dianahsieh

My latest OpEd is now up at Forbes, “If You Want Human Progress To Stop, Institute A Maximum Income“. In this piece, I discuss the importance of making a moral defense of those who have earned wealth honestly, not just an economic defense. Here is the opening: Suppose a young medical researcher, Dr. Smith, discovered a safe, reliable vaccine for breast cancer. If a woman took a single pill at age 30, she’d never develop breast cancer. But the pill costs $1,000. How many American women would take that deal? Most women would likely jump at the opportunity. For $1,000, a woman would be forever spared the expense and inconvenience of future annual mammograms. She’d never have to worry about her doctor calling to say, “Your mammogram showed a suspicious spot; please come in for a biopsy.” The 12% of women who would have developed breast cancer during their lifetimes would be spared the pain and risks of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy. Each woman would gain an enormous value in terms of money saved, peace of mind, and potential added years of life, far exceeding the $1,000 cost. Roughly 2 million American women turn 30 each year. Assuming Dr. Smith made a 10% profit from each sale, he would earn $200 million a year. Most people would regard that as a completely fair outcome. But not Hamilton Nolan… (Read the full text of “If You Want Human Progress To Stop, Institute A Maximum Income“.) I’m also delighted to announce that Forbes has invited me to be a regular contributor, after my prior guest OpEds. My focus will be primarily on health care, economics, and related issues, from a free-market perspective. You can find my earlier Forbes OpEds here: “ The Federal Government’s War On Medical Innovation” (8/8/2012) “ Is President Obama’s Prostate Gland More Important Than Yours?” (7/5/2012) “ The Dangerous Synergy Between The Nanny State And Universal Health Care” (6/18/2012) “ Just Who Should Control Your Healthcare Spending?” (5/15/2012) I’d like to thank all my regular readers for their support and encouragement — it means a great deal to me. And thank you all for circulating my work by Facebook, Twitter, blogging, and e-mail! Original: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/noodlefood/~3/lReIXrVsSSA/

Here’s an interesting little story from Campaign Doctor Newsletter: The famous New York diamond dealer Harry Winston heard about a wealthy Dutch merchant who was looking for a certain kind of diamond to add to his collection. Winston called the merchant, told him that he thought he had the perfect stone, and invited the collector to come to New York and examine it. The collector flew to New York and Winston assigned a salesman to meet him and show the diamond. When the salesman presented the diamond to the merchant he described the expensive stone by pointing out all its fine technical features. The merchant listened and praised the stone but turned away and said, “It’s a wonderful stone but not exactly what I wanted.” Winston, who had been watching the presentation from a distance stopped the merchant and asked, “Do you mind if I show you that diamond once again?” The merchant agreed and Winston presented the same stone. But instead of talking about the technical features of the stone, Winston spoke spontaneously about his own genuine admiration of the diamond and what a rare thing of beauty it was. Abruptly, the customer changed his mind and bought the diamond. While he was waiting for the diamond to be packaged and brought to him, the merchant turned to Winston and asked, “Why did I buy it from you when I had no difficulty saying no to your salesman?” Winston replied, “The salesman is one of the best men in the business and he knows more about diamonds than I do. I pay him a good salary for what he knows. But I would gladly pay him twice as much if I could put into him something that I have and he lacks. You see, he knows diamonds, but I love them.” Few people are moved by mere recitations of technical facts. On the DiSC Personality Model, High Cs can be, but most others are left cold by that. (Recall that in DiSC, D = Dominance, I = Influence, S = Steadiness, and C = Conscientiousness. If that doesn’t ring a loud bell for you, review this post or this podcast interview before reading further.) However, that doesn’t imply that the other DiSC types — meaning, the High Ds, Is, and Ss of the world — are indifferent to facts or blindly driven by their emotions. Rather, I suspect that for them (or rather, us), motivation involves stronger emotions, different emotions, and perhaps more emotional expression. All motivation requires emotion, I think. (That’s major part of Aristotle “action theory”, and I agree with it.) For C’s, the requisite emotional motivation seems to be tightly bound to the facts: they want to be right, most of all. (Hence, if you’re in a conflict with a High C over who is right… watch out! I’ve seen some scary-strong emotions from High Cs when challenged.) Ds can seem unemotional — particularly unconcerned with the emotions of other people. In fact, they’re highly motivated by feelings of power and capacity associated with achievement. It’s their (er, my) drug. Among the two people-oriented types, Is and Ss, the motivating emotions will be quite different. For High Is the emotions of excitement associated with new ideas, people, experiences, and challenges will have the most motivational force. High Ss find that daunting, but they’ll be motivated by feelings of sympathy and care. Importantly, such personality differences never override a person’s free will choice to think or not. Whatever the strength, content, and source of a person’s motivating emotions, he can choose to recognize the facts for what they are and think them through rationally. If he wants to be happy and successful, he’d better do that! As for practical advice, I’d like to limit myself to two quick points: First, just because someone seems less emotional than you doesn’t mean that they’re indifferent, that they don’t care, or that they’re some kind of robot in human form. Second, just because someone seems more emotional than you doesn’t mean that they’re unthinking, that they’re indifferent to facts, or that they’re some kind of wild-eyed emotionalist. Other people’s personalities differ in a million ways from yours. Some of those differences are ginormous, while others are minor. If you attempt to read everyone through the lens of your own personality, the only result is that you’ll find most people quite baffling, if not seriously frustrating. This issue of emotion in motivation in just one example. That’s why the DiSC Personality Model is so helpful, I think. It focuses on two major axes of difference — assertive versus reserved and thing-oriented versus people-oriented. Those axes are of particular importance for communication and collaboration with other people. By learning DiSC, you can understand yourself better, including your strengths and weaknesses. You can understand and appreciate the ways in which others differ from you too. It’s a gold mine! Original: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/noodlefood/~3/G_sXeAMTh08/

Our dogs Conrad and Mae are contained on our five acres by a fence around the border. Since they are often roaming about outside during the day and at night, they tend to keep the wildlife at bay. The deer avoid our property, as do squirrels, raccoons, and rabbits. Alas, the skunk has not been deterred of late. Conrad and Mae have been skunked about 20 times so far this summer. Sometime after dark — often moments before we plan to bring the dogs inside for the night — we’ll hear vigorous barking for a few minutes, then silence, and finally the ominous smell of skunk will waft up to the house. (The smell wears off in a few days, so I never bother to bathe the dogs. They just have to sleep in the mudroom for a night or two or three.) The dogs simply will not learn to leave the skunk alone. They could be sprayed every night for the next year, but they’d not learn. They’re persistent — too persistent. That brings me to my philosophical point: Persistence is not a virtue. Virtues are ways of acting that are always necessary and always proper to further your life and happiness. To flourish, you must be rational in every waking moment, not just sometimes. You cannot ever temper rationality with irrationality, nor attempt to find a balance between them. To understand that rationality is a virtue is to understand that you’re always right to be rational and that you can never be too rational. Persistence, however, is something quite different, and that’s why it’s not a virtue. My dictionary defines persistence as “firm or obstinate continuance in a course of action in spite of difficulty or opposition.” Persistence is often the right course. If you’re learning a complicated new dance step, training your dog, or developing a new product at work, you’re going to need a whole lot of persistence. That doesn’t imply, however, that persistence is a virtue. It’s not — for the simple reason that persistence is often a mistake. Sometimes, failure is not a reason to “try, try again,” but rather to “stop and think, dammit.” Let’s consider three kinds of cases in which persistence is a bad idea. First, instead of persistence, sometimes you should rethink whether your goal is worth so much time and effort. If college is nothing but a slog, consider whether to quit rather than persist in slogging for another two years. If your old clunker of a car keeps breaking down, consider whether to buy a new car rather than performing yet another costly repair. If your friend blows up at you over nothing yet again, consider whether to demote that friendship rather than muddling through this latest conflict. Second, instead of persistence, sometimes you need to rethink your methods for achieving your goal. If your dog isn’t doing what you’re asking in training, try a different technique rather than persisting in the ineffective method. If you’re kids keep annoying you, stop the persistent nagging and try some collaborative problem-solving. If you can’t find critical files on your computer, don’t be persistent about searching for them but rather find some new way of organizing or naming them. Third, instead of persistence, sometimes you need a break to refocus. If you’re frustrated with some project at work, maybe you need a short break to clear your head: the answer might come to you while you’re pouring that cup of coffee. If you’re annoyed by a discussion of politics on Facebook, step away from the keyboard to pet the cat. If your dog isn’t responding to your commands in training, perhaps both you and your dog need a break from the pressure. Again, if persistence were a virtue, a person would always be right to be persistent. Yet as we’ve seen with these three kinds of cases, that’s just not true. So what is persistence? Basically, persistence is a personality trait. People differ in their natural persistence based on innate personality as well as childhood experiences. People can cultivate their disposition to persist or refrain from persisting by repeatedly choosing to persist or refrain. Personality traits, I think, should be understood as subject to a kind of Aristotelian continuum. A person can be excessive, deficient, or at the sweet spot of “the mean.” For a person to be properly persistent would mean that persistence is exercised “at the right times, with reference to the right objects, towards the right people, with the right motive, and in the right way.” That’s not easy! As Aristotle says, …it is possible to fail in many ways (for evil belongs to the class of the unlimited, as the Pythagoreans conjectured, and good to that of the limited), while to succeed is possible only in one way (for which reason also one is easy and the other difficult — to miss the mark easy, to hit it difficult) … With practice, however, we can cultivate the skills required for persisting and for refraining — as well as the skills required to know whether to persist or to refrain in the circumstances at hand. Mostly, remember to avoid the trap of thinking that persistence is always beneficial. Sometimes, a bit less persistence is exactly what you need! Original: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/noodlefood/~3/PKtzqdIPwRM/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP2Dp0rRUw4: “As a high school lacrosse team was waiting to board a flight to a Summer tournament, one athlete took it upon himself to sneak into the pre-board group for “young passengers”. He thought he had beaten the system, but his coaches saw the whole thing go down. One hastily written speech and a nice bit of cooperation from the crew of Southwest Airlines Flight 592 later, this video was born.” I abhor forced apologies for kids: they just teach dishonest obedience. But this case is pure awesome! The young man is clearly old enough to take his lumps for his silly stunt, and the applause from the passengers is pure benevolence. Original entry: See link at top of this post

I love this idea for focusing on all the positive joys of life, found on the Homestead Survival Facebook Page: “Start the year with an empty jar and fill it with notes about good things that happen. on New Years Eve, empty it and see what awesome stuff happened that year.” But… forget starting it in 2013! Start today! Original entry: See link at top of this post

This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine): 19 August 2012: Scherz: ObamaCare and Demonizing Doctors by Paul Hsieh 18 August 2012: Wolf: Barack Obama, Welfare King by Paul Hsieh 17 August 2012: Quick Links: MA, FDA, “Who Pays?” by Paul Hsieh 16 August 2012: Diana Hsieh on Medicine in a Free Society by Paul Hsieh 15 August 2012: Quick Links: ACOs, Managed Care, Quagmire by Paul Hsieh 14 August 2012: Will Your Doctor Quit? by Paul Hsieh 13 August 2012: Will Paul Ryan Destroy Medicare? And Should He? by Paul Hsieh 13 August 2012: More Medicaid Woes by Paul Hsieh Follow FIRM on Facebook and Twitter. This week on Politics without God, the blog of the Coalition for Secular Government: 17 August 2012: Mississippi’s Legislator Calls for Death for Gays by Diana Hsieh 15 August 2012: Campaign Finance Lawsuit: Preliminary Injunction Sought by Diana Hsieh 13 August 2012: Personhood in Colorado for 2012 by Diana Hsieh Follow the Coalition for Secular Government on Facebook and Twitter. This week on Mother of Exiles: 14 August 2012: Team USA – Team of Immigrants by Kelly McNulty Valenzuela Follow Mother of Exiles on Facebook and Twitter. This week on The Blog of The Objective Standard: 19 August 2012: Hold Paul Ryan to His Word by Ari Armstrong 18 August 2012: Can Paul Ryan Make the Moral Case for Capitalism? by Paul Hsieh 17 August 2012: Parent Trigger Laws Indicate Growing Strength of the Parental School Choice Movement by Michael A. LaFerrara 16 August 2012: Further Thoughts on Why Objectivists Should Actively Campaign for Romney-Ryan by Craig Biddle 15 August 2012: Rob Lowe Admirably Defends Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged by Ari Armstrong 14 August 2012: Romney-Ryan 2012—Ayn Rand Forever by Craig Biddle 14 August 2012: Nonlinear Ideas: Apps for a Linear Life by Ari Armstrong Follow The Objective Standard on Facebook and Twitter. This week on The Blog of Modern Paleo: 19 August 2012: Medicine in a Free Society: Philosophy in Action Podcast by Diana Hsieh 18 August 2012: Overcoming Weakness of Will: Philosophy in Action Podcast by Diana Hsieh 17 August 2012: The Paleo Rodeo #123 by Diana Hsieh Follow Modern Paleo on Facebook and Twitter. Original entry: See link at top of this post

In Sunday morning's episode of Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio, I'll answer questions on contributing to animal welfare groups, inappropriate gifts from in-laws, sacrifice in war, condemning evil versus praising good, and more with Greg Perkins. What: Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio: 5 August 2012 Who: Dr. Diana Hsieh and Greg Perkins When: Sunday, 5 August 2012, 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET Where: Philosophy in Action's Live Studio This week's questions are: Question 1: Contributing to Animal Welfare Groups: Should a person contribute to animal welfare organizations? Animal shelters find good homes for abandoned and abused pets. They also offer assistance to pet owners during emergencies, such as the recent wildfires in Colorado. That work seems laudable to me – and something that a rational person might support and even contribute to. Yet such groups often advocate wrong views (such as veganism) and support rights-violations (such as animal welfare laws). So are such groups worthy of support or not? Question 2: Inappropriate Gifts from In-Laws: How should I respond to an unwanted gift given by my in-laws? My in-laws often give me presents that I don't much like – like frumpy boring sweaters and books I'll never read. I thank them kindly for the present, but I'm not effusive in my praise. Recently, they gave me something really pretty inappropriate for me – on par with giving a bacon cookbook to a vegetarian. I wasn't sure whether it was just clueless or hostile. How should I respond? Question 3: Sacrifice in War: Is it a sacrifice for a soldier to fight for his country? Most people regard fighting for one's country to be a glorious sacrifice. The soldier risks life and limb, but gets little in return. Assuming a proper government and a justified war for self-defense, is serving in the military a sacrifice? And if so, is that sacrifice noble? Question 4: Condemning Evil Versus Praising Good: Why do so many cultural commentaries condemn the evil rather than praise the good? The virtue of justice, properly understood, means that praising good is more important than condemning evil. As Leonard Peikoff says in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand: "The conventional view is that justice consists primarily in punishing the wicked. This view stems from the idea that evil is metaphysically powerful, while virtue is merely 'impractical idealism.' In the Objectivist philosophy, however, vice is the attribute to be scorned as impractical. For [Objectivists], therefore, the order of priority is reversed. Justice consists first not in condemning, but in admiring – and then in expressing one's admiration explicitly and in fighting for those one admires..." (pg 284). Despite that, the majority of cultural commentaries, including those written by Objectivists, focus on exposing and condemning evil, rather than praising the good. Why is that? Is it a mistake? 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. If you attend the live show, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask me follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio from the episode posted here: Q&A Radio: 5 August 2012. Philosophy in Action Radio broadcasts every Sunday morning and Wednesday evening. For information on upcoming shows and more, visit the Episodes on Tap. I hope that you join us on Sunday morning!

In Sunday morning's episode of Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio, I'll answer questions on the morality of cloning, hypocritical allies, standards of beauty, capitalism and altruism, and more with Greg Perkins. What: Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio: 29 July 2012 Who: Dr. Diana Hsieh and Greg Perkins When: Sunday, 29 July 2012, 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET Where: Philosophy in Action's Live Studio This week's questions are: Question 1: The Morality of Cloning: If cloning humans were possible, would it be wrong? Most people think that cloning humans, if possible, would be terribly immoral and creepy. What are their arguments? Are those arguments right or wrong? Also, would cloning a person without his or her consent be some kind of rights violation? Question 2: Hypocritical Allies: What should you do when your allies are exposed as hypocrites? Just because a person advocates good ideas doesn't mean that he practices them. For example, a defender of free markets might use zoning laws to prevent the construction of a new building on land adjacent to his home, an advocate of justice and independence as virtues might condemn and ostracize people who disagree with him on trivial matters, and an advocate of productive work might sponge off friends and relatives. When you discover such behavior in your allies, what should you do? Should you attempt to defend them? Should you try to keep the hypocrisy quiet? Should you condemn them? Should you say that "nobody's perfect"? What's fair – and what's best for your cause? Question 3: Standards of Beauty: Isn't beauty in the eye of the beholder? In your November 13th, 2011webcast discussion of aesthetic body modification, you rejected the idea that beauty is just a matter of personal taste or cultural norms. What's your view – and why? Question 4: Capitalism and Altruism: Is capitalism altruistic? Some people attempt to defend capitalism and free markets on altruistic grounds. Under capitalism, they say, a successful businesses must serve the needs of its customers. Hence, capitalism promotes altruism. Is that true? Is it an effective way to defend capitalism? 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. If you attend the live show, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask me follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio from the episode posted here: Q&A Radio: 29 July 2012. Philosophy in Action Radio broadcasts every Sunday morning and Wednesday evening. For information on upcoming shows and more, visit the Episodes on Tap. I hope that you join us on Sunday morning! — Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) Philosophy in Action

In tonight's episode of Philosophy in Action Talk Radio, I'll interview Dr. Paul Hsieh on surviving socialized medicine. What: Philosophy in Action Talk Radio: Surviving Socialized Medicine Who: Dr. Diana Hsieh, with Dr. Paul Hsieh, plus live callers When: Wednesday, 25 July 2012, 6 pm PT / 7 pm MT / 8 pm CT / 9 pm ET Where: Philosophy in Action's Live Studio With ObamaCare confirmed by the Supreme Court, what can a person do to preserve his health under America's increasingly socialized system of medical care? 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. If you attend the live show, you can share your experiences and ask questions by calling the show or via the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio from the episode posted here: Talk Radio: 25 July 2012. Philosophy in Action Radio broadcasts every Sunday morning and Wednesday evening. For information on upcoming shows and more, visit the Episodes on Tap. I hope that you join us tonight! — Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) Philosophy in Action

In Sunday morning's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll answer questions on expressions of love, exposing security flaws, the nature of happiness, the importance of a candidate's views on abortion, and more with Greg Perkins. Don't miss this engaging hour-long discussion of the application rational principles to the challenges of real life! What: Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio Show Who: Dr. Diana Hsieh and Greg Perkins When: Sunday, 22 July 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live This week's questions are: Question 1: Expressions of Love: What do you think of the "Five Love Languages"? The basic idea of the "Five Love Languages" is that every person has "a primary way of expressing and interpreting love," and that "we all identify primarily with one of the five love languages: Words of Affirmation, Quality Time, Receiving Gifts, Acts of Service, and Physical Touch." What do you think of this concept? Do you think that a person's "love language" might be connected to his personality traits? Question 2: Exposing Security Flaws: Is it moral to post information on security flaws that can help criminals better commit crimes? Some people publish information on how to pick locks or how to bypass computer password protection programs. Yes, sometimes this information might be used by good people to better protect themselves, but it's likely that criminals will use it to commit crimes, perhaps crimes that they'd not have attempted otherwise. Can the person posting the information rightly say, "This information can be used for both good or bad purposes, and I'm not morally responsible for what someone else chooses to do with it"? Question 3: The Nature of Happiness: What is happiness? When philosophers such as Aristotle, John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant, and Ayn Rand speak of happiness, what do they mean? Is happiness just a fleeting sensation of pleasure? Or is it something more enduring and stable? Question 4: The Importance of a Candidate's Views on Abortion: How important are a political candidate's views on abortion? Why should we be worried about a political candidate's bad views on abortion if their views on other issues like economics are generally good? After all, as US President, Mitt Romney couldn't outlaw abortion even if he wanted to. But a good or bad President could have a tremendous good or bad effect on our economic liberties. Conversely, President Obama wants to keep abortion legal but that positive pales in significance to his terrible negative views on economics. Shouldn't a candidate's views on economics be more important at present than their views on abortion? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." If you attend the live show, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask me follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio recording of the whole episode, as well as individual questions, posted to the episode's archive page: Q&A Radio: 22 July 2012. From that page, you can post comments on the questions before or after the broadcast. I hope that you'll join us on Sunday morning!

In Sunday morning's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll answer questions on multiculturalism and tolerance, speaking out against bigotry, acting out emotions versus acting on emotions, justified war, and more with Greg Perkins. Don't miss this engaging hour-long discussion of the application rational principles to the challenges of real life! What: Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio Show Who: Dr. Diana Hsieh and Greg Perkins When: Sunday, 15 July 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live This week's questions are: Question 1: Multiculturalism and Tolerance: What's wrong with multiculturalism? Many people think that "multiculturalism" just means being tolerant of people with different cultural practices than your own. Is that right? What is multiculturalism? What are some examples of it? What's wrong with it, if anything? Question 2: Speaking Out Against Bigotry: When should a person speak up against bigotry toward gays? My boyfriend and I were at a party at the home of one of his coworkers. One person at the party started using offensive homophobic slurs, so I asked him not to use that kind of language. He persisted, and the conversation escalated into an argument. My boyfriend did not take a position, and he later said he “didn’t want to get involved” and that it had been “none of my business” to stick my neck out against the bigot. I believe that silence implies acceptance. Though there may not be a moral obligation to intervene, it still seems like the right thing to do. What is the moral principle behind this? Is it important enough to end a relationship over? Question 3: Acting Out Emotions Versus Acting On Emotions: What's the difference between acting on emotions and acting out emotions? Emotions sometimes cry out for bodily expression, such as hitting something when you're angry. Is "acting out emotions" in that way a form of emotionalism? How is it different, if at all, from acting on emotions? Question 4: Justified War: When would a free society go to war? What would the attitude of a rights-respecting country be toward war? When would the country go to war – or not? How would wars be funded and manned? Is isolationism or interventionism the proper approach? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." If you attend the live show, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask me follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio recording of the whole episode, as well as individual questions, posted to the episode's archive page: Q&A Radio: 15 July 2012. From that page, you can post comments on the questions before or after the broadcast. I hope that you'll join us on Sunday morning!

More on Central Purpose: In the June 24th episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on parenting as a central purpose. In my answer, I suggested that Objectivists seem to have misunderstood what Ayn Rand meant by “central purpose.” In part, I suggested that based on Ayn Rand’s comments in “The Objectivist Ethics” in The Virtue of Selfishness: The three cardinal values of the Objectivist ethics–the three values which, together, are the means to and the realization of one’s ultimate value, one’s own life–are: Reason, Purpose, Self-Esteem, with their three corresponding virtues: Rationality, Productiveness, Pride. Productive work is the central purpose of a rational man’s life, the central value that integrates and determines the hierarchy of all his other values. Reason is the source, the precondition of his productive work–pride is the result. That was her only comment on “central purpose” in her novels or anthologies. It doesn’t seem to imply that a person needs to have a central purpose in the sense of an overriding theme of his life, as many people seem to think. Shortly after the broadcast, someone pointed out that Ayn Rand discussed “central purpose” briefly in her interview in Playboy. Here’s the relevant passage: PLAYBOY: Weren’t Hitler and Stalin, to name two tyrants, in control of their own lives, and didn’t they have a clear purpose? RAND: Certainly not. Observe that both of them ended as literal psychotics. They were men who lacked self-esteem and, therefore, hated all of existence. Their psychology, in effect, is summarized in Atlas Shrugged by the character of James Taggart. The man who has no purpose, but has to act, acts to destroy others. That is not the same thing as a productive or creative purpose. PLAYBOY: If a person organizes his life around a single, neatly defined purpose, isn’t he in danger of becoming extremely narrow in his horizons? RAND: Quite the contrary. A central purpose serves to integrate all the other concerns of a man’s life. It establishes the hierarchy, the relative importance, of his values, it saves him from pointless inner conflicts, it permits him to enjoy life on a wide scale and to carry that enjoyment into any area open to his mind; whereas a man without a purpose is lost in chaos. He does not know what his values are. He does not know how to judge. He cannot tell what is or is not important to him, and, therefore, he drifts helplessly at the mercy of any chance stimulus or any whim of the moment. He can enjoy nothing. He spends his life searching for some value which he will never find. Ayn Rand’s analysis of the life of the man without a purpose is correct: such a life would be terribly disintegrated. However, I’m doubtful that a person must have one single dominant purpose — a theme of his life that trumps all other concerns — in order to live a rational, integrated, and purposeful life. Instead, my thought is that a person’s ultimate integrating purpose is his own life and happiness. Often, that ultimate purpose will be pursued via three to five major values, such as a career, a spouse, children, and a hobby. Those major values might not be strongly connected to each other. My passion for horse training and skiing has little to do with my love of philosophy. Paul doesn’t join me in those hobbies either, but he’s hugely important to me. Those major values will come into conflict periodically. A parent, for example, faces constant choices between spending more time at work versus spending more time with his kids. Sometimes, those choices might be painfully difficult, such as during a major crunch time at work. Even if a person’s career is most important to him, in the grand scheme of his life, that doesn’t mean that his career will always trump his other major values. I could work more hours, for example, but I choose to spend some of that time riding my horses instead. If my horse Lila were injured, my plans for work for that day would be instantly discarded. A person might forgo certain career opportunities in order to enhance or preserve the other major values. I wouldn’t ever move to New York City — even if doing so would hugely advance my career — because doing so would preclude my pursuit of too many other values. (Hence, I would be miserable in very short order.) Ultimately, what should matter most to a person is his own life and happiness: that’s the ultimate purpose that properly integrates all his actions. Beyond that, a person needs to cultivate and identify the major values by which he pursues that life and happiness. He needs to know their relative order of importance to him, in the grand scheme of things. He needs to be sensitive to changes in those major values over time. To go beyond that — to attempt to intertwine all the disparate threads of one’s life into a neat and tidy bow known as a “central purpose” — seems likely to be unhelpful and perhaps even unrealistic for many people. For them, the result of the attempt is not greater clarity or purpose, but only guilt, worry, and sacrifice of values. Obviously, that’s not good. Ultimately, the goal should not be to force oneself to think and act in terms of a single unifying central purpose of life. The goal should be to live a rational, integrated, and purposeful life — and I see many ways to do that. Original entry: See link at top of this post

Fighting Back Against Colorado’s Campaign Finance Laws: I have some exciting news to share — and I’m particularly delighted to share it with you on Independence Day! My fight against Colorado’s onerous campaign finance laws has been taken to a whole new level, thanks to the Center for Competitive Politics. They’re representing my organization, the Coalition for Secular Government, in a federal lawsuit challenging the application of Colorado’s campaign finance law to Ari Armstrong’s and my policy paper in defense of abortion rights. CCP is arguing that the onerous campaign finance regulations violate our First Amendment rights. I couldn’t be more excited for this opportunity protect the right to speak freely on politics in Colorado. Here’s CCP’s press release. You can expect more details to be posted on here on NoodleFood in upcoming weeks. Colorado Group Files First Amendment Lawsuit DATELINE: Monday, July 2, 2012 CONTACT: Sarah Lee, Communications Director, Center for Competitive Politics, 770.598.7961 ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) legal team, led by Legal Director Allen Dickerson, today filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of the Coalition for Secular Government (CSG). The question raised by the First Amendment lawsuit is whether Colorado can force small educational groups to register with the state before expressing an opinion on or publishing an analysis of a ballot question. Colorado resident Diana Hsieh, a doctor of philosophy, organized the non-profit CSG together with her friend Ari ArmB in order to promote a secular understanding of individual rights, including freedom of conscience and the separation of church and state. Because of unconstitutionally vague state laws, confusion as to what constitutes political speech and what is covered under a press exemption, and a refusal by the state to abide by a federal court order, Hsieh and CSG have found it nearly impossible to carry out the activities of a small non-profit group without fear of running afoul of complex Colorado campaign finance laws. “Ari and I simply wanted to discuss a Colorado ballot measure as a small part of our effort to educate people about our philosophy. Our goal has never been to defeat such measures; they would have lost just as badly without our policy papers,” Hsieh notes. “It’s frustrating that even our modest efforts are hampered by the Colorado campaign finance system. To avoid the risk of costly lawsuits and hefty fines, we must report minor purchases of office supplies and the names and addresses of small-dollar donors. Our experiences with Colorado’s system have been confusing and dispiriting. We’ve not abandoned our efforts, as most people would have done, but we’ve definitely scaled back our efforts. We shouldn’t have to register and file these meaningless reports with the State to speak on moral and political topics of public concern.” Dickerson and the CCP legal team filed a complaint alleging that, even though Diana and CSG plan to raise no more than $3,500, nearly all of which will go toward updating and disseminating an expanded and updated copy of their public policy paper, the state of Colorado appears to demand that CSG register as an issue committee, with all the paperwork burdens and restrictions that status entails. Dickerson notes that this is unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and burdensome, particularly for a small group seeking only to exercise their right to speak. “No group that spends very little money, and whose principal product is a policy white paper, should need the state’s permission to speak,” said Dickerson. “Despite good intentions, Colorado’s voters approved laws with that unreasonable and unconstitutional result. We hope this suit will give the federal courts an opportunity to protect CSG and other vulnerable, grassroots speakers.” The suit asks for a declaratory judgment and requests that the court hear CSG’s claims on an expedited basis. A background paper on the lawsuit can be viewed here. A copy of the complaint filed in the lawsuit can be viewed here. The Center for Competitive Politics promotes and defends the First Amendment’s protection of political rights of speech, assembly, and petition. It is the only organization dedicated solely to protecting First Amendment political rights. Original entry: See link at top of this post

In Sunday morning's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll answer questions on the validity of psychic powers, managing office politics, responsibility for wrongdoings of friends, the cost of freedom, and more with Greg Perkins. Don't miss this engaging hour-long discussion of the application rational principles to the challenges of real life! What: Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio Show Who: Dr. Diana Hsieh and Greg Perkins When: Sunday, 8 July 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live This week's questions are: Question 1: The Validity of Psychic Powers: Are psychic powers bunk? A friend convinced me to join him in visiting a psychic for a tarot card reading. Although I am opposed to mysticism, I didn't mind going and thought it would be funny. I was surprised to find this psychic knew things about me that (while vague) were very accurate descriptors, and could not have been known from my appearance (nor prior knowledge since it was an impromptu visit). It seems highly unlikely they could have guessed (and have guessed so accurately) correct character traits, issues and feelings. Is this evidence in favor of psychic powers? Or have I been mislead? Question 2: Managing Office Politics: How can a person effectively manage office politics? In almost any job, the internal politics of the company can be overwhelming. If you speak out, you can be embroiled in conflict and drama. If you stay silent, the pushy people will have their way, often for the worse. What should a person do who wants to actually work? Question 3: Responsibility for Wrongdoings of Friends: Am I responsible for the actions of my friends? Suppose that a friend of mine does something that others find objectionable. Am I obliged to state my opinion of what my friend did? If I refuse to state an opinion, should others assume that I endorse my friend's actions? In general, should we expect people to speak out if they object to what others do? When is a person obliged to speak in protest? Question 4: The Cost of Freedom: Shouldn't freedom be "free"? I often hear the bromide "freedom isn't free," or some variation of it, such as, "there's a price for freedom." But isn't freedom actually free? A person acts by right in pursuing his own life and happiness, and criminals do not have any right to coerce or threaten others. If freedom is the political expression of rights in a social or political context, it follows that there should be no "cost" to exercising one's rights. It isn't a sacrifice to not violate others rights, since respect for them is a selfish virtue, nor would it be a sacrifice to voluntarily fund a proper government that protects one's rights, since the benefit outweighs the cost. Am I correct in thinking freedom, properly understood and protected, is indeed free, or not? If I am, what do people mean when they say, "freedom isn't free," and what's the proper response? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." If you attend the live show, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask me follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio recording of the whole episode, as well as individual questions, posted to the episode's archive page: Q&A Radio: 8 July 2012. From that page, you can post comments on the questions before or after the broadcast. I hope that you'll join us on Sunday morning!

New Questions in the Queue: As you know, on Sunday morning’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I answer four questions chosen in advance from the Question Queue. Here are the most recent additions to that queue. Please vote for the ones that you’re most interested in hearing me answer! You can also review and vote on all pending questions sorted by date or sorted by popularity. FYI, I’m perfectly willing to be bribed to answer a question of particular interest to you pronto. So if you’re a regular contributor to Philosophy in Action’s Tip Jar, I can answer your desired question as soon as possible. (The question must already be in the queue, so if you’ve not done so already, submit it. Just e-mail me at [email protected] to make arrangements. Now, without further ado… Should parents make empty threats to their children? At the grocery store last week, I heard a mother threaten to throw away her daughter’s favorite toys unless the daughter behaved. That seems to be pretty common: parents make empty threats in an attempt to scare their kids into better behavior. They’ll say that it works, and perhaps it does. But what are the consequences? Are such empty threats a valid parenting technique? How would the government protect the safety of food and drugs in a free society? Would the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) exist in free society? If so, would food or drugs have to gain FDA approval to be sold? Would it have the power to remove food or drugs deemed unsafe from the market? If not, what would protect consumers from harm due to adulterated or otherwise unsafe food or drugs? What is the value of marriage? What is the value of marriage? How is it different from living with a romantic partner in a committed relationship? Is marriage only a legal matter? Or does it have some personal or social benefit? 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? 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? What should a person do when part of his job involves dealing with looters? I work for a company that promotes other companies. One of those promoted companies is extremely large, and it was bailed out with taxpayer money in 2009. In my view, my employer is profiting from theft. I’m having a terrible time dealing with this situation, and resent my job everytime I’m expected to perform for this customer. Is there another way that I can look at this situation so that it won’t be so distressing? Or is there something else that I could or should do? Is it wrong to invent stories about yourself to tell to strangers? In the past, I’ve made up stories about myself (basically assuming a character) and told them to strangers on the bus or in an airport. When I mentioned this to my spouse, I hadn’t really thought of this as lying until I saw his horrified reaction. Do you think this is wrong? If so, why? Would it be acceptable in some contexts, such as for an acting class? 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? Should a person feel guilty for not acting selfishly enough? According to rational egoism, a person ought to act selfishly – not in the sense of hurting others, but in the sense of pursuing his own good. If a person fails to do that, should he feel guilty for failing to act morally? Is it moral to knowingly ignore or violate a website’s terms of service? Suppose that during the sign up process for a website you are presented with some terms of service and a checkbox indicating that you have read them, and that the checkbox is disabled until you’ve scrolled to the bottom of the terms. Leaving aside the question of whether the terms should be enforceable in a court of law, is it moral to simply scroll to the bottom and click the checkbox without reading, or to later do something that you know was expressly prohibited by the terms? If so, what kind of obligations do you have when the terms aren’t presented so unambiguously (e.g. there’s just a link in the site footer that says “terms of service”) or are filled with complicated legalese? If not, is there (or should there be) any way for a site owner to communicate the terms of using the site, or does putting an HTTP server on the public network thereby permit anyone in as long as there are no technical barriers put in place? 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? How might personality differences (especially with respect to sex and intimacy) affect the relationships? When should a person speak up against bigotry toward gays? My boyfriend and I were at a party at the home of one of his coworkers. One person at the party started using offensive homophobic slurs, so I asked him not to use that kind of language. He persisted, and the conversation escalated into an argument. My boyfriend did not take a position, and he later said he “didn’t want to get involved” and that it had been “none of my business” to stick my neck out against the bigot. I believe that silence implies acceptance. Though there may not be a moral obligation to intervene, it still seems like the right thing to do. What is the moral principle behind this? Is it important enough to end a relationship over? How should I respond to an unwanted gift given by my in-laws? My in-laws often give me presents that I don’t much like – like frumpy boring sweaters and books I’ll never read. I thank them kindly for the present, but I’m not effusive in my praise. Recently, they gave me something really pretty inappropriate for me – on par with giving a bacon cookbook to a vegetarian. I wasn’t sure whether it was just clueless or hostile. How should I respond? How can I estimate the time required for work more accurately? I’m self-employed, and I’m routinely frustrated by my inability to estimate how much time a project will require of me. For example, I’ll think that a programming project will require two days, but by the time I’m done with all the little unexpected details, I’ve spent five days on it. How can I be more accurate in my estimates? Should I flirt with my friends? I tend to be physically reserved around my friends, not touching them or otherwise physically displaying affection. Should I try to be more expressive? What would be too much? Are some of my friends giving the wrong impression by being flirty with their friends? To submit a question, use this form. I prefer questions on some concrete real-life problem, as opposed to merely theoretical or political questions. I review and edit all questions before they’re posted. (Alas, IdeaInformer doesn’t display any kind of confirmation page when you submit a question.) Original entry: See link at top of this post

In Sunday morning's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll answer questions on knowing your biological parents, second-hand smoke, changing core beliefs with age, man the rational animal, and more with Greg Perkins. Don't miss this engaging hour-long discussion of the application rational principles to the challenges of real life! What: Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio Show Who: Dr. Diana Hsieh and Greg Perkins When: Sunday, 1 July 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live This week's questions are: Question 1: Knowing Your Biological Parents: Do adopted people have a right to know who their biological parents are? Some adopted people want to know their biological parents, and knowing one's family medical history could be important to a person. So does a person have a right to know his biological parents? If so, does that apply to children conceived with sperm or egg donors? Do parents giving children up for adoption or donating reproductive tissue have a right to privacy? Question 2: Second-hand Smoke: It is wrong to inflict second-hand smoke on other people? Although smoking is detrimental to a person's health, whether or not someone smokes is (or should be) a matter of his personal choice. However, what is the proper moral and legal status of "second-hand smoke"? If second-hand smoke contributes to the development of respiratory diseases or if others simply find it noxious, shouldn't people refrain from smoking in public or smoking around people who haven't consented to it? In a free society, would and should most workplaces ban smoking? Could second-hand smoke be considered a tort, such that the state should forbid smoking around people who object to it? Question 3: Changing Core Beliefs with Age: Why are older people less likely to change their core beliefs? Recently, I had a conversation with a long-time committed leftist who "blinked" when confronted with the fact that collectivism always fails, and it fails because the underlying theory is wrong in principle. Many people, particularly older people, are unwilling to reconsider their core views, however. As to the reason why, my hypothesis is that older people have significant sunk costs in their philosophy, such that they could not psychologically survive the realization that they were so wrong for so many decades. Is that right? If so, what can be done to help them change for the better, if anything? Question 4: Man the Rational Animal: What does it mean to say that "man is a rational animal"? The fact that man is a rational animal distinguishes him from all other living entities and makes the whole of philosophy possible and necessary. But, taking a step back, what does it mean to say that man is a (or the) rational animal? What is rationality, not as a virtue, but as the essential characteristic of man? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." If you attend the live show, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask me follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio recording of the whole episode, as well as individual questions, posted to the episode's archive page: Q&A Radio: 1 July 2012. From that page, you can post comments on the questions before or after the broadcast. I hope that you'll join us on Sunday morning! — Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) Philosophy In Action

In tonight's live broadcast of Philosophy in Action Advice Radio, I'll discuss "Parenting without Punishment" with Jenn Casey, Kelly Elmore, and live callers. How can parents set and enforce limits for their children without punishments or rewards? What are the benefits of that approach? What are the problems with parenting by punishments and rewards? What: Philosophy in Action Advice Radio Who: Dr. Diana Hsieh with Jenn Casey, Kelly Elmore, and live callers When: Wednesday, 27 June 2012 at 6 pm PT / 7 pm MT / 8 pm CT / 9 pm ET Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live If you attend the live show, you can share your experiences and ask questions by calling the show or via the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio recording of the whole episode, as well as individual questions, posted to the episode's archive page: Advice Radio: 27 June 2012. From that page, you can post comments on the questions before or after the broadcast. I hope that you'll join us tonight!

In Sunday morning's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll answer questions on corporal punishment of kids, parenting as a central purpose, compartmentalized cheating, faith in something greater than the self, and more with Greg Perkins. Don't miss this engaging hour-long discussion of the application rational principles to the challenges of real life! What: Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio Show Who: Dr. Diana Hsieh and Greg Perkins When: Sunday, 24 June 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live This week's questions are: Question 1: Corporal Punishment of Kids: Is corporal punishment of children ever proper? The raises the question of whether it's ever necessary or proper to physically discipline children. Does the age of the child matter, particularly given that you can't reason with younger children? Does the amount of force used matter? When does physical punishment violate the child's rights? Question 2: Parenting as a Central Purpose: Can parenting be a central purpose in life? Many people think that only a career can serve as a person's central purpose. They think that a central purpose must be remunerative, and that it can't be merely temporary. Is that right? Can parenting be a person's central purpose, even if only for a few years? Question 3: Compartmentalized Cheating: Is it true that, "if you cheat on your wife, you'll cheat on your business partner"? A few months ago, a Republican presidential candidate said of Newt Gingrich, "if you cheat on your wife, you'll cheat on your business partner." Leaving aside the specifics of any particular politician's personal life, is the broader principle accurate? If you knew that someone cheated on his wife, does that mean he should be regarded as an untrustworthy for a business partnership? Or as morally unfit to be your doctor? Or as unfit to be an elected official? Question 4: Faith in Something Greater than the Self: Doesn't everyone need to have faith in something greater than themselves? Most people have faith in something greater than themselves – whether God, their community, the state, the environment. Doesn't everyone need that, to help steer them in life? Or do you think that's unnecessary or even wrong? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." If you attend the live show, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask me follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio recording of the whole episode, as well as individual questions, posted to the episode's archive page: Q&A Radio: 24 June 2012. From that page, you can post comments on the questions before or after the broadcast. I hope that you'll join us on Sunday morning!

In this evening's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll discuss "Why Style Matters" with style consultant Miranda Barzey and live callers. What is style? Why should you care about your own personal style? How can you improve your wardrobe? What: Philosophy in Action Advice Radio Show Who: Dr. Diana Hsieh with Miranda Barzey and live callers When: Wednesday, 20 June 2012 at 6 pm PT / 7 pm MT / 8 pm CT / 9 pm ET Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live If you attend the live show, you can share your experiences and ask questions by calling the show or via the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio recording of the whole episode, as well as individual questions, posted to the episode's archive page: Advice Radio: 20 June 2012. From that page, you can post comments on the questions before or after the broadcast. Philosophy in Action Radio broadcasts live every Wednesday evening and Sunday morning. Take a peek at the Episodes on Tap for the scoop on upcoming shows! In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, newsletter, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Show Archives, where you can listen to any past episode or question. And visit the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming episodes. I hope that you'll join us tonight!

In Sunday morning's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll answer questions on objectively assessing yourself, friendships at work, keeping up with the news, child labor laws, and more. Don't miss this engaging hour-long discussion of the application rational principles to the challenges of real life! What: Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio Show Who: Dr. Diana Hsieh and Greg Perkins When: Sunday, 17 June 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live This week's questions are: Question 1: Objectively Assessing Yourself: How can a person objectively assess his own character? If a person has a good character, then he'll recognize that fact. But if a person has a bad character, then he'll probably deceive himself into thinking himself good. So it seems likely that every person will think that he has a good character, even when that's not true. So, is objective assessment of one's own character possible? If so, how? Question 2: Friendships at Work: Is it wrong to be friends with subordinates at work? Work is a place where you have a certain contractual and moral obligation to the company you work for to put the company's interests ahead. With workplace friendships, particularly with subordinates, this can lead to problematic situations, particularly in maintaining a sense of objectivity both to yourself and among your peers and subordinates. There are also problems with the friendship itself; items that you are not supposed to share with subordinates and big events in your friend's life (looking for another job, for example) that either put you in a rough situation or have to be left out of the friendship entirely. Is being friends with someone who is subordinate to you at work practical or moral? Question 3: Keeping Up with the News: Should I keep up with current affairs? As we know, most reporting is pretty bad. In print, and especially on the rolling 24-hour news channels. It's myopic, biased, and lacking in any principled coverage. The reporters are just clueless, and are like children pointing at all the pretty, crazy colors. But there must be some value in reading the paper, right? Or is it only for people in certain intellectual occupations, whose work involves commentary on the world today? I've not followed current affairs for the last few years myself, and I'm happy for it, but do just worry that I'm missing something. Question 4: Child Labor Laws: Should children be protected by child labor laws? Currently, federal and state governments restricts "child labor" in various ways. The US Department of Labor "restricts the hours that youth under 16 years of age can work and lists hazardous occupations too dangerous for young workers to perform." The goal is to "protect the educational opportunities of youth and prohibit their employment in jobs that are detrimental to their health and safety." Is this a proper function of government? Does it violate the rights of parents, children, and/or employers? If so, what's the harm done? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." If you attend the live show, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask me follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio recording of the whole episode, as well as individual questions, posted to the episode's archive page: Q&A Radio: 17 June 2012. From that page, you can post comments on the questions before or after the broadcast. I hope that you'll join us on Sunday morning!

In this evening's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll discuss "Morality without God" with live callers. Is objective morality possible or necessary without God? Can and should morality be based on observable facts? Join me for an engaging half-hour call-in show on the secular basis of morality! What: Philosophy in Action Advice Radio Show Who: Dr. Diana Hsieh with live callers When: Wednesday, 13 June 2012 at 6 pm PT / 7 pm MT / 8 pm CT / 9 pm ET Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live If you attend the live show, you can share your experiences and ask questions by calling the show or via the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio recording of the whole episode, as well as individual questions, posted to the episode's archive page: Advice Radio: 13 June 2012. From that page, you can post comments on the questions before or after the broadcast. Philosophy in Action Radio broadcasts live every Wednesday evening and Sunday morning. Take a peek at the Episodes on Tap for the scoop on upcoming shows! In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, newsletter, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Show Archives, where you can listen to any past episode or question. And visit the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming episodes. I hope that you'll join us tonight!

The Criminalization of Bad Mothers: The NY Times recently published an lengthy article entitled The Criminalization of Bad Mothers. It examines the criminal prosecutions of women for endangering or harming their fetus due to drug use under “chemical endangerment” laws: There have been approximately 60 chemical-endangerment prosecutions of new mothers in Alabama since 2006, the year the statute was enacted. Originally created to protect children from potentially explosive meth labs, Alabama’s chemical-endangerment law prohibits a “responsible person” from “exposing a child to an environment in which he or she . . . knowingly, recklessly or intentionally causes or permits a child to be exposed to, to ingest or inhale, or to have contact with a controlled substance, chemical substance or drug paraphernalia.” The law is being applied to pregnant women due to the efforts of “personhood” advocates, who seek to grant full legal rights to zygotes from the moment of fertilization. The result is not that fetuses are magically protected from harm. Instead, pregnant women are concealing their addictions to avoid prosecution, driving across state lines to give birth, and forcibly separated from the born children who depend on them. The stories are heartbreaking — and frustratingly complicated. That’s appalling, but it shouldn’t be surprising to anyone who has read Ari Armstrong’s and my policy paper, The ‘Personhood’ Movement Is Anti-Life. Original entry: See link at top of this post

In Sunday morning's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I will answer questions with Greg Perkins on staying objective, deliberately unhealthy choices, consuming celebrity news, refuting Marxist arguments, and more. Don't miss this engaging hour on the application rational principles to the challenges of real life! What: Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio Show Who: Dr. Diana Hsieh and Greg Perkins When: Sunday, 10 June 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live This week's questions are: Question 1: Staying Objective: How can a person be certain of his own objectivity? It's often difficult to stick to the facts in reasoning, and it's even harder to make sure that you're focused on all and only the relevant facts. How can a person know that he's being objective – as opposed to relying on unwarranted assumptions, ignoring relevant facts, or rationalizing what he wants to be true? Question 2: Deliberately Unhealthy Choices: Is it moral to smoke, drink, or eat unhealthy foods if one recognizes the costs of doing so? Suppose a friend makes a deliberate decision to eat foods he know to be unhealthy (such as frequent sugary desserts). He knows that it might harm his health, but he says that the personal enjoyment and satisfaction outweigh the risk of shortened lifespan and possible future harmful health effects. In other words, he claims he is making a rational choice to maximize his overall happiness. If he's truly weighed all the relevant factors without evading the consequences and makes an informed choice to eat those desserts – or engaging in similar unhealthy choices such as drinking or smoking to excess – can that be moral? Question 3: Consuming Celebrity News: Is consuming celebrity news self-destructive? Is there anything wrong with being interested in celebrities and entertainment news? Does "celebrity culture" foster destructive values in people? Question 4: Refuting Marxist Arguments: How can I effectively counter Marxist economic arguments? My family and friends often advocate Marxist economic ideas – for example, that wealth should be redistributed according to need, that corporations and corporate profits are evil, and that rich people have too much money. How can I best respond to these arguments? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." If you attend the live show, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask me follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio recording of the whole episode, as well as individual questions, posted to the episode's archive page: Q&A Radio: 10 June 2012. From that page, you can post comments on the questions before or after the broadcast. In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, newsletter, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Show Archives, where you can listen to any past episode or question. And visit the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming episodes. We hope to see you in the chat on Sunday morning!

In my live Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio on Sunday morning, I'll answer questions on disclosing atheism to babysitters, outing yourself to bigots, spousal sabotage, skipping advertisements, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we apply rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy, and free lives! I'll be broadcasting from ATLOSCon this week! What: Live Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) When: Sunday, 27 May 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com Here are this week's questions: Question 1: Disclosing Atheism to Babysitters: Should I mention we are atheists when interviewing babysitters? I am looking for a babysitter. The question is: How do I handle the fact that many of the candidates will be very very strong Christians? Should I bring up the fact we are atheists right away or would that be creating an issue when there could be none? I definitely have to set some boundaries like "No praying with my children," but what is the appropriate way to handle it? Question 2: Outing Yourself to Bigots: Am I obliged to disclose that I am gay if I know that the person then wouldn't wish to do business with me? Let's say that I have a job that I enjoy, but I find out that my boss does not like gay people and would refuse to hire or would fire anyone that she knew was gay. Somehow, she doesn't know that I am, in fact, gay. Should I tell her knowing that she would want to fire me – a decision that I think is wrong, but nonetheless something she should be free to do? Assume that in every other regard I enjoy my work and job, and sharing her discriminatory view is by no means a requirement for my work. Question 3: Spousal Sabotage: How can I stop my spouse from sabotaging my self-improvement? Over the course of my 15 years of marriage, I'd gained over 100 pounds. After feeling disgusted with myself for too long, I decided to change my habits. So I switched to a paleo-type diet and started lifting weights. So far, I've lost 40 pounds, as well as shed some health problems. My husband still eats what he pleases, and I don't pester him about that, although he needs to eat better too. However, he's constantly attempting to undermine my efforts – for example, by bringing home and encouraging me to eat doughnuts. I want him to celebrate and support my new-found success, but he seems to want me to be fat, unhealthy, and miserable. What should I do? Question 4: Skipping Advertisements: Is it wrong to skip over advertisements? Many people use plug-ins that block advertisements on web sites, and many more people skip advertisements on television by recording shows with a DVR. Is this moral? Is it a failure to act as a trader? After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Q&A Radio Archives, where you can listen to the full Q&A Radio or just selected questions from any past episode. And go to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming Q&A Radio episodes. I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

Breckenridge Brewery Versus Colorado: Breckenridge Brewery will take new brewery, jobs to East Coast: Breckenridge Brewery will look to build its new brewery on the East Coast, taking with it 50 to 75 jobs that otherwise would have been created in the Denver area, because of the Colorado Legislature’s failure to pass a bill that would have changed state law to allow it to expand, its president said Monday. Ed Cerkovnik said without House Bill 1347 — a bill that passed a House committee unanimously but that House leaders will allow to die without a vote this week because of opposition that mounted to it from several industries — the brewery cannot hold a license to operate several brewpubs at the same time it holds a license to operate a manufacturing plant that produces more than 60,000 barrels a year in Colorado. Gee thanks, Colorado! We wouldn’t want those jobs created in our state! Original entry: See link at top of this post