dianahsieh

On Wednesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll interview hedge fund trader Jonathan Hoenig about "Common Fallacies about Financial Markets." This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Wednesday, 24 July 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. Financial markets are often vilified – and misunderstood. How do financial markets work? What impact do they have on the economy? Are they dangerous – or beneficial? Jonathan Hoenig will explain the errors behind many common myths and fallacies about financial markets. Jonathan Hoenig is portfolio manager at Capitalistpig Hedge Fund LLC. He appears regularly on Fox News. To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Jonathan Hoenig on Common Fallacies about Financial Markets. It will be posted on Thursday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Wednesday evening... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in this topic! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on the "marginal humans" argument, sex when not in the mood, responding to polite homophobes, romanticizing historical figures in art, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 21 July 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. This week's questions are: Question 1: The "Marginal Humans" Argument: What's wrong with the "marginal humans" argument against uniquely human rights? Ayn Rand, following Aristotle, defined man as the rational animal – meaning that man's essential quality is that he possesses the faculty of reason, while other animals do not. Such is the basis for rights, in her view. Opponents of animal rights often appeal to this gap between humans and other animals to justify raising animals to be killed and eaten. They claim that animals can't have rights because they're not rational. Advocates of animal rights, however, often attempt to refute this claim via the "marginal humans" argument. They observe that human infants lack the faculty of reason, and hence, we should not use rationality as the moral criterion for rights. What is wrong with this argument? Do opponents of animal rights conflate potential with actual rationality, in that the infant seems potentially but not actually capable of reason? Question 2: Sex When Not in the Mood: Is it wrong to have sex when you're not in the mood? Assume that you're in a long-term romantic relationship with another person. You will not always going to feel the desire to have sex. If your lover wants sex, is it wrong to do so? Might you have sex anyway, perhaps because you want to do something nice for your lover – perhaps in the hope that your lover might do the same for you later? Many people seem uncomfortable with sex under those circumstances, i.e. absent a strong physical desire. Some claim that if you're truly in love, then your physical desires will fall into line. Hence, if you don't want to have sex, you might not really be in love – or you might have other philosophical or psychological problems. Others think that having sex even if not in the mood isn't right: it's degrading and might lead to resentment. Which of these views is right? Question 3: Responding to Polite Homophobes: How should I respond to people who think that homosexuality is an immoral or neurotic choice? I'm straight, but I have many gay friends. From years of experience, I know that they're virtuous and rational people. Moreover, their romantic relationships are not fundamentally different from mine. Also, I'm a strong believer in gay rights, including gay marriage. So what should I do when confronted with seemingly decent people who think that homosexuality is an immoral choice, based in neurosis, or otherwise unhealthy? These people often present their ideas in polite and seemingly respectable ways; they're not just flaming bigots. Yet still I find them appalling, particularly when used to justify denying rights to gays. Should I be more tolerant of such views? How should I express my disagreement? Question 4: Romanticizing Historical Figures in Art: Are there moral limits to romanticizing historical figures in art? For example, a writer might romanticize Robin Hood as the Ragnar Danneskjöld of the Middle Ages. If this is proper, is there an ethical limit as to what kinds of persons one may or may not romanticize, or as to how far one may stretch the historic truth? For example, does it matter if there are still contemporaries of that historic person alive who suffered unjustly because of them? Would it be wrong to ignore the unpleasant facts in order to present a fictionalized heroic character? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Q&A: Marginal Humans, Wanting Sex, Polite Homophobes, and More. It will be posted on Monday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Sunday morning... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

On Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I’ll discuss the “marginal humans” argument against uniquely human rights. The nature of that argument is a bit confusing. So to help you wrap your head around it, I thought I’d blog the opening paragraphs of my graduate paper on the topic, On the Margins of Humanity. In the current philosophic debates about the moral and legal standing of animals, one of the most common arguments for equality between humans and animals is the appeal to the problem of “marginal humans.” The basic claim of that argument is that because no morally significant feature is common to all and only humans, the standard view on which rights apply to all and only humans is arbitrary and unjust. In particular, rights cannot be in any way based upon the uniquely human capacity to reason since some humans lack that capacity. While normal adult humans can think and act according to abstract knowledge and moral principles, newborn infants cannot yet do so, permanently comatose adults can no longer do so, and the severely retarded never do so. Such “marginal humans” lack the rational capacities of normal adult humans, yet we still grant them the moral and legal protection of rights. Meanwhile, far more sensitive and intelligent animals, such as chimps, dolphins, and even dogs, are used and abused as humans see fit. From the perspective of the marginal humans argument, limiting rights to humans seems like an unjustifiable form of discrimination in favor of our own human species, i.e. “speciesism.” To protect all humans under the umbrella of moral and legal rights without lapsing into logical incoherence, the criterion for rights must be set lower than the capacity to reason. Yet once that it is done, logic demands that we extend rights to all those who meet that criterion, whether human or not. In short, the marginal humans argument claims that the price of rights for all humans is rights for some animals. In recent years, this line of argument for granting moral standing and legal protections to animals has proven to be both compelling and resilient in both academic and cultural debates. It seems to effectively demolish the traditional understanding of rights as all and only human rights by forcing a hard choice between rights for only some humans and rights for all humans plus some animals. To many philosophers and laypersons, the latter seems like a more palatable option than the former, in that banning medical testing on mice and rabbits would be preferable to tolerating it on orphaned infants and senile octogenarians. Moreover, the marginal humans argument does not demand allegiance to any particular moral or political theory: it is compatible with Peter Singer’s utilitarian “animal liberation,” Tom Regan’s deontological “animal rights,” and more. Finally, attempted refutations of it often seem to miss their mark by failing to squarely confront the question of why and how all those individual humans without the capacity to reason still deserve moral standing and legal protections. In this paper, I will critically examine the argument from marginal humans to determine whether it is as powerful and persuasive as it often seems at first glance. I will first review the particular form of the argument used by the two major advocates of moral standing and legal protections for animals: Peter Singer and Tom Regan. (I will not be concerned with the failings of Singer’s utilitarianism or the mysteries of Regan’s appeal to inherent value, but only with the way in which each uses the argument to advance his case for animal liberation or rights.) Then, I’ll hone in upon the fundamental thrust of the argument by distinguishing it from a borderline case problem. Finally, I will examine the merits of two attempted refutations of the marginal humans argument, as well as consider three basic types of marginal humans in relation to the argument for human-only rights. My basic contention will be that marginal humans are not relevantly similar to animals–meaning that the argument from marginal humans cannot force an either-or choice between rights for just some humans and rights for all humans plus animals. I hope that the “marginal humans” argument is a bit more clear now… and you’re certainly welcome to read the whole paper for a preview of what I’ll say on Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Radio! Link to Original

On Wednesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll interview historian Scott Powell about "History is Dead, Long Live History." This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Wednesday, 17 July 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. Why is knowledge of history important? How have historians failed to teach it? What's the proper approach? How can adults educate themselves about history? Scott Powell is the creator of Powell History and "A First History for Adults." He is a permanent traveler who teaches a distance learning homeschooling history program called "History At Our House" that provides an integrated curriculum for children from 2nd to 12th grade all over the world. He is currently writing his first book, "History is Dead, Long Live History." To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Scott Powell on History is Dead, Long Live History. It will be posted on Thursday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Wednesday evening... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in this topic! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on today's feminist movement, the morality of jailbreaking, racism versus moral decency, the objectivity of color concepts, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 14 July 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. This week's questions are: Question 1: Today's Feminist Movement: How should the feminist movement be judged? Do today's feminist causes have any merit? Or is the feminist movement merely seeking special favors for women at the expense of men – perhaps even via violations of the rights of men? If the movement is mixed, how should it be judged, overall? Should better feminists eschew the movement due to its flaws – or attempt to change it from within? Can advocates of reason, egoism, and capitalism ally themselves with selected feminist causes without promoting the worse elements thereof? Question 2: The Morality of Jailbreaking: Is it morally wrong to 'root' or 'jailbreak' your own electronic devices? Maybe I'm just too stupid or lazy to read through all the legal-ese that comes with these devices, so I don't know whether technically a customer is contractually obligated not to do it. But I know that companies try to design their products so that people can't easily "root" or "jailbreak" them, and clever people find ways to do it. Is doing so a theft of intellectual property? Question 3: Racism Versus Moral Decency: Can a person be a racist yet still a morally decent person? Paula Deen has been in hot water – with her shows and sponsorships cancelled – because of allegedly racist comments that she admitted to making in a deposition. (The lawsuit was brought by Lisa Jackson – a former manager of a restaurant owned by her and her brother. Ms. Jackson alleges sexual harassment and tolerance of racial slurs at the restaurant.) Based on Ms. Deen's admissions in the deposition, is she racist? If so, can she still be a moral person? Do matters of race trump all other moral convictions? Question 4: The Objectivity of Color Concepts: Are concepts of color objective? Given that people from different cultures conceptualize colors differently, I don't see how concepts of color – or at least the demarcation of colors – can be objective. For example, in English, the colours "green" and "blue" have different names because they refer to different concepts. In Japanese, however, the word "aoi" can refer to either light green or blue: they don't draw a distinction between them. Similarly, English speakers refer to both the sky and a sapphire as "blue." But in Italian this is not the case: the word "blu" only refers to dark blue, and the sky is the distinct color of "azzuro." Do such cultural differences cast doubt on the claim that concepts of color are objective? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Q&A: Feminism, Jailbreaking, Racism, Color, and More. It will be posted on Monday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Sunday morning... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Ever since interviewing Andrew Miner on Getting Things Done last year, I’ve been working on improving my own personal method of “Getting Things Done.” (If you don’t know what “Getting Things Done” is… go read the book, Getting Things Done, pronto!) I’ve pared down my projects to focus on what’s most important to me, and I’ve also made excellent progress on a slew of long-delayed mini-projects. In the process, I’ve learned that I usually need to be very, very concrete about my task list. Every item in my task list must be a single, clear, delimited action — otherwise, when I have time to make progress on some project, I won’t know what I need to do next. So I don’t register “update archive generation script” or “clean and oil tack” or “post The Paleo Rodeo” as single tasks any more. Instead, they’re projects, each containing four to six tasks. I was worried that doing that would make my GTD system more complicated, even unmanageable. Instead, it seems simpler because I don’t need to repeatedly re-think what I need to do to advance my goals. Instead, I can just chip away at the next action, again and again. So if the tasks required to accomplish some goal aren’t crystal clear to you, then perhaps try taking a few minutes to figure out what actions you need to do to make progress. If you’re too busy for that, just add “plan project” as your first task! That seems to make a huge dent in my tendency to procrastination. In case you’ve not heard my interview with Andrew Miner about “Getting Things Done,” you can listen to or download the podcast here: Duration: 57:43 Download: Standard MP3 File (13.3 MB) For more details, check out the episode’s archive page. Note: I published a version of the above commentary in Philosophy in Action’s Newsletter a while back. Subscribe today! Link to Original

On April 18th, a gal from BlogTalkRadio emailed me without prompting to apologize for Wednesday’s disconnection during the show and to inform me that they’re aware of the problem and working hard to increase their capacity. I decided to reply with the following message the next morning: I just wanted to say thanks for the excellent customer service. For the past few weeks, I’ve been enduring some of the worst customer service ever from another company (my podcast host, podbean). So your up-front, pro-active email was a breath of fresh air. Thank you! She immediately replied: You have no idea what your note did to brighten my morning. It’s been a truly rough couple of days, and knowing that there are people like you on our platform who support us even when we stumble makes the job I love that much better. Thank you so very much for your words of kindness. I’m so glad that I wrote her! Her original email, and then her grateful reply, is a much-needed reminder that many businesses work hard at customer service. They deserve a pat on the back! Link to Original

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on common sense versus rationality, jealousy over love lost, applying philosophy to new domains, marital infidelity in the military, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 7 July 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. This week's questions are: Question 1: Common Sense Versus Rationality: Is "common sense" a form of rationality? Wikipedia defines "common sense" as "sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts." Is that a form of rationality? What's the value of such common sense? Should a rational person rely on common sense in moral decision-making? Question 2: Jealousy over Love Lost: Was Francisco's lack of jealousy in Atlas Shrugged rational or realistic? In Part 3, Chapter 5 of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, Francisco tells Dagny, "...No matter what you feel for [John Galt], it will not change what you feel for me, and it won't be treason to either, because it comes from the same root, it's the same payment in answer to the same values..." Is that a rational and realistic response? Given his love for Dagny, shouldn't Francisco (and Hank) have been more disappointed in their loss of Dagny, and perhaps even jealous of John Galt? Is a person wrong to feel bitter disappointment or jealousy over a lost love? Question 3: Applying Philosophy to New Domains: Can rational philosophic principles solve problems in philosophy and other disciplines? Many advocates of Ayn Rand's philosophy hope to see its principles applied to solve philosophy's tough problems, such as the mind-body relation and the validity of induction. Moreover, they hope to apply the philosophy to other disciplines, such as psychology and education, to advance those fields. Is that possible? If so, what might be a fruitful method of approach? What might be some likely pitfalls? Question 4: Marital Infidelity in the Military: Should the military ban marital infidelity? On your June 2nd, 2013 radio show, you explained why marital infidelity should not be illegal. I agree with you, but I wonder about other contexts. Might some government groups legitimately ban and even criminalize infidelity for its members? According to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, infidelity is against the law for military members. Might that be proper, particularly given that we have a volunteer army? More generally, might the military want to enforce strict rules of moral conduct on their members, even for seemingly private matters? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Q&A: Common Sense, Jealousy, Applying Philosophy, and More. It will be posted on Monday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Sunday morning... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

I wrote this tidbit for this week’s Philosophy in Action Newsletter, and I thought it worth sharing! Sometimes, it’s a bit too easy to get sucked into troubles and worries. They start small and slow, but gradually, they consume you. Then, at least for me, the stress of those troubles quickly becomes “the new normal.” I forget just how happy my life usually is… until I manage to re-establish my normal life. Then I wonder why the heck I let those troubles so consume so much of me for so long. Of course, sometimes the troubles can’t be avoided. At other times, we could — and should — shed them. (That’s what I just did. It took a few weeks, but oh the joy!) Whatever you choose to do about your troubles, don’t lose your connection to the joy possible in life. That’s just deadly to the soul. Plus, it’s so much harder to regain your zest for life if you’re not consciously aware that you’ve lost it. Life can be — and should be — so very good! Link to Original

On June 16th’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on whether people should care about the sex lives (and sex scandals) of politicians. My basic view was that sexual misconduct reveals a politician’s moral character, as well as poses security risks. As for the first claim about moral character, if you’re unconvinced, just read this NY Times article and weep: For Women in Weiner Scandal, Indignity Lingers. The basic story is this: Anthony D. Weiner’s improbable campaign for mayor of New York City is a wager that voters have made peace with his lewd online behavior, a subject he has largely left behind as he roils the race with his aggressive debating style and his attention-getting policy proposals. But for the women who were on the other end of Mr. Weiner’s sexually explicit conversations and photographs, his candidacy is an unwanted reminder of a scandal that has upended their lives in ways big and small, cutting short careers, disrupting educations and damaging reputations. The article then details the ongoing ordeals suffered by these women due to their sexual conversations with Anthony Weiner. Undoubtedly, these women exercised poor judgment. They deserve to suffer the ordinary consequences of that — such as broken or damaged romantic relationships. They do not deserve years of media intrusion, nor endless malevolent jokes. In contrast, Anthony Weiner is taking the whole matter in stride: On the campaign trail, though, he mixes contrition with wittiness. Not long ago he cracked a joke about his use of social media. “You know how much I trust Twitter,” he said at a candidate forum. Ah yes, levity. That’s just perfect. (NOT!) Here’s more, including a good bit of moral insight from a porn star: A number of the women remain angry with Mr. Weiner — arguing that, after taking advantage of his political devotees, he is now drawing them back into the spotlight. Ginger Lee, a former star of adult films who communicated with Mr. Weiner online, has pleaded with him not to run for mayor. “Every new headline and news story about him reminds reporters and bloggers that we exist, and the cycle starts all over,” she said in a statement released by her lawyer. “There will be a new flare-up of jokes, inaccurate statements and hurtful remarks.” Everything about this ongoing episode reveals important facts about Anthony Weiner’s character, most notably that he doesn’t give a damn who he hurts in his quest for political power. His contempt for women is glaringly obvious. He’s not a man fit for political office, whatever his political principles. No decent person should want anything to do with him. Alas, too many people are willing to overlook all that because he’s on “their team.” *sigh* P.S. If you’ve not heard that 16 June 2013 episode of Philosophy in Action Radio in which I talked about the sex scandals of politicians, you can listen to or download the relevant segment of the podcast here: Duration: 12:04 Download: MP3 Segment For more details, check out the question’s archive page. The full episode – where I answered questions on the meaning of life as the standard of value, broken relationships, the morality of an armed society, the sex scandals of politicians, and more – is available as a podcast too. Link to Original

A while back, Robert Garmong posted the following story on Facebook: Walking home from work, through the hard-packed ice left over from yesterday’s snow, past the construction zones, I saw a row of cars stopped, waiting impatiently while a very miserable-looking minivan spun its wheels on the ice. (Incidentally, a Chinese minivan is truly mini. It comes up to my eye-level, at most, and it looks as though I could fit it into my backpack, yet somehow, like a clown car, you can get 8 people into it. They’re very crummy, and mostly used for low-end delivery businesses and the like.) The driver clearly didn’t know what to do about his situation. He obviously didn’t get his driver’s license at age 16 in a small, snowy town in Illinois. After spinning his wheels a few times, churning up ice and spewing oily exhaust into the air, he got out of the car to come back and scratch his head, staring down at his rear wheels. He didn’t do any of the things I would have done: he didn’t put a rock or a piece of cardboard under his tire, didn’t throw dirt down, didn’t try to push his van past the glossy spot he’d worn by spinning his wheels. He just looked for a few seconds, then when the cars behind him started honking he got back into the van and started spinning his wheels again. The unofficial motto of China might as well be: Work harder, not smarter. If this were Texas, there would have been five people lined up behind his little clown van to push him along (not that you’d need that many). The guy in the car behind him would’ve jumped out of the car to give him a shove, without even thinking about it. Passers-by would’ve joined in. Street vendors selling fruit alongside the road would have paused their haggling for a minute to come pitch in. (Well, I guess in Texas there wouldn’t be street vendors selling fruit alongside the road, but IF there were, they’d be helping.) Here, all the guy got was a glance or two from the pedestrians, and a bunch of blaring horns from the cars piled up behind him. A larger bus going the opposite way rolled down its window so the driver could offer him some fairly useless advice, then drove off. The clown-van driver was getting nowhere, so I jogged out into the road and gave a little tiny shove — I mean REALLY tiny — no stronger than would be required to open a stuck backyard gate. The van shish-shish-shished forward a foot or so, then got traction and chugged slowly up the road. The driver of the car behind him tooted a little honk of thanks, then the whole lot of them tailed the van-driver slowly, carefully up the hill. For the most part, Americans are steeped in benevolence. We are willing to help others — including strangers — in a thousand small ways at the drop of a hat. That’s a huge value — and not one that we should take for granted. Such makes life so much better in a thousand small ways. As it happens, I mentioned that culture-wide benevolence in my end-of-year Philosophy in Action Radio of 30 December 2012, where I talked about all the good in American culture. (That was the whole episode!) So if you’ve not heard it, take a listen: Duration: 1:09:06 Download: Standard MP3 File (23.8 MB) For more details, check out the episode’s archive page. Link to Original

On Tuesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll interview Community Preparedness Program Manager Fran Santagata about "Preparing for Wildfires and Other Natural Disasters." This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Tuesday, 2 July 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. Note the early day and time! Due to Ms. Santagata's schedule, this interview will air live on Tuesday morning, 2 July 2013 at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET. I learned so much from her when she spoke to our neighborhood that I didn't want to pass up the opportunity to interview her while Colorado is in the midst of such an awful fire season. Colorado is experiencing yet another very destructive – even deadly – fire season. What can people do to prepare for that? How can they mitigate the risk to their property? How can they make sure that people and animals are evacuated safely? Fran Santagata currently serves as the Community Preparedness Program Manager for the Office of Preparedness for Homeland Security & Emergency Management for the state of Colorado. She responsible for all aspects of community preparedness for the state. Prior to her current position, Santagata served as the Director of Emergency Management for Douglas County, Colorado. To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Fran Santagata on Preparing for Wildfires and Other Natural Disasters. It will be posted on Thursday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Wednesday evening... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in this topic! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Wow, check out this fabulous news from The Institute for Justice… Free Speech Victory: Court Reinstates Caveman Blogger’s First Amendment Challenge: Arlington, Va.–This morning, in a big win for free speech, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that diabetic blogger Steve Cooksey’s First Amendment lawsuit against the North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition may go forward. Cooksey ran a Dear Abby-style advice column on his blog in which he gave one-on-one advice about how to follow the low carbohydrate “paleo” diet. The Board deemed Cooksey’s advice the unlicensed practice of nutritional counseling, sent him a 19-page print-up of his website indicating in red pen what he was and was not allowed to say, and threatened him with legal action if he did not comply. The decision reverses a previous ruling by a federal district judge that had dismissed Cooksey’s case, reasoning that advice is not protected speech and hence Cooksey had suffered no injury to his First Amendment rights. “This decision will help ensure that the courthouse doors remain open to speakers whose rights are threatened by overreaching government” said Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Jeff Rowes. “In America, citizens don’t have to wait until they are fined or thrown in jail before they are allowed to challenge government action that chills their speech.” CLICK HERE TO READ THE DECISION The three-judge appellate panel, which included retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, held that it had “no trouble deciding that Cooksey’s speech was sufficiently chilled by the actions of the State Board to show a First Amendment injury-in-fact.” The appellate panel also dismissed the Board’s argument that its 19-page red-pen review of Cooksey’s did not chill his speech, noting that the “red-pen mark-up of his website from the State Board Complaint Committee . . . surely triggered the same trepidation we have all experienced upon receiving such markings on a high school term paper.” The case, which has received significant national media attention, will now be sent back to the district court. Click here for George Will’s syndicated column on the lawsuit. Steve Cooksey said, “I give people simple advice on what food to buy at the grocery store. I have believed all along that my advice is protected by the First Amendment, and I am looking forward to proving that the censorship of my speech is unconstitutional.” IJ Attorney Paul Sherman said, “Steve’s case raises one of the most important unanswered questions in First Amendment law: Can occupational-licensing laws trump free speech? Today’s ruling means that we are finally going to get an answer to that question.” [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5EixDJ25Lc] For more on the lawsuit, visit www.ij.org/PaleoSpeech. Founded in 1991, the Virginia-based Institute for Justice is a national public interest law firm that fights for free speech and economic liberty nationwide. It’s cases like this one that make me so pleased and proud to donate to IJ’s free speech division. Congratulations, Steve! Link to Original

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on Aristotle on the final end, dealing with a morally corrupt sibling, studying philosophy, the legality of DDoS attacks, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 30 June 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. This week's questions are: Question 1: Aristotle on the Final End: Is Aristotle's argument for flourishing as the final end valid? In the "Nicomachean Ethics," Aristotle argues that flourishing (or happiness) is the proper final end. What is that argument? Does it have merit? How does it differ from Ayn Rand's argument for life as the standard of value? Question 2: Dealing with a Morally Corrupt Sibling: How should I respond to my morally corrupt sister? My 20 year old sister is morally destitute. She is an unapologetic shoplifter. Her justifications amount to things like: "My shoplifting is not an addiction because I can stop anytime I want to," "everyone does it," "companies account for shoplifters in their business plans so they mark prices higher to compensate for it," "I'd never steal from a friend," "I need to steal while I look young and can get away with it because no one suspects me," etc. Over the years she has stolen hundreds if not thousands of dollars from our parents, too. She lies and cheats frequently. She's accepted money in return for writing a paper for a friend. She knows what she does is "wrong," and she maintains that such is better than not knowing, at least. (That makes no sense, I know.) I also just found out that she's selling marijuana because, as she says, she needs a way to support her expensive taste in clothes and makeup. She has no integrity or moral conscience. She doesn't care about my horror at her behavior. She does not respond to reason. Part of me wants to help her by trying to talk sense into her. I care about her, and I want her to be a healthy person and not have a miserable life. Another part of me wants to forget her and let her ruin herself. Yet I don't want to stand by and watch that happen, and I also know that there's only so much I can do to really help her. What is the rational thing to do? Question 3: Studying Philosophy: Is studying philosophy in academia a waste? I have a strong interest in Objectivism, and I'd like to learn more about philosophy. However, my experience taking philosophy classes has been horrible. I'd like a class in which (1) I can trust the professor's objectivity enough to enjoy a lecture, (2) I can agree with the professor's analysis of a particular topic, and/or (3) the class and material is taught in an integrated, logical fashion. I've not found any of that. When I've mentioned my interest in Ayn Rand, I've gotten comments like "Well, I think she's someone to be outgrown." Do you know of any schools with good philosophy departments? How should I approach studying philosophy in academia? How could I make the best of what's offered? Question 4: The Legality of DDoS Attacks: Should "Distributed Denial of Service" (a.k.a. DDoS) attacks be illegal? DDoS computer attacks are illegal in the United Kingdom. Are such attacks analogous to convincing people to send many letters to an organization or to calling on the phone repeatedly, thereby crippling its infrastructure? Or are they more like trespassing on property? How should the law deal with them? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Q&A: Aristotle, Corrupt Siblings, Studying Philosophy, and More. It will be posted on Monday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Sunday morning... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

(Whoops! I can’t believe that I forgot to post this months ago… but, as I often say, better later than never!) First and foremost… I’ve set the dates for SnowCon 2014… so mark your calendars! SnowCon 2014 will start in Denver on Friday, February 28th with lectures and social gatherings. It’ll move to Frisco on the morning of Monday, March 3rd for play in the snow and socializing, wrapping up on Friday, March 7th. For further announcements, subscribe to the low-volume SnowCon Email List. I’m pleased to report that SnowCon 2013 was superduperwonderfullyfabulous! Let’s start with the pictures… and don’t miss the video of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn529_LP5uY! We had a small crowd of eight people staying at the SnowCondo in Frisco from Monday to Friday, mostly the same crowd as last year. We skied and snowboarded. We snowshoed. We ate yummy breakfasts and dinners together. We played Cards Against Humanity. We talked. We laughed like crazy. We had a damn good time. On Friday, SnowCon moved to Denver. 30 people — mostly from Colorado — attended the weekend events. We began with a social gathering (plus dinner) Chez Hsieh on Friday evening. On Saturday, we enjoyed five excellent lectures, then dinner at a local restaurant in the evening. (I particularly enjoyed Howard’s lecture on frac’ing and Pablo’s lecture on opera… and I was not alone!) On Sunday, we had brunch Chez Hsieh, with me making yummy paleo-banana pancakes, and Arthur making omelets to order… shirtless, of course. (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn529_LP5uY!) People stayed and chatted through the afternoon. For me, this third SnowCon was the most enjoyable and least stressful for me to produce. The schedule was pretty relaxed, particularly in Frisco. For the Denver portion, hosting events at our house and nearby made the work much easier. I was particularly impressed with how well our neighborhood clubhouse worked as a venue for the lectures. We had plenty of space, comfortable chairs, a good wall to display the PowerPoint, and a full kitchen. I was very pleased by the catered (and delivered) lunch provided by Garbanzo too. The meals and snacks I provided got rave reviews too. Alas, this was the most difficult and stressful SnowCon for me to plan, thanks to our various major house repairs. The house was under construction, without heat downstairs, and a complete wreck until just a few days before we left for Frisco. Next year, we won’t have anything like that going on… I hope! Mostly, I plan to keep SnowCon 2014 very similar to SnowCon 2013. I’ll likely rent the same condo in Frisco. I’ll host the Friday Social and Sunday Brunch Chez Hsieh. I’ll rent our neighborhood clubhouse for the lectures on Saturday. I have a three major improvements to make too: The weekend in Denver will happen before the week in Frisco, as you can see from the schedule at the top of this post. That way, people from out-of-town will be able to acclimate more easily to the altitude. Also, I won’t be obliged to do any last-minute planning for the Denver portion while in Frisco. (That’s always a drag.) I’ll start planning and promoting the conference far earlier. That way, more people from Colorado and elsewhere might be able to join us. I want to make the lectures even more keenly focused on positive, useful, interesting topics — like awesome new technology, practical ethics, appreciating art, and so on. The lectures were darn good on that score this year, but I want to do even better next year. If you might be interested in attending SnowCon 2014, please feel free to email me with any other suggestions that you might have. Don’t forget to join the low-volume SnowCon Email List too. Link to Original

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on cultivating powers of self-control, lying for the sake of a happy surprise, people too young to raise children, dealing with a morally corrupt sibling, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 23 June 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. This week's questions are: Question 1: Cultivating Powers of Self-Control: Should a person cultivate his powers of self-control? What is self-control? Is strong capacity for self-control of value? Does self-control have a downside or limits? How can a person develop more self-control? Question 2: Lying for the Sake of a Happy Surprise: Is it ever okay to tell a lie as part of a happy surprise for someone else? This question is from Ryan (age 11) and Morgan (age 8). We bought birthday presents for our brother Sean, and we had to sneak them into the house. We didn't want Sean to know what we were doing. At first, we thought we should make up a story about why we were going back and forth to the car. Morgan thought she should tell Sean she was going outside to swing. But then we talked about how that would be a lie and she decided to go out and actually swing before bringing her present inside, that way there was no lying involved. Should we have told the lie to Sean? Is it okay to tell a lie as part of doing something nice for someone? Question 3: People Too Young to Raise Children: What's the rationale for declaring some physically mature people too young to have children? Given that nature has dictated that both male and female humans can procreate in their early teens and given that morality is deduced from reality, why would sex and procreation at that young age be immoral? Isn't that what nature intended? More generally, is there a rational basis for moral judgments about the proper age of procreation? Or is it purely subjective? Question 4: Dealing with a Morally Corrupt Sibling: How should I respond to my morally corrupt sister? My 20 year old sister is morally destitute. She is an unapologetic shoplifter. Her justifications amount to things like: "My shoplifting is not an addiction because I can stop anytime I want to," "everyone does it," "companies account for shoplifters in their business plans so they mark prices higher to compensate for it," "I'd never steal from a friend," "I need to steal while I look young and can get away with it because no one suspects me," etc. Over the years she has stolen hundreds if not thousands of dollars from our parents, too. She lies and cheats frequently. She's accepted money in return for writing a paper for a friend. She knows what she does is "wrong," and she maintains that such is better than not knowing, at least. (That makes no sense, I know.) I also just found out that she's selling marijuana because, as she says, she needs a way to support her expensive taste in clothes and makeup. She has no integrity or moral conscience. She doesn't care about my horror at her behavior. She does not respond to reason. Part of me wants to help her by trying to talk sense into her. I care about her, and I want her to be a healthy person and not have a miserable life. Another part of me wants to forget her and let her ruin herself. Yet I don't want to stand by and watch that happen, and I also know that there's only so much I can do to really help her. What is the rational thing to 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. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Q&A: Self-Control, Lying for Surprise, Corrupt Siblings, and More. It will be posted on Monday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Sunday morning... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

On Wednesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll interview biologist Dr. Monica Hughes about "Myths about Evolutionary Theory." This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Wednesday, 19 June 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. Many Americans are woefully ignorant of the basics of evolutionary theory, even while they criticize or reject it. Biologist Monica Hughes will explain the basic claims of evolutionary theory, the evidence for the theory, and dispel common myths about it. Monica Hughes received her master's and PhD degrees in mycology and forest pathology at SUNY-ESF (State University of New York College of Environmental and Forest Biology). Broadly trained in aspects of plant and fungal biology, Monica's research is focused on an obscure but diverse group of insect-associated fungi, particularly co-evolution of the fungi with their hosts, and description of new species: her research uncovered roughly 50 new species of fungi from New Zealand, including several new genera. Since obtaining her PhD in 2008, Monica has worked as a biology professor in the Community College system of Colorado and at Regis University in Denver. To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Dr. Monica Hughes on Myths about Evolutionary Theory. It will be posted on Thursday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Wednesday evening... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in this topic! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

I’ve not yet been able to post the podcast from Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Radio due to yet more problems with Podbean. (If I can’t get it uploaded by noon-ish, drastic measures will be taken!) Meanwhile, I’ve taken the first steps in closing the OLists. I created OBloggers in May 2007, and the network grew to 13 lists over the years. They were a big part of my life for a while. I’m proud that they helped create a friendly online community of Objectivists, based on shared values. But they’ve been in a coma for some time, and I’ve moved on. So it’s long past time to let them die. Here’s the email that I sent to all the OLists this morning: I’m writing to tell you that I’ve decided shut down the OLists. I’ve been planning to do this for many months now, but I’ve been slow to get it done. (Originally, I’d planned to turn some lists over to their managers, but the lists have been so quiet that I don’t see any point in that now.) The primary reason for the shut-down is that lists have been mostly dormant, largely thanks to the rise of social media. I could have worked to revive them, but due to events over the past few years in the Objectivist movement, I’ve lost interest in my specifically Objectivist projects. These days, I’m focused on Philosophy in Action, and I’m really happy doing that… and I’m pleased to be promoting rational ideas (including Objectivist ideas) to a wide audience. I’ll leave the lists open for another week or two… and please feel free to post any final announcements or whatnot in that time. If you want to keep up with what I’m doing with Philosophy in Action, you can subscribe to my one-per-week newsletter that announces upcoming topics for radio shows, posted podcasts, blog posts, and other news. Finally… many thanks to the OList managers for making the lists possible. We did good work together, and it was a pleasure to work with you! However, because I want to keep in contact with other paleo Objectivists, so I’ve created a “Paleo Objectivists” group on Facebook. To join, you just have to be a paleo-eating Objectivist. Link to Original

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on the meaning of life as the standard of moral value, broken relationships, armed society, the sex scandals of politicians, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 16 June 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. This week's questions are: Question 1: The Meaning of Life as the Standard of Moral Value: What does it mean to say that life is the standard of value? In "The Objectivist Ethics," Ayn Rand says that man's life is the standard of value. What does that mean? Does that mean mere physical survival? Is it mere quantity of years – or does the quality of those years matter too? Basically, what is the difference between living and not dying? Question 2: Broken Relationships: When is a relationship broken beyond repair? Relationships can be severely strained, fraught with anger and frustration, and perhaps put on ice for weeks or months or years. Yet in the end, the two people can often reconcile in some way, so that they can enjoy a genuine (even if not deep) relationship again. In some cases, however, that's not possible. Why not? In such cases, must the problem be that one person (or both people) continue to behave badly? Or might reconciliation be impossible between two good people? If so, why? Question 3: Armed Society: Is an armed society a polite society – or a violent society? Author Robert Heinlein famously said that "An armed society is a polite society." Many liberals, however, fear an armed society as barbaric and violent. Is widespread ownership and/or carry of arms a positive or a negative feature of a society? Question 4: The Sex Scandals of Politicians: Should we stop caring about the sex lives of politicians? In response to the affair and resignation of David Petraeus, many argued that such sex scandals are the absurd consequence of American puritanism. These people claim that sex is easily compartmentalized in a person's life, such that sexual fidelity has no bearing on a person's intelligence, character, or suitability for public office. Is that right? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Q&A: Ethical Foundations, Broken Relationships, Sex Scandals, and More. It will be posted on Monday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Sunday morning... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

On Wednesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll interview online marketing professional Trey Peden about "Privacy and Online Marketing." This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Wednesday, 12 June 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. What do online marketing companies know about you? How do they gather data? Should you be alarmed by that? If so, what tools can help you protect your privacy online? Trey Peden is a seasoned online marketing professional who has been designing, building, and refining users' online brand experiences for over 15 years. He works for Acxiom Corporation – one of the largest marketing data, technology, and services vendors in the world – as a product marketer for their digital marketing suite of tools. To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Trey Peden on Privacy and Online Marketing. It will be posted on Thursday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Wednesday evening... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in this topic! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine): 7 Jun: McArdle on Young Invincibles by Paul Hsieh 6 Jun: Quick Links: Transplant, Privacy, Unhappiness by Paul Hsieh 4 Jun: Quick Links: CA, Nonparticipation by Paul Hsieh 3 Jun: Obama Administration PR Blitz Coming by Paul Hsieh Follow FIRM on Facebook and Twitter. This week on Politics without God, the blog of the Coalition for Secular Government: 7 Jun: Laws Against Marital Infidelity: Philosophy in Action Podcast by Diana Hsieh 5 Jun: Abortion Rights and the Violinist Argument: Philosophy in Action Podcast by Diana Hsieh Follow the Coalition for Secular Government on Facebook and Twitter. This week on The Blog of The Objective Standard: 9 Jun: Quent Cordair Offers a Philosophical Detection Story in “The Match” by Ari Armstrong 8 Jun: Our Spectacularly Improving World by Ari Armstrong 7 Jun: Greedy Google’s Blimps to Bring Wireless Internet to a Billion Africans and Asians by Ari Armstrong 6 Jun: “A Born Free American Woman” Tells Government “You’ve Forgotten Your Place” by Ari Armstrong 5 Jun: Government Involvement in Organ Donation Constitutes Death Panels by Ari Armstrong 4 Jun: Get Government out of Student Loans by Zachary Huffman 3 Jun: Will TN U.S. Attorney William Killian Clarify that Individuals Have a Right to Criticize Islam? by Ari Armstrong 3 Jun: Dr. Jane Wright Has Died, But Her Work Will Forever Save Lives by Roberto Sarrionandia Follow The Objective Standard on Facebook and Twitter. This week on The Blog of Modern Paleo: 8 Jun: Philosophy Weekend: News from Philosophy in Action by Diana Hsieh 7 Jun: The Paleo Rodeo #165 by Diana Hsieh Follow Modern Paleo on Facebook and Twitter. Link to Original

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on Objectivism versus libertarianism, bad ideas as a cause of mental illness, doctors refusing to perform abortions, broken relationships, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 9 June 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. This week's questions are: Question 1: Objectivism Versus Libertarianism: Are Objectivism and libertarianism allies in the struggle for liberty? Libertarians have long claimed that Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism (or just its politics) is a form of libertarianism, but Objectivists rejected that. More recently, however, notable Objectivist John Allison assumed the presidency of the thoroughly libertarian Cato Institute with the support of the Ayn Rand Institute, and he claimed that "all objectivists are libertarians, but not all libertarians are objectivists." Is that true? What is the essence of libertarianism? When, if ever, should Objectivists ally or collaborate with libertarians? Question 2: Bad Ideas as a Cause of Mental Illness: Can the consistent practice of wrong ideas lead to mental illness? Often, the most consistent practitioners of an ideology – such as Naziism or Islam – seem to become increasingly unhinged over time. Does fully embracing a fantasy-based ideology entail or encourage mental illness, such as paranoia and delusions? If so, are such people then not responsible for what they say or do? Question 3: Doctors Refusing to Perform Abortions: Does a doctor violate a woman's rights by refusing to perform an abortion? Many people on the left claim that a doctor who refuses to perform an abortion – or a pharmacist who refuses to dispense Plan B – is thereby violating the rights of the woman. Those doctors and pharmacists, however, claim that they're exercising their own freedom of religion. Who is right? Question 4: Broken Relationships: When is a relationship broken beyond repair? Relationships can be severely strained, fraught with anger and frustration, and perhaps put on ice for weeks or months or years. Yet in the end, the two people can often reconcile in some way, so that they can enjoy a genuine (even if not deep) relationship again. In some cases, however, that's not possible. Why not? In such cases, must the problem be that one person (or both people) continue to behave badly? Or might reconciliation be impossible between two good people? If so, why? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Q&A: Libertarianism, Mental Illness, Broken Relationships, and More. It will be posted on Monday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Sunday morning... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

As y’all know, I answered a question about arranged marriages on the 19 May 2013 episode of Philosophy in Action Radio. In reply, I got the following fascinating comment from an Indian fan of my radio show: Your answer to the arranged marriage question was stellar! You were bang on target about the fact that a low divorce rate is not inherently good, if that is caused by a social stigma attached to divorce — which only means more people are stuck in a marriage. I grew up in India, and saw it a lot. I would love to see you answer the follow-up question that you brought up at the end, namely that — is it okay to marry a person who I like and respect, but not love in a deep sense if I don’t think I will find a such a person? When and under what circumstances is it appropriate for a person say — I don’t think I can find someone who I will deeply love — and settle for someone whom he respects and thinks could be a good partner for the rest of his life? What factors should go into such a decision — age, location, etc? I’ve seen lots of arranged marriages in my life, including my sister. I think they make a good pair, if not a great one. Their personalities are compatible and I can envision them respecting each other and being great partners in the journey of life. Given that I was and am continually exposed to arranged marriages, I am glad to see this issue discussed! Initially, after discovering Ayn Rand’s ideas as a teenager and as a young adult, I was pretty rationalistic about them and was SURE that they did not work. They did not love each other before they were married and they cannot love each other after they simply get married dammit! But the more I saw couples in an arranged marriage, the more I started to doubt my certainty. I saw that both the guy and the girl were happy about the fact that they were together. I cannot speculate how deep their love for each other was, but they were happy that they shared each others company, and I could see that. I would have shared the segment on facebook and twitter but that would mean a lot of love loss between me and all my Indian friends who have done arranged marriages! I at least wanted to write you a note to say that that was a great answer. If you’ve not yet heard it, you can listen to or download the relevant segment of the podcast here: Duration: 15:50 Download: MP3 Segment For more details, check out the question’s archive page. The full episode – where I answered questions on individualism versus anti-social atomism, poor communication from the boss, visibility of disabled children, arranged marriages, and more – is available as a podcast too. Also, the follow-up question mentioned — “is it okay to marry a person who I like and respect, but not love in a deep sense if I don’t think I will find a such a person” — is now in the queue. Link to Original

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on abortion rights and the violinist argument, Obama's cultural impact, laws against marital infidelity, managing demands for family time, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 2 June 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. This week's questions are: Question 1: Abortion Rights and the Violinist Argument: Can abortion rights be justified based on Judith Thomson's "violinist" argument? Even if we accept that an embryo is a person with a right to life, can't abortion rights be justified on the basis of Judith Thomson's famous "violinist" thought experiment – meaning, on the grounds that one person does not have the right to use another person for life support? Question 2: Obama's Cultural Impact: Will Obama's second term further damage American culture and values? I'm not as worried about the tax hikes, foreign policy, and other concrete policies of Obama's second term as I am about the cultural change that his administration will instill in society over the next four years, just as it did over the last four years. The next generation of liberals – college age kids, that is – are little socialists who repeat the phrases like "social justice" and "fair share." Is such cultural change a genuine problem? If so, what can be done to combat it? Question 3: Laws Against Marital Infidelity: Should marital infidelity be illegal? Many states, including Colorado, have laws against marital infidelity on the books. These laws are rarely if ever enforced. Politicians often attempt to repeal them, but those attempts are often unsuccessful. Many people think that the government ought to "take a moral stand" even if the law isn't enforced. Does that view have any merit? Should these laws be repealed? Why or why not? Question 4: Managing Demands for Family Time: Should I limit my time away from family in deference to their cultural expectations? My family comes from a conservative Turkish background. They see the amount of independence granted me as a 19-year-old as more than enough. I see it as unsatisfactory. In fact, they feel pushed to their limit by the amount of time I ask to spend away from family on a daily basis. They believe I should not ask for any more independence, as they are already trying their hardest to accept me having even a small amount. However, what I'm allowed is very little compared to most people my age. It affects what I can do or not with my life, not just in the short-term but in the long-term too. Should I respect my family's wishes on this point, given that they are already trying their hardest within the context of their own cultural values? Or should I ask for more independence, even if that violates their beliefs? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Q&A: Abortion, Obama, Infidelity, Family Time, and More. It will be posted on Monday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Sunday morning... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

On Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I’ll discuss Judith Thomson’s classic “violinist” argument in favor of abortion rights. It’s an engaging and accessible article which has been widely read and reprinted. If you’ve never read it — or you’ve not read it in a while — you might want to read or re-read it before Sunday’s broadcast. You can do so here: Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion. Here’s the introduction to whet your appetite. Most opposition to abortion relies on the premise that the fetus is a human being, a person, from the moment of conception. The premise is argued for, but, as I think, not well. Take, for example, the most common argument. We are asked to notice that the development of a human being from conception through birth into childhood is continuous; then it is said that to draw a line, to choose a point in this development and say “before this point the thing is not a person, after this point it is a person” is to make an arbitrary choice, a choice for which in the nature of things no good reason can be given. It is concluded that the fetus is. or anyway that we had better say it is, a person from the moment of conception. But this conclusion does not follow. Similar things might be said about the development of an acorn into an oak trees, and it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that we had better say they are. Arguments of this form are sometimes called “slippery slope arguments”–the phrase is perhaps self-explanatory–and it is dismaying that opponents of abortion rely on them so heavily and uncritically. I am inclined to agree, however, that the prospects for “drawing a line” in the development of the fetus look dim. I am inclined to think also that we shall probably have to agree that the fetus has already become a human person well before birth. Indeed, it comes as a surprise when one first learns how early in its life it begins to acquire human characteristics. By the tenth week, for example, it already has a face, arms and less, fingers and toes; it has internal organs, and brain activity is detectable. On the other hand, I think that the premise is false, that the fetus is not a person from the moment of conception. A newly fertilized ovum, a newly implanted clump of cells, is no more a person than an acorn is an oak tree. But I shall not discuss any of this. For it seems to me to be of great interest to ask what happens if, for the sake of argument, we allow the premise. How, precisely, are we supposed to get from there to the conclusion that abortion is morally impermissible? Opponents of abortion commonly spend most of their time establishing that the fetus is a person, and hardly anytime explaining the step from there to the impermissibility of abortion. Perhaps they think the step too simple and obvious to require much comment. Or perhaps instead they are simply being economical in argument. Many of those who defend abortion rely on the premise that the fetus is not a person, but only a bit of tissue that will become a person at birth; and why pay out more arguments than you have to? Whatever the explanation, I suggest that the step they take is neither easy nor obvious, that it calls for closer examination than it is commonly given, and that when we do give it this closer examination we shall feel inclined to reject it. I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person’s right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother’s right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed. It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, “Look, we’re sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you–we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it’s only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.” Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. “Tough luck. I agree. but now you’ve got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person’s right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him.” I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago. In this case, of course, you were kidnapped, you didn’t volunteer for the operation that plugged the violinist into your kidneys. Can those who oppose abortion on the ground I mentioned make an exception for a pregnancy due to rape? Certainly. They can say that persons have a right to life only if they didn’t come into existence because of rape; or they can say that all persons have a right to life, but that some have less of a right to life than others, in particular, that those who came into existence because of rape have less. But these statements have a rather unpleasant sound. Surely the question of whether you have a right to life at all, or how much of it you have, shouldn’t turn on the question of whether or not you are a product of a rape. And in fact the people who oppose abortion on the ground I mentioned do not make this distinction, and hence do not make an exception in case of rape. Nor do they make an exception for a case in which the mother has to spend the nine months of her pregnancy in bed. They would agree that would be a great pity, and hard on the mother; but all the same, all persons have a right to life, the fetus is a person, and so on. I suspect, in fact, that they would not make an exception for a case in which, miraculously enough, the pregnancy went on for nine years, or even the rest of the mother’s life. Some won’t even make an exception for a case in which continuation of the pregnancy is likely to shorten the mother’s life, they regard abortion as impermissible even to save the mother’s life. Such cases are nowadays very rare, and many opponents of abortion do not accept this extreme view. All the same, it is a good place to begin: a number of points of interest come out in respect to it. Again, you can read the whole article here: A Defense of Abortion by Judith Thomson. Then… please join us on Sunday morning for the live broadcast of Philosophy in Action Radio — or listen to the podcast later. Link to Original