front of the judge and at this point I was 100% sure I would be dismissed, with a “RACIST” tag over my head forever. Not at all. I was informed a bit later, to my great surprise, that I would be part of the jury. If I could describe the case in one word, it would be: “long”. It was terribly long. Hours and hours passed, hours became days and days became weeks. Then, each parties had its final hearing. To my surprise, the public defendant was doing a very decent job in front of the prosecution party. Then, we went inside, all 12 of us, to discuss. I had made my mind close to the end of the trial. He was not guilty. There was definitely not enough evidence to convict him. The woman had given (a really tearful) testimony but admitted she couldn’t identify him. The police, after a few questions, had to admit they had no prior file of this man. An expert psychiatrist, hired by the defense, said the man was “happily married with childrens and unlikely to commit that kind of crime. But what really helped me make my mind was when the police admitted they had no DNA evidence at all (which was kind of new at the time). However, the police had a signed confession (which I supposed coerced) and the women had identified a mark the defendant had on the bottom of the neck. Also, he had no alibis and was, to his admission, “walking around at the time”. Finally, a witness supposedly saw a man running away with the same clothes as the defendant. The jury hearing looked like it would last less than an hour. By the 45-minutes mark, most jury member had made their minds: he was guilty. By the 1h15 mark, all jury members decided he was guilty. Except for me. I still wasn’t convinced. I told them I would say he was not guilty. Everyone sighed. “For christ-sake this is the 5th time we vote, I think it’s time we decide already”. We kept talking, and one jury member even got mad: “ARE YOU SAYING THE 11 OF US ARE WRONG? Look at us, there are women and men alike here. This guy IS guilty.” One even told me I was a “nigger-defendant” which made me doubt of the composition of the jury. The day ended and we all went home. I spent the night without sleeping. In the morning, I was even more sure: he was not guilty. And then came the second day, long as hell. A fat man became seriously mad and asked to get out (which he couldn’t). I could feel, at the end of the day, that they were all mad at me. Then came the third day and the 1235235th vote. Again, we failed to reach consensus. They all guessed who voted not guilty. Then, one man flipped out. MAN: Look out son. I don’t know what your freaking problem is… We have his confession. The woman identified him. A FREAKING WITNESS SAW HIM! What the fuck do you need? ME: I am not convinced by any of the evidence. Then, things became weirder. The prosecution attorney came to talk to me. To my surprise, he was very kind to me. PROSECUTION: Hey sir,I heard you thought the defendant was not guilty? ME: WHAT??? Sir, this is supposed to be confidential! PROSECUTION: And it will. Behind us. Sir, I just want to tell this: twenty police officers worked on it. Twenty. I wouldn’t take a man to trial without the absolute proof he is guilty. ME: Thanks… I will consider it… But I already made up my mind. Fourth day passed and at this point no one was talking. At the end of the fifth day, the judge made us all appear in front of us. Every jury member was looking at me. JUDGE: Has the jury reached a verdict? CHIEF JURY: No, your honor. JUDGE (really surprised): Do you need more time to reach a verdict? CHIEF JURY: No, your honor. JUDGE: You… You don’t think you can reach a verdict? CHIEFT JURY: No, your honor. Everyone in the audience sighed. Not one second I put my head down. After a couple of days, a hung jury verdict was given. And everything was to be started again. My life took a turn to the worst, I was bullied, intimidated in my life. My car was frequently arrested by patrolling police officers for no reason. I started to think about moving out. Two months later, before the new trial began, a man confessed to the crime at a police station. He was also black, although looked nothing like the first man, even in terms of weight/height. He gave a crying confession to which he admitted everything. Then, he gave details that were kept private (not shared with any outsider) and that he could in no way know unless he was the perpretator of the crime. He said he followed the long trial, and was tortured thinking about everything that happened. When the woman saw him, she immediately said it was him, and I had the feeling police told her it was the first black man who did it. Later on he was convicted, served a prison time, and was released after many years. Sorry to make this so long. AMA. I’m floored that this guy was selected for the jury despite expressing racist sentiments. I’m even more floored that the prosecutor attempted to pressure him into changing his vote during deliberations. Surely, that’s waaaay out-of-bounds, right? Link to Original

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on the reality of mental illness, the state's role with abused children, resisting illegitimate police action, attending religious ceremonies, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 21 April 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 Reality of Mental Illness: Is mental illness nothing more than a myth? It seems that many members of the free-market movement are enthused about the theory, promulgated by the likes of Thomas Szasz and Jeffrey A. Schaler, that there is no such thing as mental illness. They say that if one cannot pinpoint a direct physiological cause for behavior considered "mentally ill," there are no grounds for referring to that behavior as a symptom of some "illness." Furthermore, they argue that the concept of "mental illness" is simply a term that the social establishment uses to stigmatize nonconformist behavior of which it does not approve. Is there anything to these claims? If not, what's the proper understanding of the basic nature of mental illness? Question 2: The State's Role with Abused Children: What should the state's role be in dealing with abused children? The state needs to remove children from homes where they're being abused--where their rights are being violated. But what should it then do with them? Should the state care for them until it can find a new home for them? How should it provide that care? If it cannot find a new home for a child, what happens to that child? Should the State raise the child to adulthood? Question 3: Resisting Illegitimate Police Action: When is it moral to resist police action? Last year, the governor of Indiana signed a bill into law granting protection to citizens that resist the unlawful actions of a public servant. If a police officer enters your home without your knowledge or consent – legally or illegally – and you have no way of knowing whether he is an unlawful intruder, are you morally justified in taking violent action against him? When is it moral to forcibly resist police actions? Question 4: Attending Religious Ceremonies: Is it wrong for an atheist to refuse to attend a sibling's religious ceremony? I've decided not to attend the religious ceremony of my younger sister's upcoming Bat Mitzvah. I'm an atheist, and while I don't think attending would be immoral, I don't want to support any kind of religiosity or connection to religion. Other family members have criticized me for that decision, saying that I should support my sister and not pressure her into agreeing with my own views. Should I attend? If not, how should I handle the family dynamics? 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: Mental Illness, Abused Children, Resisting Police, 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 Wednesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll interview pianist and graduate student in medical physics Eric Barnhill about "Cognition, Movement, and Music." This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Wednesday, 17 April 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. How does cognition connect to physical movement, tone, and rhythm? Can moving to music help the development of cognitive skills or capacities? Eric Barnhill is a Juilliard-trained concert pianist and the creator of Cognitive Eurhythmics music movement therapy. He is pursuing a Ph.D in medical physics at the University of Edinburgh, where he studies brain-muscle interaction using magnetic resonance physics. 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: Eric Barnhill on Cognition, Movement, and Music. 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.

This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine): 11 Apr: Mitchell’s Case For Optimism by Paul Hsieh 8 Apr: Quick Links: Vermont, Scherz by Paul Hsieh Follow FIRM on Facebook and Twitter. This week on Politics without God, the blog of the Coalition for Secular Government: 12 Apr: North Dakota Bans Abortion for Genetic Defects by Diana Hsieh 10 Apr: Bart Ehrman in Colorado Springs on Thursday by Diana Hsieh 9 Apr: The Validity of Gay Marriage: 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: 14 Apr: 3D Metal Printing Revolution Makes Possible the “Impossible” by Ari Armstrong 13 Apr: Happy Birthday, Thomas Jefferson—and Thank You for Your Moral Endurance by Craig Biddle 12 Apr: The Conflict Over Standardized Testing is a Consequence of Government-Run Schools by Michael A. LaFerrara 11 Apr: Robert Edwards, Creator of Life, Has Died by Roberto Sarrionandia 11 Apr: States Pass Rights-Violating Abortion Restrictions by Ari Armstrong 10 Apr: Alex Epstein Visits Vassar: Some Students Learn, Others Disrupt by Robert Begley 9 Apr: Margaret Thatcher: Warrior for Liberty by Ari Armstrong 8 Apr: Melissa Harris-Perry Says Your Kids “Belong to Whole Communities” by Ari Armstrong Follow The Objective Standard on Facebook and Twitter. This week on The Blog of Modern Paleo: 13 Apr: Philosophy Weekend: News from Philosophy in Action by Diana Hsieh 12 Apr: The Paleo Rodeo #157 by Diana Hsieh Follow Modern Paleo on Facebook and Twitter. Link to Original

A few days ago, I stumbled on this blog post — Think Twice Before You Praise Someone For Losing Weight. It piqued my interest because I often ponder questions about weight, health, and body image. Also, it seemed relevant to the question I’ll answer on moral judgments of obese people on Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Radio. The blog post begins: It’s really the most natural reaction: when we see a friend, colleague, family member, or acquaintance who has visibly lost weight, we love to say to them, “You’ve lost weight! You look great!” These statements are usually made with the best of intentions. We are genuinely happy for them, we want to show them that their hard work and sacrifices are being noticed and deserve to be acknowledged. But I want to say something that may seem controversial: we should all think twice before acknowledging or praising someone’s visible weight loss. Why? First, we don’t always know how or why that person lost the weight for which we are commending them. For example, my friend Anna has Lupus, and at one point, she rapidly lost 30 pounds in a couple months. She was constantly getting positive affirmations about how great she looked and to keep up the good work. For a number of reasons, Anna chose to keep her diagnosis confidential (to most people). So, she was caught between two worlds: one in which she had to reveal why she was losing weight, and another where she just had to grin and bear it. Anna said, “Every time I heard those words, it was like a punch in the stomach. It not only made me feel disgusted about my body, but it also put me in a position where I wanted to share my diagnosis with people, just to shut them up.” My cousin’s professor faced a similar dilemma when she returned to the university from summer break, having lost a visible amount of weight. She was greeted with the same seemingly positive affirmations. What no one realized was, her mother had died weeks before. Her weight loss was a result of stress. The smiles and the effusive praise offered to these two women were in direct opposition to the pain that caused the weight loss to begin with. And even when someone isn’t dealing with an uncontrollable circumstance, like a death in the family, or a terminal disease, we don’t know how someone arrives at his/her weight loss. It’s a good article, and I definitely recommend reading the rest of it: Think Twice Before You Praise Someone For Losing Weight. (It goes on to discuss some other cases, as well as make some important qualifications.) Obesity is undoubtedly very common in our culture, and as people have packed on the pounds, the view that low body weight means good health seems to have taken hold in a very strong way. Yes, that’s been a change in the culture, as these 1950s weight gain ads for women show. Yet the fact is that being underweight is often a sign of health problems — or it’s a risk factor for death if a person becomes ill, because their body lacks reserves (muscle or fat) for survival. I’m not making that up, as various studies (such as this one) show that being underweight is associated with increased mortality. My point here is not to extol obesity or anything, since that comes with its own practical difficulties and health concerns. Rather, my point is that we (me included) need to reject the now-standard assumption in our culture that a thinner person is a better person — healthier, sexier, happier, whatever. Often, weight loss is for the best… but not always! Link to Original

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on moral judgments of obese people, parental consent for abortion, atheist as a negative term, living longer, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 14 April 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: Moral Judgments of Obese People: Is it right or wrong to condemn people for being obese? Obviously, obese and morbidly obese people have made mistakes in their lives. Are they morally culpable for those mistakes? How should other people judge their characters? If I see an obese person on the street, should I infer that he is lazy and unmotivated? Should I refuse to hire an obese person because I suspect he won't work as hard as a non-obese person? Is obesity a moral failing – or are there other considerations? Question 2: Parental Consent for Abortion: Should minor girls be required by law to obtain parental consent for an abortion? Normally, parents are legally empowered to make medical decisions for their minor children, and minors cannot obtain medical procedures without parental consent. How should that apply in the case of pregnancy? Should pregnancy and abortion be treated differently from other medical conditions? Should parents be allowed by law to force a daughter under 18 to carry a pregnancy to term or to abort against her will? Should minor teenagers be granted more power over their medical decisions? Should the law grant exemptions in cases of potential abuse or neglect if the pregnancy or abortion were discovered? Question 3: Atheist as a Negative Term: Should people define themselves using the negative term "atheist"? To me, a rational person sells himself short when he calls himself an "atheist": he's only saying what he doesn't stand for, not what he does stand for. Plus, to use the term "atheist" seems to be accepting the religious frame of reference. A rational person values individual healthy human life, and everything else he believes follows from that, such as respect for reality, reason, and rights. When a person defines himself in those positive terms, what he's against follows. So, can a person be more clear and persuasive when he focuses on what he's for rather than what he's against? If so, what terms might he use to describe himself? Question 4: Living Longer: Should a life-loving person always wish to live longer? Suppose that a person was offered some medical therapy that would extend his life by 10 or 20 years, while preserving or even improving health. Would a life-loving person always choose to do that, assuming that he could afford it? Would refusing that therapy constitute a kind of passive suicide, perhaps even on par with that of a drug addict? In other words, assuming good health but no personal tragedies, might a life-living person not wish to live any longer? 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: Obesity, Parental Consent, Negative Terms, 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.

Before Lance Armstrong confessed to doping, I blogged about the possibility of such a confession here: The Moral Implications of Lance Armstrong’s Possible Confession to Doping. In that post, I said: I don’t fault Armstrong for doping, nor for lying about that to a quasi-governmental agency. However, if he sued people for millions for telling the truth about his doping… well, that’s remarkably sleazy. Even if he felt backed into a corner, that’s no excuse for abusing the law in order to intimidate people into silence. However, after watching of his denials of doping, I couldn’t be so forgiving. The basic problem is that he’s such a skilled and credible liar. That makes him worse than a bugling, incompetent liar. How so? By the time that the skilled liar’s deceptions are finally exposed, he has zero credibility left. Given that he was so believable for so long, how can anyone trust him now? He might just be spinning a new web of lies. That seems like the most likely scenario, in fact. By lying effectively for so long, the skilled liar has utterly destroyed his character. He had to make a slew of ever-worse compromises in order to protect his lies from discovery, including maligning the good people who’ve discovered the truth about him. In Lance’s case, he sued people for defamation for telling the truth about him, which is even worse. The abysmal liar is likely to get caught early. That’s to his benefit, in fact. He experiences the harms done by his lies early and often. His moral character has not been eroded over the course of years, so he’s more likely to be able to redeem himself. Basically, skill in making yourself persuasive or believable to others is exactly the kind of moral amplifier that I’ll discuss at ATLOSCon in May. That skill helps a good person do better… and it helps a bad person do worse. Link to Original

On Wednesday’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I interviewed professor John P. McCaskey about “Libertarianism’s Moral Shift.” 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: John P. McCaskey on “Libertarianism’s Moral Shift” As the libertarian movement has become more mainstream in recent decades, its justification for liberty has changed. How so – and is that change for the better? Is the libertarian movement today capable of offering a vigorous and compelling defense of liberty? Dr. John P. McCaskey is an historian of philosophy who spent twenty years in the computer industry before returning to academia. He has been teaching at Stanford University, Stevens Institute of Technology, and most recently in the Political Science department at Brown University. Listen or Download: Duration: 1:12:27 Download: Standard MP3 File (24.9 MB) Topics: What “bleeding heart libertarianism” (BHL)– or rawlsekianism, liberaltarianism, new libertarianism – is why BHL matters What’s new about BHL, as a form of libertarianism The meaning of “social justice” The seeming incompatibility of libertarianism and social justice Why BHLs want to reconcile libertarianism and social justice How BHLs attempt to reconcile libertarianism and social justice: Friedrich Hayek Hayek’s views Hayek + Rawls = BHL BHL verus altruistic defenses of libertarianism The moral assessment of BHL The need to develop a better defense of a win-win world How to talk about how capitalism helps the poor: benefits versus goals The success of BHL The potential effect of BHL on American politics Silver linings and take-home points Rawls’ conception of justice Links: John McCaskey’s Web Site Bleeding Heart Libertarians, including its about us Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know by Jason Brennan Free Market Fairness by John Tomasi Tags: America, Conflicts of Interest, Ethics, Friedrich Hayek, History, John Rawls, Libertarianism, Objectivism, Politics, Rights 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

In case you didn’t hear about this when it made the rounds a few weeks ago… John P. McCaskey taught a wildly popular course on the “Moral Foundations of Capitalism” at Stanford for some years. Alas, the course was discontinued, much to the consternation of students… so much so that the story was circulated about it around the internet, all the way to The Daily Caller. Happily, McCaskey is now at Brown, teaching the same course. He’s such an awesome lecturer that, although I’ve sworn never to step foot in another classroom, I envy those students at Brown! Happily, I’ll enjoy an hour of meaty discussion with him on tonight’s Philosophy in Action Radio. We’ll discuss the shift in the moral justification for liberty currently underway in libertarian circles. (That could be good… or it could be bad!) I heard him lecture on the subject on Saturday night, and that was fantastic. I hope that you’ll join us for the live show tonight… but if you can’t attend that, you can always listen to the podcast later. (That will be posted here around 9 pm tonight.) Link to Original

Bart Ehrman, the fabulous scholar of early Christian history, will be speaking in Colorado Springs on Thursday. I’ll be there! Who: Bart D. Ehrman What: Lecture on “Misquoting Jesus” When: Thursday, April 11, 2013, 7:00 PM Where: Armstrong Theater, Colorado College The address is 14 E Cache la Poudre St, Colorado Springs, Colorado. It’s free and open to the public. Dr. Ehrman is the author of a slew of books, as well as some of the finest courses available from The Teaching Company. The lecture looks like it will be based on his book by the same title, Misquoting Jesus. Link to Original

A few years ago, I read a fascinating little book entitled Heavy Drinking: The Myth of Alcoholism as a Disease by philosopher Herbert Fingarette. Drawing on a slew of psychological studies, Fingarette presented a compelling case against the disease model of addiction, including the common claim that the alcoholic cannot control his/her drinking. Back in January, when I answered a question on the nature of addiction, I wanted to re-acquaint myself with Fingarette’s basic arguments. Happily, I found a fabulous article by him — Alcoholism: the mythical disease — that offers many of the same arguments as the book. As a philosopher, the issue of most interest to me here concerns free will and responsibility — namely, do “alcoholics” lack control over their drinking? In this article, as well as in the book, Fingarette presents some fascinating empirical evidence on that score. (Since the article is available freely as a PDF, I’ll quote the whole section.) Fingarette writes: In fact, alcoholics do have substantial control over their drinking, and they do respond to circumstances. Contrary to what the public has been led to believe, this is not disputed by experts. Many studies have described conditions under which diagnosed alcoholics will drink moderately or excessively, or will choose not to drink at all. Far from being driven by an overwhelming “craving,” they turn out to be responsive to common incentives and disincentives, to appeals and arguments, to rules and regulations. Alcohol does not automatically trigger uncontrolled drinking. Resisting our usual appeals and ignoring reasons we consider forceful are not results of alcohol’s chemical effect but of the fact that the heavy drinker has different values, fears, and strategies. Thus, in their usual settings alcoholics behave without concern for what others regard as rational considerations. But when alcoholics in treatment in a hospital setting, for example, are told that they are not to drink, they typically follow the rule. In some studies they have been informed that alcoholic beverages are available, but that they should abstain. Having decided to cooperate, they voluntarily refrain from drinking. More significantly, it has been reported that the occasional few who cheated nevertheless did not drink to excess but voluntarily limited themselves to a drink or two in order to keep their rule violation from being detected. In short, when what they value is at stake, alcoholics control their drinking accordingly. Alcoholics have been tested in situations in which they can perform light but boring work to “earn” liquor; their preference is to avoid the boring activity and forgo the additional drinking. When promised money if they drink only moderately, they drink moderately enough to earn the money. When threatened with denial of social privileges if they drink more than a certain amount, they drink moderately, as directed. The list of such experiments is extensive. The conclusions are easily confirmed by carefully observing one’s own heavy-drinking acquaintances, provided one ignores the stereotype of “the alcoholic.” Some people object that these experiments take place in “protected” settings and are therefore invalid. This gets things backwards. The point is that it is precisely settings, circumstances, and motivations that are the crucial influences on how alcoholics choose to drink. The alcohol per se — either its availability or its actual presence in the person’s system — is not decisive. Indeed, the alcohol per se or its ready availability seems to be irrelevant to how the alcoholic drinks. Among the most persuasive experiments demonstrating the irrelevance of alcohol to the alcoholic’s drinking are several studies in which alcoholic subjects were deceived about whether they were drinking an alcoholic or nonalcoholic beverage. Alan Marlatt and his colleagues, for example, asked a group of alcoholics to help them “taste-rate” three different brands of the same beverage. Each individual subject was installed in a private room with three large pitchers of beverage, each pitcher supposedly containing a different brand of the same beverage. Their task, of course, was phony. Unknown to them, the subjects had been assigned to one of four groups. One group was told that the beverage in the three pitchers was tonic water — which was true. But a second group was told that the beverage was a tonic-and-vodka mix — though in fact it, too, was pure tonic water. Those in the third group were told that the beverage was tonic-and-vodka — which in fact it was. Those in the fourth group were told that it was simply tonic water — whereas in fact it too was tonic-and-vodka. The subjects were left alone (actually observed through a one-way window) and allowed to “taste” the drinks at will, which they did. The total amount drunk and the rapidity of sips were secretly recorded. The results of this study (and several similar ones) were illuminating. First, none of the alcoholic subjects drank all the beverage — even though, according to the disease theory, those who were actually drinking vodka ought to have proceeded to drink uncontrollably. Second, all of those who believed they were drinking vodka — whether they really were or had been deceived — drank more and faster. Conversely, all of those who believed they were drinking pure tonic — though some were actually drinking vodka — drank less and more slowly. The inference is unambiguous: the actual presence or absence of alcohol in the system made no difference in the drinking pattern; what the alcoholics believed was in the beverage did make a difference — in fact, all the difference. These results fit into a more general pattern revealed by similar experiments on other aspects of alcohol-related behavior in both alcoholics and non-alcoholics: change the beliefs about the presence of alcohol (or the effect it is supposed to have), and the behavior changes. But the alcohol itself plays no measurable role. Mark Keller, one of the early leaders of the alcoholism movement, has responded to such evidence by redefining (or as he would say, “reexplaining”) the key concept of “loss of control.” We are now told that this concept never connoted an automatically induced inability to stop drinking. Like other sophisticated advocates of the disease concept, Keller now means that one “can’t be sure.” The alcoholic who has resolved to stop drinking may or may not stand by his resolution. We are told that “loss of control” is compatible, though unpredictably, with temporary, long-term, or indefinite remission. Here medical terms such as “remission” provide a facade of scientific expertise, but the substance of what we are told is that “loss of control” is consistent with just about anything. This precludes prediction, and of course explains nothing. If it retains any empirical content at all, it amounts to a platitude: someone who for years has relied on a certain way of handling life’s stresses may resolve to change, but he or she “can’t be sure” whether that promise will be fully kept. This is reasonable. But it is not a scientific explanation of an inner process that causes drinking. Similarly, the idea that “craving” causes the alcoholic to drink uncontrollably has been tacitly modified. It was plausible in its original sense, which is still the popular understanding: an inordinately powerful, “overwhelming,” and “irresistible” desire. But the current experimental work regards “mild craving” as a form of “‘craving.” Of course the whole point of “craving” as an explanation of a supposed irresistible compulsion to drink is abandoned here. But the word is retained — and the public is misled. There have been other adjustments in response to new evidence, designed to retain the “disease” terminology at whatever cost. We now read that “of course alcoholism is an illness that consists of not just one but many diseases, having different forms and causes.” We also hear — in pronouncements addressed to more knowledgeable audiences — that alcoholism is a disease with biological, psychological, social, cultural, economic, and even spiritual dimensions, all of them important. This is a startling amplification of the meaning of “disease,” to the point where it can refer to any human problem. It is an important step toward expanding the medicalization of human problems — a trend that has been deservedly criticized in recent years. Fascinating, no? If you’re interested in the phenomenon of addiction, check out the whole article! Its other findings may surprise you. Also, if you’ve not yet heard that 27 January 2013 discussion of the nature of addiction on Philosophy in Action Radio, you can listen to or download the podcast here: Duration: 30:48 Download: MP3 Segment For more details, check out the question’s archive page. The full episode – where I answered questions on the nature of addiction, unions for government employees, materialism in marriage, mandatory child support, and more – is available as a podcast too. 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'll interview professor John P. McCaskey about "Libertarianism's Moral Shift." This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Wednesday, 10 April 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. As the libertarian movement has become more mainstream in recent decades, its justification for liberty has changed. How so – and is that change for the better? Is the libertarian movement today capable of offering a vigorous and compelling defense of liberty? Dr. John P. McCaskey is an historian of philosophy who spent twenty years in the computer industry before returning to academia. He has been teaching at Stanford University, Stevens Institute of Technology, and most recently in the Political Science department at Brown University. 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: John P. McCaskey on Libertarianism's Moral Shift. 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.

In of her interview with John Stosell, Ann Coulter says many objectionable things… …but the worst is probably that we shouldn’t even talk about drug legalization until the welfare state is dismantled. That’s bad enough in and of itself, but it’s even worse given that conservatives don’t want to dismantle the welfare state, but rather merely to shape it in their image. Hence, on her approach, the gross injustices and dangerous police state engendered by the War on Drugs will go on and on forever. Conservatives say the same in opposition to immigration reform too — with similar results. I discussed that view on the this February 2013 episode of Philosophy in Action Radio. If you’ve not yet heard it, you can listen to or download the podcast here: Duration: 11:26 Download: MP3 Segment The road to hell is paved with such conditional defenses of liberty, which are really just rationalizations for statism. Link to Original

On Wednesday’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I’ll interview professor John P. McCaskey about “Libertarianism’s Moral Shift.” This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Wednesday, 10 April 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. As the libertarian movement has become more mainstream in recent decades, its justification for liberty has changed. How so – and is that change for the better? Is the libertarian movement today capable of offering a vigorous and compelling defense of liberty? Dr. John P. McCaskey is an historian of philosophy who spent twenty years in the computer industry before returning to academia. He has been teaching at Stanford University, Stevens Institute of Technology, and most recently in the Political Science department at Brown University. 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: John P. McCaskey on Libertarianism’s Moral Shift. 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. Link to Original

This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine): 5 Apr: Medical Emergencies at 40,000 Feet by Paul Hsieh 4 Apr: CO Exchanges in Trouble by Paul Hsieh 3 Apr: Quick Links: Doctors Retiring or Opting Out by Paul Hsieh 1 Apr: HSAs Survive For Now by Paul Hsieh Follow FIRM on Facebook and Twitter. This week on The Blog of The Objective Standard: 7 Apr: Italian Court Persecutes Scientists for “Crime” of Non-Omniscience by Slade Mendenhall 6 Apr: Why “Sacrifice” Means Loss, Not Gain by Craig Biddle 5 Apr: Contra Linda Chavez, Supreme Court Should Recognize Gay Marriage as a Right by Michael A. LaFerrara 4 Apr: Stockton Ain’t All that’s Bankrupt by Ari Armstrong 2 Apr: Fracking in South Texas Generates $61 Billion Annually in Economic Activity by David Biederman 1 Apr: Bionic Eye—Not a Miracle by Ari Armstrong Follow The Objective Standard on Facebook and Twitter. This week on The Blog of Modern Paleo: 6 Apr: Philosophy Weekend: News from Philosophy in Action by Diana Hsieh 5 Apr: The Paleo Rodeo #156 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 gay marriage versus civil unions, the is-ought gap, the destruction of a friendship, mixing politics and romance, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 7 April 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: Gay Marriage Versus Civil Unions: Is "gay marriage" really a kind of marriage? Many people support civil unions for gays, but they think that such unions shouldn't be called marriage. Usually, they claim that marriage is essentially religious, that procreation is central to marriage, or that marriage concerns a man and a woman. Should gay unions be considered a valid form of marriage, legally or socially? Would civil unions be an acceptable alternative? Question 2: The Is-Ought Gap: What is the solution to the is-ought problem? David Hume famously claimed that statements about what ought to be cannot be derived from statements about what is the case. Does that mean that ethics is impossible? Can the gap be bridged, and if so, how? Question 3: The Destruction of a Friendship: What's the proper response to the dissolution of a friendship within a social group? I loved your your May 6th, 2012 discussion of "unforgivable acts," and I have a follow-up question. Now – after cutting my losses with a best friend, after years of giving second chances, talking with him repeatedly, and determining that there's no more basis for a friendship – how do I judge mutual friends of ours? Some of them think that my actions weren't justified. Some resent me for breaking up a group of friends. Many want me to either make up with this person or tolerate him at gatherings. Is this reaction by these mutual friends fair? How should I respond to them? Question 4: Mixing Politics and Romance: Can people with divergent political views enjoy a good romantic relationship? Some of my liberal friends won't date conservatives, and some of my conservative friends are horrified at the thought of dating a liberal. Is that reasonable? Since I'm in favor of free markets, should I only date other advocates of free markets? Can people with very different political views enjoy a good romantic relationship? 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: Civil Unions, Is-Ought Gap, Political Disagreements, 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 “gay marriage” should be considered a kind of marriage. (Hint: The right answer is “HELL YES.”) In the process, I’ll explain why civil unions might be a step in the right direction, but they’re not an acceptable alternative to legalizing gay marriage. Lately, along with everyone else on Facebook, I’ve seen a wide variety of arguments about gay marriage… some better and some worse. From my libertarian friends, I often hear that the government should “get out of the business of marriage” entirely. That view is wrong, for reasons that I explained in this podcast: State Involvement in Marriage. Basically, the state should not give marriage licenses, but rather ought to treat marriage as a private contract. As with every other kind of contract, the govenment provides the basic legal framework — including establishing the meaning of terms, setting defaults for when terms are not specified, establishing standards for consent, and so on. Moreover, the state will have to determine what counts as a valid marriage contract, so that those standards and defaults might be applied, just as it does for employment contracts. That definition of marriage (and other contractual relations) should not be arbitrary, but rather based on the fact of fundamental similarities in the nature of various relationships between people. What I find particularly objectionable, however, is when people refuse to support gay marriage due to this view that the state ought to “get out of the business of marriage” entirely. The fact is that legalizing gay marriage would rid our legal system of a major injustice, without impeding the fight for a fully contractual system of marriage. To oppose the former because you want the latter is rather like saying, “I’m opposed to ending brutal corporal punishment of children in government schools because I’m opposed to all government schools.” Political changes that are for the better — that genuinely advance the cause of liberty — can and should be supported, even if not immediately the ideal. Even worse, however, is the outright opposition to gay marriage that I’ve seen from some supposed Objectivists, particularly in this blog post and its comments. The arguments offered are so weak as to be laughable. Ultimately, they’re based on negative judgments of homosexuality, morally and psychologically, and those judgments are rooted in nothing more than repugnance. (That’s not an inference: it’s quite explicit from the blog post and its comments.) Thankfully, that kind of irrational bias against gays is far, far, far less common among Objectivists than in years past. Still, I hate to see it… ever. Link to Original

Oh Tim Minchin, I saw Tim in concert in Boulder a few years ago… and he was awesome! If he comes to your area, don’t miss him! Link to Original

As I promised when answering the question on doing business with Chinese companies on Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Radio, here’s the commentary from Robert Garmong on whether trade with China with help improve China culturally and politically. By way of context, here’s what I’d written him relevant to that: Instead, [trade with China] seems like a prime example where trade is a means of exporting better American values, and thereby making China economically and political better than it would be otherwise. That’s a benefit to the Chinese and a benefit to Americans. He replied: As for your hope that trade with America encourages better values among the Chinese, that’s very limited. Most Westerners (myself included, ~2009), think that foreign trade will empower a new class of young, liberal-minded people who want reform. Unfortunately, this has proven to be mostly a naive Western bias. The businesses that benefit from our trade are run by people who — whatever their personal predilections before going into international trade — now are among the most conservative in China. Remember that China is a culture with zero tradition of thinking in principles. So the people who’ve gotten rich on the free market are perfectly happy to continue the system of governmental control. And, since they’re mostly wealthy middle-aged men, they’re perfectly happy to perpetuate the cultural traditions that exalt rich old men. They’ve got their Audis to make them proud, they’ve got their CCP contacts to keep them safe, and they’ve got their mistresses to keep them happy. (Here’s a fun fact for you: according to a survey reported on in People’s Daily, in 2011 the male population of China spent more on holiday gifts for their mistresses than for their wives. I may have mentioned that before, because it’s one of my favorite jaw-droppers in a country jam-packed with jaw-droppers.) There is a rising “middle class,” though it’s only middle class in very relative terms. They are politically powerless and mostly indifferent. They care about making some money, ensuring their children’s education, buying their son an apartment so he can get married, and someday having grandchildren. (That’s sometimes discussed as “The Chinese Dream.”) They are increasingly frustrated by the corruption, and the fact that they work for $600 a month while their boss drives an Audi, but they aren’t politically active. If anything, they fear any change that might threaten the “Chinese dream.” Recall, too, the cultural arrogance of the Chinese, which is deeply-rooted in traditional Chinese culture. (As is often noted, the Chinese word for “China” literally means “Middle Country,” in the sense of “the country in the center of the universe.”) And of course it’s reinforced in schools, on Chinese TV, and in the movies they see. For this reason, even as they benefit from their contact with the West, and even as some of them envy the freedom of the United States, the average person here is very skeptical of foreign values. This is why they’re quick to believe the negatives about America, such as that everyone carries a gun and shoots people. The hope for change in China is not directly from trade with the West. It’s from the net-savvy twenty-somethings who populate Weibo and other microblogs. While in some broad sense their existence is made possible by foreign trade, they are only very indirectly influenced by that trade. They are influenced by *Friends* and *Desperate Housewives*, but I wouldn’t call those international trade because they’re mostly pirated copies. In their online discussions, those guys appeal directly to very basic and obvious human values, such as the aversion to corruption and theft by the government. They seldom advert to any foreign concepts such as rights, freedom, or justice. They often get these ideas from the West, but they don’t use them in their discussions. I suspect, by the way, that this is the real reason the government is pulling away from English as a part of the curriculum. They’re smart enough to see where the dissent is coming from, and they want to discourage it. The Chinese operate in subtler ways than, say, their Soviet-era counterparts, so rather than openly crack down on the young netizens, they simply reduce their numbers, try to prevent them from reaching a critical mass by reducing English language training in the schools. This is how the government thinks, and it’s why they’ve been so much more successful than other totalitarian governments at negotiating the process of “reform and opening-up” without losing their grip on power. They may be rat-bastards, but they are very clever rat-bastards! Fascinating, as usual! If you’ve not yet listened to my interview with Robert on Should We Fear or Embrace China?… don’t delay! It was a full hour of such insights! Also, be sure to check out his excellent blog, Professor in Dalian. Link to Original