Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

dianahsieh

New Intellectual
  • Posts

    1850
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by dianahsieh

  1. On Sunday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on the nature of character, revenge porn, coming out as an atheist, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 1 March 2015, in our live studio. If you can't listen live, you'll find the podcast on the episode's archive page. This week's questions are: Question 1: The Nature of Character: What is the nature of character? What is meant by a person's "character"? Is that broader than moral character? What is the relationship between character, personality, and sense of life? Question 2: Revenge Porn: Should revenge porn be illegal? Apparently, it is increasingly common after a break-up for a person to share sexual pictures or videos of his/her former lover that were taken while in the relationship. Some people think that sharing sexual images intended to be kept private should be illegal, while others argue that such "revenge porn" is protected speech. Which view is right? Should the consent of all parties be required for the posting of sexual imagery? Question 3: Coming Out as an Atheist: How can I avoid coming out as an atheist to my boyfriend's parents? I'm gay and my boyfriend recently came out to his parents. They are older and pretty religious, but they are doing their best to be accepting of our relationship. However, my boyfriend says that they believe that I am changing him for the worse in that he has not been as communicative and open with them because he didn't come out to them sooner and has not been sharing the progression of our relationship with them. (The whole concept of being in the closet seems completely alien to them.) But they do know our relationship is serious, so they have invited us to spend the holidays with them in order to get to know me better. My boyfriend says that they will insist that we attend church with them and has asked that I not tell them that I'm atheist right away. I've explained to him that I am not going to lie about anything, but I am not sure how to remain true to my convictions without making things more difficult for my boyfriend and upsetting his parents. What are your suggestions for making the Christmas holidays pleasant while maintaining my integrity? 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. The podcast of this episode will be available shortly after the live broadcast here: Radio Archive: Q&A: Character, Revenge Porn, Atheism, and More. 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 for the live show or enjoy the podcast later. Also, 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 Thursday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.
  2. I’ve not yet updated the registration form for SnowCon 2015 with the more costly “late pricing,” and I won’t do so until tomorrow… so now’s your chance to save a few bucks, if you register pronto! Below are some more details. Visit the page for SnowCon 2015 to register. Registration for SnowCon 2015 — six days of snow sports, relaxation, discussion, and lectures in the snowy Colorado Rockies for fans of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism — is open! SnowCon will be held from Tuesday, March 17th to Sunday, March 22nd, based entirely in Frisco, Colorado. During the day, we’ll ski, snowboard, snowshoe, soak in the hot tubs, chat, and relax. In the evenings, we’ll dine together, play games, and listen to lectures, participate in discussions, and more. Early pricing is currently in effect until February 20th (or rather, the 24th), so it costs $60 for the whole conference (or $15 per day) so long as you register by then. To register, just fill out the form on the SnowCon 2015 page and then pay your registration fee. SnowCon welcomes all friendly people with a serious interest in or honest curiosity about Ayn Rand’s philosophy, regardless of their level of knowledge. Every person at SnowCon is expected to be respectful and considerate of others. A few notes: (1) You don’t need to ski or snowboard to enjoy SnowCon! You can go snowshoeing with Paul (which takes five minutes to learn), go tubing, ice skating, shopping, or whatever. (2) The only condo available was awfully small, and I’ve already filled its beds. Sorry! However, you can find hotels in Frisco here, and you can still join all the fun at the SnowCondo… you just have to sleep elsewhere. (If you share a room with someone, the cost won’t be any more than the SnowCondo.) (3) You don’t need to attend the whole of SnowCon. Locals are welcome to drive up just for the day, or you can stay for just a few days. (4) I’m looking for speakers interested in giving presentations! I’m planning on two 30-minute slots per evening. You can give a lecture with Q&A or lead a discussion. If you have a proposal, email me at [email protected] (5) If you’re coming from sea level, you might wish to get altitude pills (and start taking them a few days before you arrive). If you get altitude sickness, you’ll be miserable, and the only cure will be to get to a lower elevation. Again, for more details, including the schedule and registration, visit SnowCon 2015. If you even might attend SnowCon 2015, subscribe to the SnowCon e-mail list for SnowCon-related announcements. Link to Original
  3. I’ve been slightly appalled by the way that the debate over vaccination has proceeded of late — particularly in the belligerent peddling of misinformation and calls for government controls. (I’ve seen that on all sides, unfortunately.) Alas, that’s to be expected when sick kids are involved. In any case, because I’m answering a question on Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Radio about whether people have an obligation to vaccinate purely for the sake of herd immunity, I thought that I’d compile some links for reading in advance. A word of warning, first. As you’ll see, these links are from a variety of perspectives, and I’m not vouching for them. You shouldn’t assume that I agree with them. They’re just to help inform you about the debate. Mandatory vaccination is not the answer to measles: Some arguments against mandatory vaccination from a pediatrician who gives the MMR vaccine routinely, but recognizes its limits and risks. (This, I like.) Why Measles Outbreaks Terrify Me: A mom explains the risk that measles poses to her son due to his heart transplant. Don’t Vaccinate to Protect My Cancer Kid: A cancer mom explains why the unvaccinated aren’t the greatest risk to her kid suffering from leukemia. To the Parent of the Immunocompromised Child Who Thinks My Kid is a Threat: A mom argues that the unvaccinated don’t present a grave or unique risk to people who cannot be vaccinated. Growing Up Unvaccinated: A woman recounts her childhood of one illness after another, often preventable by vaccines. I Asked My Mom Why She Didn’t Vaccinate Me: An interesting personal story of a woman who wasn’t vaccinated. Five Things To Know About The Disneyland Measles Outbreak: An advocate of vaccination takes a look at the recent outbreak. Immunization Schedules and Statistics: About the current schedule of vaccination recommended by the CDC. Vaccination Schedules by Country: It’s a chart per country, so the comparison isn’t super-easy, unfortunately. National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Statistics Report: Vaccine manufacturers are immune from injury claims: any such claims are paid for by a federal government program. This is the report on claims and payouts. Over $3 billion has been paid out since 1989. Also, I answered a question about compulsory vaccination on the 3 August 2014 episode of Philosophy in Action Radio. If you’ve not yet heard it, you should listen to or download the relevant segment of the podcast before Sunday’s broadcast. It’s here: Duration: 31:22 Download: MP3 Segment For more details, check out the question’s archive page. And with that… see you on Sunday! Link to Original
  4. This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine): 11 Feb: Coverage But No Care in NJ, CA by Paul Hsieh Follow FIRM on Facebook and Twitter. This week on The Blog of Modern Paleo: 14 Feb: Philosophy Weekend: News from Philosophy in Action by Diana Hsieh 13 Feb: The Paleo Rodeo #248 by Diana Hsieh Follow Modern Paleo on Facebook and Twitter. Link to Original
  5. On Sunday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on developing resilience, nuisance limits for new technology, spouses sharing activities, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 15 February 2015, in our live studio. If you can't listen live, you'll find the podcast on the episode's archive page. This week's questions are: Question 1: Developing Resilience: Does developing resilience require enduring hardship? Many people assume that having faced great hardship is a necessary part of having resiliency – meaning: the ability to withstand great challenges in the future. These people think that if you have faced less-than-average hardship in your youth, that makes you soft, spoiled, pampered, and weak, and therefore ill-equipped to face challenges throughout your adulthood. As an extreme (but, sadly, real) example, I have a relative who insists to me, "All of the men I have met who attended private school are weak and naive. In their private schools, they were able to leave their belongings unattended without fear of their belongings being stolen. That's not the real world! By contrast, the public school we attended is the school of hard knocks that shows you the Real World. We remember, all too well, that when anyone left possessions unattended, the norm was for the possession to be stolen. That's Real Life. That builds character and gave me a thicker skin. That's why, when I have children, I will send them to public school to toughen them up. I refuse to raise privileged weaklings." I seethe and feel tempted to respond, "What if you got really drunk and beat up your children? Following the logic of your assumptions, wouldn't that toughen them up even further?" Why are these assumptions about hardship so prevalent? How can a person develop great discipline, stamina, and fortitude absent hardship and cruelty? What can be done to combat the idea that hardship in youth is necessary for strength and resilience as an adult? Question 2: Nuisance Limits for New Technology: How should nuisance limits be set for new technology? Often new technologies initially involve negative side effects, and sometimes those side effects impact even those who didn't choose to use the new technology. Here's an example: supersonic flight. Supersonic aircraft are generally noisier than slower aircraft – they lay down a sonic boom when they fly over. In the US, supersonic travel has been banned outright since the 1960s due to concerns about boom noise. There's technology to help quiet the aircraft, but no one knows how much "quiet" (and political muscle) it will take to reverse this ban – and as a result we're still trundling around at 1960s speeds. But this is only one example. Many other technologies (such as fossil fuels) initially have some physical impact even on those who choose not to adopt, until they advance sufficiently that the impact is immaterial. In a free society, how should these technologies be allowed to develop? What restrictions should be placed, and how? How does one objectively determine, for instance, how much noise pollution from aircraft or smoke from a train constitutes a rights violation? Question 3: Spouses Sharing Activities: Should spouses always share activities? A friend of mine is loathe to pursue any hobbies or interests that her husband doesn't share. He's not controlling: he's the same way. Although I know that they want to spend time together, that seems really limiting to me. Is that a reasonable policy in a marriage – or does it lead to self-sacrifice and mutual resentment? 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. The podcast of this episode will be available shortly after the live broadcast here: Radio Archive: Q&A: Resilience, Nuisances, Sharing Activities, and More. 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 for the live show or enjoy the podcast later. Also, 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 Thursday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.
  6. On Sunday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on egoism and altruism, changing jobs quickly, the morality of boycotts, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 8 February 2015, in our live studio. If you can't listen live, you'll find the podcast on the episode's archive page. This week's questions are: Question 1: Egoism and Altruism: Are egoism and altruism mutually exclusive? Most people have a common-sense view of ethics. They think that a person should spend lots of time pursuing his own goals and happiness. They also think that a person should sometimes set aside such pursuits to help others. Basically, on this view, a person can be an egoist and an altruist, and that he should be a little of both. Yet I've heard that egoism and altruism are two wholly incompatible moral theories too. So what's right or wrong about the common-sense view? Question 2: Changing Jobs Quickly: Is it immoral or unwise to accept a better job soon after starting a different one? I am ready to change jobs. I could probably move to another role within my company pretty quickly and easily and continue to move my career forward, but I could make more money and get better experience outside of my company. Outside job hunts can be lengthy and full of disappointments and all the while I would have to work at a job that is, frankly, killing my soul. I think it's pretty clear that – if I accept a new job in my company and immediately turn around and give notice to go somewhere else – I run a high risk of burning bridges with key contacts at my current company. But would it be unethical in some way to do that? When you accept a job are you making a tacit promise to work there for some period of time? If so, what's the minimum amount of time? Question 3: The Morality of Boycotts: It is moral to advocate for the boycott of a business? Over the holidays, my brother and I discussed cases in which businesses are compelled by government to provide services against their will. For example, the Colorado courts demanded that a bakery make cakes for gay couples or face fines. We agreed that the business should be left free to operate as they see fit, absent violating anyone's actual rights, and reap the rewards or penalties from their choice. Where we diverged was on the moral status of the business owner and whether the bakery deserved to be boycotted. In my view, the decision of the owner of the Colorado bakery was immoral: they were being irrational, discriminating by non-essentials. My brother disagreed. Moreover, my brother opposed any advocacy of a boycott, seeing this as a call for force to be applied against the owner. This would be wrong, in his view, but he would be fine with suggesting that people patronize a different store. Ultimately, I found that I could not adequately explain why I think people might actively and openly oppose wrong acts by businesses, even if those acts don't violate rights. So what justifies such boycotts, if anything? 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. The podcast of this episode will be available shortly after the live broadcast here: Radio Archive: Q&A: Egoism and Altruism, Changing Jobs, Boycotts, and More. 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 for the live show or enjoy the podcast later. Also, 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 Thursday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.
  7. My latest piece for PJ Media, “Herd Immunity Applies to Guns as Well as Vaccinations“: The medical theory of “herd immunity” posits that enough vaccinated individuals in a population can reduce the risk of contracting a disease — even for those who aren’t vaccinated. From the experience in Illinois and around the country, a relatively small number of armed people can similarly reduce the risk of crime — even for those who aren’t armed. The “payoff” may be even better for gun ownership than vaccination. In the case of Illinois, even a relatively small 1% of people with new concealed carry licenses has resulted in a dramatic decrease in violent crime rates. For more details, read the full text of “Herd Immunity Applies to Guns as Well as Vaccinations“. Link to Original
  8. On Thursday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on all sorts of topics from the Rapid Fire Queue. This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Thursday, 29 January 2015, in our live studio. If you can't listen live, you'll find the podcast on the episode's archive page. 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. The podcast of this episode will be available shortly after the live broadcast here: Radio Archive: Q&A: Rapid Fire Extravaganza. 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 for the live show or enjoy the podcast later. Also, 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 Thursday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.
  9. My latest Forbes piece is now out, “Does Your Right To Life Include The Right To Die?” I discuss the revived debate over physician-assisted suicide, especially in the wake of Brittany Maynard’s decision to end her life following a diagnosis of terminal brain cancer. This issue is being debated in several state legislatures, including New Jersey and California, so we will be hearing much more about this in coming months. I recognize that this is a controversial topic and that good physicians can disagree on this issue. Nonetheless, I believe this should be a legal option for patients, provided that there are appropriate safeguard to protect both the patient and the physician. In my piece I cover three main subpoints: 1) Your life is your own. 2) The state has a legitimate (even vital) role to play in assisted suicide. 3) Physicians must not be required to participate For more details, please read the full text of “Does Your Right To Life Include The Right To Die?” (Much of this material is drawn from the recent Philosophy In Action podcast by Diana and co-host Greg Perkins in their 1/18/2015 segment, “The Right To Die“.) (Photo: Brittany Maynard by Allie Hoffman; Creative Commons Attribution – Share Alike) Link to Original
  10. On Sunday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on the regulation of ultrahazardous activities, declining gift solicitations, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 25 January 2015, in our live studio. If you can't listen live, you'll find the podcast on the episode's archive page. This week's questions are: Question 1: The Regulation of Ultrahazardous Activities: Would the government of a free society issue bans/regulations to prevent harmful activity? At the turn of the 20th century it was common to use cyanide gas to fumigate buildings. Although it was well-known that cyanide gas was extremely poisonous and alternatives were available, its use continued and resulted in a number of accidental deaths due to the gas traveling through cracks in walls and even in plumbing. With the development of better toxicology practices, these deaths were more frequently recognized for what they were and at the end of summer in 1825 the NYC government banned its use. In this and other situations, it was recognized that the substance in question was extremely poisonous and could only be handled with the most extreme care – care that was rarely demonstrated. The question is this: Should the government step in and ban the substance from general use or should it simply stand by and wait for people to die and prosecute the users for manslaughter. Or is there another option? Question 2: Declining Gift Solicitations: How can I refuse solicitations for gifts for co-workers? I work in a department of about thirty people. In the past few months, we have been asked to contribute money to buy gifts for co-workers – for engagements, baby showers, bereavement flowers, and Christmas gifts for the department chair, administrative assistants, housekeeping staff, and lab manager. Generally these requests are made by e-mail, and I can see from the "reply all" messages that everyone else contributes. Often these donations add up to a large amount ($10-20 each time). I do not wish to take part, but am worried that since I am a newer employee my lack of participation will be interpreted negatively. What can I do? 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. The podcast of this episode will be available shortly after the live broadcast here: Radio Archive: Q&A: Ultrahazardous Activities, Declining Gift Solicitations, and More. 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 for the live show or enjoy the podcast later. Also, 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 Thursday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.
  11. This news doesn’t surprise me… but I wish I’d predicted it! From Once, Same-Sex Couples Couldn’t Wed; Now, Some Employers Say They Must: Until recently, same-sex couples could not legally marry. Now, some are finding they must wed if they want to keep their partner’s job-based health insurance and other benefits. With same-sex marriage now legal in 35 states and the District of Columbia, some employers that formerly covered domestic partners say they will require marriage licenses for workers who want those perks. “We’re bringing our benefits in line, making them consistent with what we do for everyone else,” said Ray McConville, a spokesman for Verizon, which notified non-union employees in July that domestic partners in states where same-sex marriage is legal must wed if they want to qualify for such benefits. Employers making the changes say that since couples now have the legal right to marry, they no longer need to provide an alternative. Such rule changes could also apply to opposite-sex partners covered under domestic partner arrangements. The news doesn’t surprise me because it confirms my long-held view that companies offering benefits to unmarried people living together was largely a way to provide benefits to same-sex couples. And that’s part of why I think that conservatives have done more to devalue marriage than anyone else in recent decades. By opposing gay marriage, they encouraged people to view living together as basically the same as marriage. But… it’s not. If you want to know why I think that, take a listen to this question about the value of marriage from the 17 February 2013 episode of Philosophy in Action Radio. The question asked: 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? You can listen to or download the relevant segment of the podcast here: Duration: 17:47 Download: MP3 Segment For more details, check out the question’s archive page. The full episode – where I answered questions on the value of marriage, antibiotic resistance in a free society, concern for attractiveness to others, semi-automatic handguns versus revolvers, and more – is available as a podcast too. Link to Original
  12. I’m pleased to open registration for SnowCon 2015 – six days of snow sports, relaxation, discussion, and lectures in the snowy Colorado Rockies for fans of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism! SnowCon will be held from Tuesday, March 17th to Sunday, March 22th, based entirely in Frisco, Colorado. During the day, we’ll ski, snowboard, snowshoe, soak in the hot tubs, chat, and relax. In the evenings, we’ll dine together, play games, and listen to lectures, participate in discussions, and more. Early pricing is currently in effect until February 15th, so it costs $60 for the whole conference (or $15 per day) so long as you register by February 15th. To register, just fill out the form on the SnowCon 2015 page and then pay your registration fee. SnowCon welcomes all friendly people with a serious interest in or honest curiosity about Ayn Rand’s philosophy, regardless of their level of knowledge. Every person at SnowCon is expected to be respectful and considerate of others. A few notes: (1) You don’t need to ski or snowboard to enjoy SnowCon! You can go snowshoeing with Paul (which takes five minutes to learn), go tubing, ice skating, shopping, or whatever. (2) The only condo available was awfully small, and I’ve already filled its beds. Sorry! However, you can find hotels in Frisco here, and you can still join all the fun at the SnowCondo… you just have to sleep elsewhere. (If you share a room with someone, the cost won’t be any more than the SnowCondo.) (3) You don’t need to attend the whole of SnowCon. Locals are welcome to drive up just for the day, or you can stay for just a few days. (4) I’m looking for speakers interested in giving presentations! I’m planning on two 30-minute slots per evening. You can give a lecture with Q&A or lead a discussion. If you have a proposal, email me at [email protected] (5) If you’re coming from sea level, you might wish to get altitude pills (and start taking them a few days before you arrive). If you get altitude sickness, you’ll be miserable, and the only cure will be to get to a lower elevation. Again, for more details, including the schedule and registration, visit SnowCon 2015. If you even might attend SnowCon 2015, subscribe to the SnowCon e-mail list for SnowCon-related announcements. Link to Original
  13. On Sunday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on the right to die, marriage without love, creating art, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 18 January 2015, in our live studio. If you can't listen live, you'll find the podcast on the episode's archive page. This week's questions are: Question 1: The Right to Die: Should a person who does not wish to live be forcibly prevented from committing suicide? John doesn't like living. He finds no joy in life, and only lives because it would upset other people if he ended his life. He has tried counseling and medication, but he simply has no desire to continue to live. He makes no real contribution to society, nor does he wish to be a part of society. If John wants to die, he can, but the state will attempt to stop him at every turn, even to the point of incarceration. Is there a point when the law (and other people) should simply respect his wishes and allow him to end his life – or perhaps even assist him in doing so? Question 2: Marriage without Love: Should people who merely like and respect each other ever marry? Imagine that a person doesn't think that he'll ever find true and deep love – perhaps for good reason. In that case, is it wrong to marry someone you enjoy, value, like, and respect – even if you don't love that person? What factors might make a decision reasonable, if any? Should the other person know about the lack of depth in your feelings? Question 3: Creating Art: Is creating art necessary for a moral life? Since material values are a human need, independence requires that human beings engage in productive activity. Can the same logic be applied to art? Since art is a human need, does independence require human beings to be artistically creative? Would someone who enjoys art without producing any be an "aesthetic moocher"? 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. The podcast of this episode will be available shortly after the live broadcast here: Radio Archive: Q&A: Right to Die, Marriage without Love, Creating Art, and More. 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 for the live show or enjoy the podcast later. Also, 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 Thursday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.
  14. On Facebook, Paul said, “It’s easy to support free speech when you agree with the speaker. The real test is whether you support free speech even when you find the speaker’s views truly offensive (Holocaust deniers, Confederate flag displays, etc.)” He linked to Wikipedia on Laws against Holocaust denial. Paul Sherman of the Institute for Justice replied as follows, and I think it bears repeating: I am, of course, a strong believer that even offensive speech is entitled to First Amendment protection. But at least here in America we should not be fooled into thinking that that is the biggest free speech fight. It tends to get a lot of press but, as a matter of First Amendment law, that battle has largely been won. In just the last five years the Supreme Court has upheld the right to sell violent video games to minors, the right to stage offensive protests at funerals, the right to sell depictions of animal cruelty, and the right to lie about having received military honors. None of these were 5-4 decisions. So from a constitutional standpoint, whether to protect offensive speech is increasingly seen as an easy issue. If you want to see close, bitterly divided opinions from the Court and widespread opposition to free speech from the media and the public, don’t look for cases involving offensive speech, look for cases where the speech is simply persuasive and effective. Tons of people who are happy to let Nazis march through a community of Holocaust survivors (where they are unlikely to persuade anyone to join the Nazi party) are also happy to prohibit corporations from running political ads (which may persuade lots of people). As it happens, I interviewed Paul Sherman on this very topic of free speech in elections on the 9 January 2013 episode of Philosophy in Action Radio. If you’ve not yet heard it, you can listen to or download the podcast here: Duration: 59:19 Download: Standard MP3 File (20.4 MB) For more details, check out the episode’s archive page. Link to Original
  15. On Thursday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll chat about "Responsibility & Luck, Chapter Six" with listeners. This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Thursday, 15 January 2015, in our live studio. If you can't listen live, you'll find the podcast on the episode's archive page. Can an Aristotelian theory of moral responsibility solve the problem of moral luck? In particular, how does the theory of responsibility for actions handle the proposed cases of "circumstantial moral luck"? I will answer these questions and more in this discussion of Chapter Six of my book, Responsibility & Luck: A Defense of Praise and Blame. 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 follow-up questions in the text chat. The podcast of this episode will be available shortly after the live broadcast here: Radio Archive: Chat on Responsibility & Luck, Chapter Six. 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 for the live show or enjoy the podcast later. Also, 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 Thursday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.
  16. I’m delighted to announce that the kindle ebook version of my book Responsibility & Luck: A Defense of Praise and Blame will be on sale for half price — just $4.99 — later this week. The sale will run from January 15th (starting at 1 am PT) to January 16th (ending at 11 pm PT). Here’s a bit about the book: Does the pervasive influence of luck in life mean that people cannot be held responsible for their choices? Do people lack the control required to justify moral praise and blame? In his famous article “ Moral Luck,” philosopher Thomas Nagel casts doubt on our ordinary moral judgments of persons. He claims that we intuitively accept that moral responsibility requires control, yet we praise and blame people for their actions, the outcomes of those actions, and their characters — even though shaped by forces beyond their control, i.e., by luck. This is the “problem of moral luck.” Philosopher Diana Hsieh argues that this attack on moral judgment rests on a faulty view of control, as well as other errors. By developing Aristotle’s theory of moral responsibility, Hsieh explains the sources and limits of a person’s responsibility for what he does, what he produces, and who he is. Ultimately, she shows that moral judgments are not undermined by luck. In addition, this book explores the nature of moral agency and free will, the purpose of moral judgment, causation in tort and criminal law, the process of character development, and more. If you want to learn more about the book, check out its web page: Responsibility & Luck: A Defense of Praise and Blame. That page has links to free preview chapters, as well as chapter-by-chapter podcast discussions. Remember to buy the kindle ebook on January 15th or January 16th to get it for half price — just $4.99! (Don’t worry… I’ll post a reminder!) Link to Original
  17. On Sunday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Arthur Zey and I will answer questions on the importance of credibility, third party payments in medicine, insulting with racial epithets, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 11 January 2015, in our live studio. If you can't listen live, you'll find the podcast on the episode's archive page. This week's questions are: Question 1: The Importance of Credibility: Should a person's credibility matter in judging his empirical claims? Is it rational to use a person's track record – meaning the frequency or consistency of truth in his past statements – in judging the likely truth of his current statements? In "Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics," Tara Smith explains that to believe something just because someone said it is a violation of the virtue of independence. Also, to judge an argument by the speaker is known as the fallacy of "ad hominem." However, doesn't the character of the speaker matter when considering whether to believe his claims? For example, when Thomas Sowell makes an empirical claim, my knowledge that he vigorously tests his hypotheses against the facts makes me more likely to judge his claim as true, even before I've confirmed his statement. Likewise, if a person is frequently wrong in his factual claims, I'd be sure to require lots of evidence before believing him. Is that rational? Or should all factual claims be treated equally regardless of who makes them? Question 2: Third Party Payments in Medicine: What should be done about third party payments in medicine? I was fascinated by your statement in your November 7th, 2012 discussion of the election that the real need in medicine was to do away with third party payments. It's quite a radical proposal, one of the most radical I've heard from you. How would you think such a think might be implemented through ethically proper means – as opposed to measures such as legally prohibiting third party payments? Are there types of medical care – perhaps catastrophe illness or injury – where third party payment would need to be kept in place, or where people in a free economy would likely still choose to keep them in place? Question 3: Insulting with Racial Epithets: Is it wrong to use racist epithets to insult the truly evil? A now-former Facebook friend used a racist epithet in reference to Islamic terrorists. I asked him if he understood that it was a racist term and he said he did and said that he used it on purpose to insult those evil-doers because they are so evilly evil that they deserve not even a little respect. I told him he was wrong because race is not the same as ideology and that I can't find any justification for racism, so I un-friended him. I agree that Islamic terrorists are evil, but is it morally okay to be a racist toward evil people? 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. The podcast of this episode will be available shortly after the live broadcast here: Radio Archive: Q&A: Credibility, Third Party Payments, Racial Insults, and More. 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 for the live show or enjoy the podcast later. Also, 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 Thursday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.
  18. On Sunday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on the regulation of ultrahazardous activities, participating in superstitious rituals, punishing yourself, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 4 January 2015, in our live studio. If you can't listen live, you'll find the podcast on the episode's archive page. This week's questions are: Question 1: The Regulation of Ultrahazardous Activities: Would an ideal government issue bans/regulations to prevent harmful activity? At the turn of the 20th century it was common to use cyanide gas to fumigate buildings. Although it was well-known that cyanide gas was extremely poisonous and alternatives were available, its use continued and resulted in a number of accidental deaths due to the gas traveling through cracks in walls and even in plumbing. With the development of better toxicology practices, these deaths were more frequently recognized for what they were and at the end of summer in 1825 the NYC government banned its use. In this and other situations, it was recognized that the substance in question was extremely poisonous and could only be handled with the most extreme care – care that was rarely demonstrated. The question is this: Should the government step in and ban the substance from general use or should it simply stand by and wait for people to die and prosecute the users for manslaughter. Or is there another option? Question 2: Participating in Superstitious Rituals: Is it wrong to participate in superstitious rituals without taking them seriously? If I make some perfunctory observance or participation in some superstitious ritual, and do not believe the superstitious ritual is of any literal importance, am I still promoting irrationality? If I regularly read the horoscope in the newspaper, but do not believe astrology has any real impact on my life, does reading the horoscope promote irrationality? Likewise, in Hawaii, almost all retail establishments possess what are called "good-luck cats." A good-luck cat is a relatively inexpensive Asian figurine depicting a cat with one paw raised. Having this figurine is supposed to bring good luck to your business. You can commonly see such good-luck cat figurines in doctor's offices in Honolulu, and for your retail establishment not to have such a figurine would easily strike people as strange. If I spent just a little money on such a good-luck cat to decorate my business, and I didn't literally believe the figurine itself affected my fortunes, would the purchase be a concession to irrational thinking? Would such a gesture be "social proof" that would help other people rationalize more obviously pathological forms of irrationality, such as wasting hundreds of dollars on fortune tellers and psychic hotlines? Question 3: Punishing Yourself: Should a person punish herself for wrongdoing by depriving herself of a value? A friend of mine destroyed her phone in a fit of anger over a difficult situation that wasn't her fault. Now my friend feels guilty about her outburst. She thinks that she doesn't deserve to properly replace her phone, as that would reward her irrational outburst. She wants to either buy a cheap phone or go without a phone for a while. That seems needlessly self-destructive. How can I explain to her that she really ought to replace her phone? 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. The podcast of this episode will be available shortly after the live broadcast here: Radio Archive: Q&A: Ultrahazardous Activities, Superstitious Rituals, Punishing Yourself, and More. 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 for the live show or enjoy the podcast later. Also, 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 Thursday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.
  19. As 2014 draws to a close, I’d like to ask fans of Philosophy in Action Radio for a small favor of a few sentences: Please help me spread the word about the show by rating and reviewing the podcast in iTunes. To submit a review, you’ll need to be in the iTunes app. (I don’t see any way to submit a review from the web site.) From the podcast’s web pages (linked below), click on the blue “view in iTunes” button under the podcast image on the web page. (If that doesn’t work, just search for “Philosophy in Action” in iTunes, and look for the versions marked “MP3″ and “M4A”.) Once on the correct page in iTunes, click on “Ratings and Reviews” under the podcast title, and then “Write a review”. Then write away! Please review both the Enhanced M4A Format and the Standard MP3 Format. The content is the same: the only difference is the file type. Here are some of the reviews posted since I last made this request: Thank you for those… and for all the others! Just a sentence or two or three is much appreciated! Link to Original
  20. On Sunday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on extremism versus consistency, overcoming lethargy, punishing yourself, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 28 December 2014, in our live studio. If you can't listen live, you'll find the podcast on the episode's archive page. This week's questions are: Question 1: Extremism Versus Consistency: What's the difference between consistency and extremism? I'm often called an "extremist" for my views – in my view, because I'm very consistent and refuse to compromise. Religious people are often called extremists too, yet that's really only consistency with their scripture. So how does "extremism" differ from consistency, if at all? Question 2: Overcoming Lethargy: How can I motivate myself to act to further my goals despite my overwhelming lethargy? I struggle with motivating myself to do what I know I should. I'm not inclined to do wrong, but I just find it hard to act to further my goals in life. I'm 26 and I live with my dad while I (slowly) finish my degree. I want to become financially independent and move out on my own, but I struggle with the normal, necessary daily habits required to get this done. For example, my dad wants me to do more house chores, and I can see how this is a fair thing to ask, given that he works two jobs to support both of us. However, when I think about all the things I should be doing a wave of lethargy overcomes me. It's the same story when I think about the homework I need to do, which isn't even very hard to do. Job searching and trying to build my resume are also on my mind, but I can't seem to get motivated to do that either. I have implemented GTD, but obviously once it comes to actually carrying out all of the plans, I can get a good burst of motivation for a short while, but then something doesn't go my way, and the lethargy hits me again. Both of my parents have clinical depression and anxiety problems, and I have seen first hand how it has affected their lives. I have spent most of my life combating depression and anxiety. I can always summon up a good mood for myself – sometimes by evading the pressure of my responsibilities, which is not good – and when I feel anxiety I am able to calm myself down by introspecting and thinking through it. So I know that I have the tools to solve problems in my life and achieve my goals, but self awareness has only gotten me so far. What can I do to raise my motivation and keep it up? How do I overcome the tendency to procrastinate and ignore my responsibilities? How do I put my philosophy into action? Question 3: Punishing Yourself: Should a person punish herself for wrongdoing by depriving herself of a value? A friend of mine destroyed her phone in a fit of anger over a difficult situation that wasn't her fault. Now my friend feels guilty about her outburst. She thinks that she doesn't deserve to properly replace her phone, as that would reward her irrational outburst. She wants to either buy a cheap phone or go without a phone for a while. That seems needlessly self-destructive. How can I explain to her that she really ought to replace her phone? 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. The podcast of this episode will be available shortly after the live broadcast here: Radio Archive: Q&A: Extremism, Overcoming Lethargy, Punishing Yourself, and More. 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 for the live show or enjoy the podcast later. Also, 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 Thursday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.
  21. Merry Christmas, folks! Celebrate by watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9P20HuX7mo! Why? Because it’s the Age of the Internet, that’s why! Also, watch these girls freaking out upon getting a pony for Christmas. Link to Original
  22. On Sunday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on the relationship between philosophy and science, marriage without love, participating in superstitious rituals, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 21 December 2014, in our live studio. If you can't listen live, you'll find the podcast on the episode's archive page. This week's questions are: Question 1: The Relationship Between Philosophy and Science: What is the proper relationship between philosophy and science? People commonly assert that science proves that the traditional claims of philosophy are wrong. For example, they'll say that quantum mechanics proves that objective reality and causality are just myths and that psychology experiments disprove free will. In contrast, other people claim that philosophy is so fundamental that if any claims of science contradict philosophical principles, then the science must be discarded as false. Hence, for example, they say that homosexuality cannot possibly be genetic, whatever science says, since philosophy tells us that people are born "tabula rasa," including without any knowledge of "male" versus "female." So what is the proper view of the relationship between philosophy and the sciences? Does either have a veto power over the other? Is science based on philosophy or vice versa? Question 2: Marriage without Love: Should people who merely like and respect each other ever marry? Imagine that a person doesn't think that he'll ever find true and deep love – perhaps for good reason. In that case, is it wrong to marry someone you enjoy, value, like, and respect – even if you don't love that person? What factors might make a decision reasonable, if any? Should the other person know about the lack of depth in your feelings? Question 3: Participating in Superstitious Rituals: Is it wrong to participate in superstitious rituals without taking them seriously? If I make some perfunctory observance or participation in some superstitious ritual, and do not believe the superstitious ritual is of any literal importance, am I still promoting irrationality? If I regularly read the horoscope in the newspaper, but do not believe astrology has any real impact on my life, does reading the horoscope promote irrationality? Likewise, in Hawaii, almost all retail establishments possess what are called "good-luck cats." A good-luck cat is a relatively inexpensive Asian figurine depicting a cat with one paw raised. Having this figurine is supposed to bring good luck to your business. You can commonly see such good-luck cat figurines in doctor's offices in Honolulu, and for your retail establishment not to have such a figurine would easily strike people as strange. If I spent just a little money on such a good-luck cat to decorate my business, and I didn't literally believe the figurine itself affected my fortunes, would the purchase be a concession to irrational thinking? Would such a gesture be "social proof" that would help other people rationalize more obviously pathological forms of irrationality, such as wasting hundreds of dollars on fortune tellers and psychic hotlines? 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. The podcast of this episode will be available shortly after the live broadcast here: Radio Archive: Q&A: Philosophy and Science, Marriage without Love, Superstitious Rituals, and More. 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 for the live show or enjoy the podcast later. Also, 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 Thursday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.
  23. On Thursday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I interviewed Dr. Paul Hsieh about “Radiology in Practice.” 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: Paul Hsieh on Radiology in Practice Most people have seen cool medical imaging devices such as CT and MRI scanners on TV shows. But what do those machines really do? Advanced medical imaging has revolutionized patient care in the past 25 years, allowing doctors to make diagnoses more accurately, quickly, and safely than ever before. Radiologist Dr. Paul Hsieh discussed the basics of modern radiology (x-rays, MRI, ultrasound, and nuclear medicine), how these different tests work, what they show about the human body, and how they help doctors take better care of patients. Dr. Paul Hsieh is a radiologist in practice in South Denver. He received his MD from the University of Michigan, then completed a residency in diagnostic radiology at Washington University in St. Louis, and an MRI fellowship at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. Prior to entering private practice, he was an Assistant Professor of Radiology at Washington University School of Medicine. He is the co-founder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM). He has written scores of columns, mostly on health care policy, as well as articles for The Objective Standard. He blogs offbeat tech news at GeekPress. Listen or Download: Duration: 1:17:28 Download: Standard MP3 File (44.3 MB) Topics: About radiology The different imaging modalities X-rays CAT Scans MRI Scans Ultrasound Nuclear Medicine PET Scans Interventional Radiology Radiation dangers Medical education Access to the radiologist Specialization in radiology Paul’s work Paul’s choice of radiology Links: PowerPoint Slides New England Journal of Medicine: A Randomized Trial of Intraarterial Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke New York Times: For First Time, Treatment Helps Patients With Worst Kind of Stroke Wall Street Journal: Stents Boost Stroke Recovery, Study Finds Tags: Health, Medicine, Science, Technology 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 Thursday 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
  24. On Thursday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll interview Dr. Paul Hsieh about "Radiology in Practice." This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Thursday, 18 December 2014, in our live studio. If you can't listen live, you'll find the podcast on the episode's archive page. Most people have seen cool medical imaging devices such as CT and MRI scanners on TV shows. But what do those machines really do? Advanced medical imaging has revolutionized patient care in the past 25 years, allowing doctors to make diagnoses more accurately, quickly, and safely than ever before. Radiologist Paul Hsieh will discuss the basics of modern radiology (x-rays, MRI, ultrasound, and nuclear medicine), how these different tests work, what they show about the human body, and how they help doctors take better care of patients. Dr. Paul Hsieh is a radiologist in practice in South Denver. He is the co-founder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM). He has written scores of columns, mostly on health care policy, as well as articles for The Objective Standard. He blogs offbeat tech news at GeekPress. 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. The podcast of this episode will be available shortly after the live broadcast here: Radio Archive: Paul Hsieh on Radiology in Practice. 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 for the live show or enjoy the podcast later. Also, 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 Thursday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.
  25. This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine): 8 Dec: Barnett on How to Finally Kill Obamacare by Paul Hsieh Follow FIRM on Facebook and Twitter. This week on The Blog of The Objective Standard: 14 Dec: Alex Epstein’s The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels: A High-Test Success by Ari Armstrong 13 Dec: Eric Garner’s Death Highlights the Need to Repeal Illegitimate Laws by Stuart K. Hayashi 11 Dec: Answering Objections to Assisted Suicide Laws by Ari Armstrong 10 Dec: The Government’s Renewed Assault on Private-Sector Colleges by Michael A. LaFerrara Follow The Objective Standard on Facebook and Twitter. This week on The Blog of Modern Paleo: 13 Dec: Philosophy Weekend: News from Philosophy in Action by Diana Hsieh 12 Dec: The Paleo Rodeo #240 by Diana Hsieh Follow Modern Paleo on Facebook and Twitter. Link to Original
×
×
  • Create New...