dianahsieh

On Saturday, I posted a link to this article — Tennis’s Top Women Balance Body Image With Ambition — to Facebook, with the following comment:


I read this article last night, and it made me want to cry. I like what many of these women have to say, but it’s just horrible that professional freaking athletes feel such ambivalence about putting on muscle just because they’re women. And dammit, they look amazing.
A friend asked me why I was horrified, and I wrote the following comment. It’s a bit rough, but I thought it worth reposting here:


Ah, now that’s a bit difficult to articulate, but let me try.
Overall, I’d say that conventional body standards for women in our culture are pretty irrational. As far as they concern what women can control, they’re almost exclusively about being more slender. That’s the top priority — to be pursued and/or achieved at the price of health (short-term and long-term), capacities (not just athletic pursuits but daily life tasks), etc.
That’s seen in the supermarket “fitness” magazines (which always showcase slender, non-muscular women on their covers) … in the focus on “losing weight” (rather than losing fat and certainly not gaining muscle) … in the ridiculous belief / fear that lifting any kind of weights will cause women to quickly resemble bodybuilders (as if!!) … the quick and near universal compliments obtained from slimming down (whatever the price) … and so on.
So the fact that the standards are irrational and damaging to women’s health and performance is part of the problem here. That’s the easy part, I think.
The more difficult part, I think, is perhaps seeing that greater physical strength and capacity in a woman need not undermine her sense of her own femininity, nor a man’s appreciation / enjoyment of that.
Yes, greater physical strength and capacity in a woman might present a greater challenge to a man in a sexual relationship — not just physically, but because of the greater self-confidence that comes with that. And some men might not be willing or able to live up to that challenge. But many can (or could) — and that meeting of strength with strength can be something special in a sexual relationship. Moreover, the feeling of being deeply embedded in the body that can come with intense physical training… well, again, something special.
I’ve got quite a bit of raw strength relative to the other women in krav, but I’ve now sparred with enough good men to know, in a deep-down way, the overwhelming power of masculine strength, when cultivated. (It’s pretty freaking awesome to experience that, in fact.)
Even apart from these more physical dimensions, I think that our culture has the view that vulnerability cannot come from a position of strength. That’s why men aren’t supposed to be vulnerable (or terribly emotional) and women are supposed to vulnerable due to weakness.
I suppose that’s one way to do it, but I’m opting for a “vulnerability through strength” and “strength through vulnerability” route — both psychologically and physically. And so far, difficult tho it might be, it feels freaking amazing and so right. And in the process, far more dresses and other girly things are being worn, and that feels really right to me too. Fancy that. :-)

Link to Original

From http://www.salon.com/2015/05/25/working_at_an_abortion_clinic_challenged_my_pro_choice_views_%E2%80%94_and_confirmed_them/'>Working at an abortion clinic challenged my pro-choice views

Back in December, I answered a question about the reality of karma on Philosophy in Action Radio. If you’ve not yet heard it, you can listen to or download the relevant segment of the podcast here:

Duration: 11:05 Download: MP3 Segment Then, some weeks ago, Robert Garmong sent me a tidbit from this article — Shock and Anger in Cambodian Village Struck With H.I.V. — relevant to karma:


The villagers’ affection for the doctor does not blunt their pain and bewilderment over the mass infection. Prum Em, Ms. Yao’s 84-year-old husband, stares with blank incomprehension when asked about the infections, which struck across three generations.
“I have done only good deeds my whole life,” he said. “It’s inconceivable that the family could have this much bad luck.”
Robert Garmong added:


There’s no specific evidence that this is what happened, but it could easily have been the case that this man’s family members intentionally took risky injections because “my family has only done good deeds, so surely the downside risk won’t happen to me.” I doubt that’s what happened, because there’s no evidence that the people even knew they were taking a risk. But the point remains. By messing with people’s rational calculations, the concept of “karma” leads in principle to self-destructive thinking.
Excellent example!


Link to Original

This is a good explanation of the principles of “positive discipline” parenting from The Libertarian Homeschooler:


On Belay
Do you punish your sons?
No.
How do they learn?
I let them experience the consequences of their actions.
Isn’t that the same thing?
No. In one instance, I’m meting it out. In the other, I’m not.
What does that look like?
I say, “This will end badly.” When they were little I would say, “That will hurt you.” They either stop and wait for help or it ends badly or it hurts them.
Does that work?
You bet it does.
What if they’re headed for catastrophic injury?
I step in, just as I would for anyone else. I am on belay but the climb is theirs.
When they were little didn’t you spend a lot of time running after them since they weren’t trained?
We baby proofed so they could explore in relative safety. They still banged into things and got hurt.
Did they pay attention to what you told them?
They figured it out pretty quickly. When I said, “That will hurt you,” pain was coming. But pain wasn’t associated with me. Consequences would still happen even if I wasn’t there. That’s key. I do not cause consequences. Even if I’m not here, there are consequences. A lot of children clearly don’t understand that and they behave differently when their parents aren’t looking.
Were both boys the same?
YS needs to learn from experience. Sometimes more than once. BA will hang back and avoid pain and injury.
Did you ever administer and emotionally or physically painful consequence instead of letting nature take its course?
Yes.
How did that go?
Poorly.
What do you mean it went poorly?
It put emotional distance between me and my child. I broke trust with him. Administering calm, collected punishments made him disdainful. He saw it as a control issue.
So you would not do it again?
If I could undo it, I would. It was an expensive lesson for me in terms of my son’s respect. He has little patience for someone who will encroach upon him or will try to control him and it is his nature to remember long.
What caused the most strife in your home when your children were little?
Parental failure. Lack of self discipline on my part.
What do you attribute that to?
Perfectionism. Impatience. Pride. Fear. Exhaustion. Boundary issues.
Do your children have those flaws?
There are family characteristics. My parents had them. They modeled them for me. I’m changing things and our sons will change things more. They share good qualities as well. We’ll keep those.
What’s an example of a parental fail?
Getting angry because they weren’t doing an adult thing. At three.
You did that?
I still do, sometimes.
Can’t you get that under control?
I do what I can. I own the mistakes I make. That’s the best I can do.
Do you think your children ever did anything wrong?
They were being children. They were learning. Being a child isn’t wrong. It is wrong to expect a child to behave like an adult and then label it bad behavior.
Do they pay attention to what you say now?
The less counsel you give, the more they want it. They pay more attention all the time.
Does it bother you when they ignore your advice and make mistakes?
We’re separate people. They make their own decisions. That’s healthy. I’m glad they can disagree with me. I want them to be able to say no. This is good.
Do you ever freak out?
Yes.
How does that work?
Badly. I lose their respect. That’s a consequence of my actions.
Do you freak out often?
Less all the time.
Because they’re growing up?
Because I’m growing up. Children do that to a person.
What if they’re disrespectful?
They lose my good will. That’s a consequence of their actions.
Who is in control in your house?
I’m in control of myself. They’re in control of themselves.
What would you say is your bottom line on relationship with your children?
I am me. You are you. We are individuals. I will love you. I will defend you. I will provide for you. If you like, I will advise you. I will acknowledge your decisions are yours and I will not take credit or blame for them.
Is it really that simple?
Yes.
Is it easy to do?
Eventually.
Is it hard to get here?
I’m barely here, myself. But it’s worth it.
Positive discipline rejects punishments and rewards. Instead, children are taught by natural consequences, setting limits, and more — while restraining them as necessary to keep themselves and others safe. I know a number of kids parented by this method, and they’re not perfect (no child is) but they’re all remarkably reasonable, polite, and easy to live with.
If you want to know more, I interviewed Jenn Casey and Kelly Elmore on this very topic on the 27 June 2012 episode of Philosophy in Action Radio. If you’ve not yet heard it, you can listen to or download the podcast here:

Duration: 48:57 Download: Standard MP3 File (11.2 MB) For more details, check out the episode’s archive page.


Link to Original

Too often, when I say something like, “Mr. X acted unjustly toward Ms. Y” or “Mr. X, I think that you were not honest with Ms. Y,” the reaction of Mr. X (and defenders of Mr. X) is something like , “SO YOU THINK THAT MR. X IS AN UNJUST PERSON!” or “HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A LIAR!” (Yes, they’re often angry and yelling.)
Alas, such inferences are wholly unwarranted. The simple fact is that a person might act wrongly — even perhaps violating the basic demands of a virtue — without being a terrible or corrupt or vicious person. Perhaps the person acted in haste, without sufficient forethought. Perhaps the person acted on a mistaken principle. Perhaps the person didn’t see the full effects or implications of his actions. Perhaps the person misunderstands the proper application of the principle. Perhaps the person was ignorant of certain facts about the situation. Perhaps the person thought the principle didn’t apply in that case. And so on.
Basically, a person can act wrongly — meaning, in a way harmful to self or others — without intending to do so. A person might act contrary to a virtue, yet do so honestly.
That’s part of why moral judgments of persons for their actions need to be distinguished from moral judgments of persons for their characters. These are two different kinds of judgments, and they serve two distinct purposes. (That’s a critical point for my case against moral luck.) Of course, these two kinds of judgments are related: judgments of actions are the basis for judgments of character. Nonetheless, a single bad action does not a bad character make — just as a single good action does not a good character make.
Aristotle makes a similar point in Book 5, Chapter 8 of the The Nicomachean Ethics. (Note that to act by “choice” means that the person deliberates beforehand about his best course of action.)


When [a man] acts with knowledge but not after deliberation, it is an act of injustice — e.g. the acts due to anger or to other passions necessary or natural to man; for when men do such harmful and mistaken acts they act unjustly, and the acts are acts of injustice, but this does not imply that the doers are unjust or wicked; for the injury is not due to vice. But when a man acts from choice, he is an unjust man and a vicious man.
Now, I make more allowances than Aristotle does here. Deliberation can go awry for many reasons, even in good people. Still, I agree with Aristotle that a person’s chosen actions reveal his character more clearly than do his hasty, impulsive, or rote actions. Often, when a person deliberates, he ought to know better, and he ought to have acted differently.
As for the people who assume that any moral criticism means an accusation of vice… well, that kind of defensiveness suggests that they damn well intended to do what they did — or, in any case, they’re sure as heck not going to admit that they were wrong. I’d consider that a major red flag in a person.


Link to Original

This story — Drug Warriors Kidnap and Sexually Assault a Woman After Getting Permission From a Dog — is appalling in its own right:


In a case eerily similar to David Eckert’s humiliating ordeal at the hands of cops in Deming, New Mexico, a federal lawsuit charges U.S. Border Patrol agents with subjecting a U.S. citizen to six hours of degrading and fruitless body cavity searches based on an alleged alert by a drug-sniffing dog.
However, what’s really noteworthy, I think, is the complicity of the doctors and medical staff:


First the agents strip-searched the plaintiff, examining her anus and vagina with a flashlight. Finding nothing, they took her to the University Medical Center of El Paso, where they forced her to take a laxative and produce a bowel movement in their presence. Again they found no evidence of contraband. At this point one of their accomplices, a physician named Christopher Cabanillas, ordered an X-ray, which likewise found nothing suspicious. Then the plaintiff “endured a forced gynecological exam” and rectal probing at the hands of another doctor, Michael Parsa. Still nothing. Finally, Cabanillas ordered a CT scan of the plaintiff’s abdomen and pelvis, which found no sign of illegal drugs. “After the CT scan,” the complaint says, “a CBP [Customs and Border Patrol] agent presented Ms. Doe with a choice: she could either sign a medical consent form, despite the fact that she had not consented, in which case CBP would pay for the cost of the searches; or if she refused to sign the consent form, she would be billed for the cost of the searches.” She refused, and later the hospital sent her a bill for $5,000, apparently the going rate for sexual assault and gratuitous radiological bombardment.
As the article says, this case “illustrates the appalling complicity of doctors in waging the war on drugs, even when it involves utterly unethical participation in dehumanizing pseudomedical procedures performed on involuntary and audibly protesting ‘patients.’”
In my view, civil damages are an insufficient remedy in such cases. Assuming that the doctors and staff knew that the woman did not consent to these warrantless searches, then they are guilty of the crime of sexual assault. They should be arrested and prosecuted for that. Perhaps then doctors would think twice before passively doing whatever government agents demand.
Alas, that seems unlikely. Hopefully, some justice will be served by this civil suit.


Link to Original

As September draws to a close today, I wanted to share some of the kind words sent to me about Philosophy in Action Radio lately… as a tiny reminder to you to contribute to Philosophy in Action’s Tip Jar if you enjoy the show too. Here we go:


Your radio show is awesome, by the way. You pack such impeccable logic and reason into an easily digestible philosophy and I applaud you for tackling real issues…
Ah, thank you!


I just wanted to send you a general “thank you!” and “keep up the good work!” I’ve been enjoying all of your radio shows, and especially liked your interview with Jonathan Hoenig on the workings of financial markets. The school year will be starting soon for me, and it will be nice to have your radio show on Sunday to relax to.
Yay! Here’s that interview: Jonathan Hoenig on The Workings of Financial Markets.


I just wanted to thank you for the all the efforts that go into producing Philosophy in Action. I am something of a podcast junkie, but I do make your show a priority. You’ve succeeded in making philosophy fun, interesting, and even humorous. …
I appreciate you answering my question about non-financial incentives for showing how much a person values your show. To that end, I’m making it a point to share upcoming events as often as I see them.
In reference to that last sentence, even if you can’t afford to contribute to Philosoph in Action’s Tip Jar, I really appreciate when people share upcoming events, posted podcasts, and blog posts on social media. That helps spread the word about the show, and I appreciate that hugely!


Thank you for providing the podcasts. My husband and I are both programmers who work from home. Since we don’t have commutes, we don’t often set aside time to listen to radio or podcasts otherwise. But we recently started a big painting project in our house, and a friend recommended your show. We’ve been looking forward to listening in on Sundays & catching up on your back catalog for the past month of weekends as we slowly finish painting my husband’s office. Your discussions have provided us with plenty of food for thought and topics for conversation. I really enjoyed your answers to the problem of dealing with panhandlers (a sadly common occurrence where we live) and social contract theory. Please keep up the great work. You’ve gained two loyal listeners & I’ll be setting up a recurring payment soon.
I love that! Here are the discussions mentioned: Responding to Panhandlers and Social Contract Theory.


I’ve been reading NoodleFood for many years, and it has been a huge boon to my life. I started reading it just after I read Atlas Shrugged, back when I was an Objectivist infant. You’ve helped clarify my thinking on so many issues. And the work you’re doing now in your podcasts is better equipping me to pursue my own life and happiness. I’m thrilled to support your work in whatever small way I can. Thank you so much.
Hooray!


Thank you for providing the same support that I used to get from the Ayn Rand newsletters which also provided rational views of topical situations. I enjoy the broadcasts and will send more tips.
Wow, that’s really lovely to hear. Really!
Today is the last day to support my work this month via Philosophy in Action’s Tip Jar. I want to give a big shout of appreciation to everyone who has contributed so far in 2013, particularly to the amazing people who contribute every week or month. That’s so important to me, both spiritually and materially.



Link to Original

Rights Are Inalienable But Forfeitable:

In my recent Philosophy in Action Webcast discussion of the death penalty, I mentioned Craig Biddle's discussion of the fact that rights are inalienable but forfeitable. As promised, here's footnote 46 of his excellent essay, Ayn Rand's Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society


... If rights were somehow inherent in man by virtue of his being man, then we could never punish people who violate rights--because using retaliatory force against them would violate the "rights" that they "inherently" have and that they thus always retain by virtue of being human. Because Rand's theory is based on and derived from the observable requirements of man's life, it is not afflicted with contradictions regarding those requirements. On Rand's theory, rights are inalienable, in that others cannot take away or nullify one's rights; but they are also forfeitable, in that one can relinquish one's own rights by violating the rights of others. If and to the extent that a person violates the rights of others, he relinquishes his own rights and may be punished accordingly. His choice to violate rights places him outside the purpose of the principle and thus the scope of its protection. Again, one cannot claim the protection of a principle that one repudiates in action. If rights were inherent in human nature, based purely on DNA or species-membership, then the advocates of "personhood for zygotes" would be right: the fertilized egg would have a right to life. However, on an objective theory of rights, rights cannot apply until the fetus is biologically separated from the woman. Only then does the fetus -- then a baby -- enter the social context necessary for rights. For further details, see Ari Armstrong's and my recently-published essay, "The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties.


Original entry: See link at top of this post

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


Link to Original

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


Link to Original

Let me suggest that you actually bother to learn something about Ms. Jolie's motives behind her humanitarian causes before (and instead of) tossing off explicitly ignorant remarks in defense of her. Even a casual peek reveals a revolting stench of altruism.

Oh, how I love this — and how we need it today.

Don’t judge humanity by the actions of a lone moral monster. Instead, focus on the many, many people who abhor this vicious injustice and offer help to the innocent victims. Better yet, be one of those good people when and where you can.


Link to Original

In my June 24th episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on whether the corporal punishment of children is ever justified. Two weeks later, I was stunned and thrilled and blown away and elated to receive this email from a total stranger who found Philosophy in Action via the Stitcher App. Here, see for yourself (with his permission).


Dr. Hsieh -
I recently discovered your podcasts when I subscribed to Stitcher and the app suggested it as something I might like. The app was correct.
The first podcast I heard was the one in which you discussed corporal punishment of children.
I was raised by parents who scolded, yelled, punished and frequently spanked me repeatedly with a belt. Until now, I had prided myself that when I spanked either of my twins I did so only once with my open hand and only when they were “out of control” – but if truth be told I have also noticed that I only spanked them when I was frustrated and angry at their behavior as well.
You really made me think when you asked the question, “What are you teaching your kids when you hit them?’ But you made my jaw drop when you matter-of-factly stated, “Obedience is not a virtue.”
It was a simple yet grand statement that I instantly realized was TRUE. It was grand because I had never thought of it before.
I have, in fact, been trying to teach my children to be obedient. Obedient to me to be sure, but obedient nonetheless. Since hearing it, your statement has been ringing in my head like a bell and I’ve realized that obedient may be that last thing I want my children to be – and that includes being obedient to me.
I want them to be strong, intelligent, confident and self-directed. I want them to question everything and take no statement for granted. I want them to internalized a father who loves them and values and respects them as rational beings.
So, a day or so after I heard your podcast I sat down with my 4 years old son and daughter after giving them breakfast and I told them that I had decided that spanking them was wrong and that I would not do it anymore. Their eyes lit up at hearing this and something changed in our relationship at that moment. I also hit upon, quite by accident, the principal argument and rationale that I have since used over and over again to convince them to cooperate with me. I asked them to help me.
Children generally love to help their parents and I now regularly ask them to help me get them ready for school, or ready for bed. I ask them to help us get things done so we can do other things. There are still times when they are willful and uncooperative and I get frustrated and angry, but I’ve kept my promise to not spank them and instead I tell them honestly how I feel and I usually refuse to help them with some trivial request that they’ve made pointing out that they didn’t help me when I asked them to.
Now, I find their willful episodes becoming less and less of a problem – much less than when I would spank them for it. Instead, they seem to be learning that kindness and cooperation beget kindness and cooperation.
I thought that you might like to know that all this has come from you saying to me, “Obedience is not a virtue.”
I thank you for that truth.
- Christopher J. Wieczorek, PE
Wow, just wow. My hearty admiration and congratulations to Christopher. He’s quite a man — and quite a father.
If you missed that episode on spanking children, have a listen:

Duration: 25:08 Download: MP3 Segment Also, if you’re interested in taking your parenting to the next level, I interviewed Jenn Casey and Kelly Elmore on “Parenting without Punishment” on the next Wednesday. That’s here:

Duration: 48:57 Download: Standard MP3 File (11.3 MB)

Link to Original

From Facebook:
A notable Objectivist intellectual said the following about the election: “Tragically, the election revealed that we are no longer America. … The American sense of life does still exist, but it no longer is the majority attitude. The sense of life that used to be very widespread dwells now in only about half of us.”
That is, to put it gently, a gigantic non sequitur. It assumes that every Obama voter lacks an American sense of life, while every Romney voter has an American sense of life. That’s a ridiculous claim on its face. It also ignores the millions of Americans who didn’t vote for either Romney or Obama for president.
It’s not even plausible as a general claim, true of “most people.” Anyone who has ever lived in a very red state knows just how frighteningly theocratic most Republican residents and politicians are. Heck, even in the very purple Colorado, many GOP candidates are determined to govern based on their notion of biblical principles. That’s a large part of why Democrats won Colorado, yet again.
Are we supposed to consider the people who voted for Romney because they abhor gays, decry abortion as murder, demand that the borders be closed, and want creationism taught in schools as having “an American sense of life”? Because those people exist — and in large numbers too. Are we supposed to condemn the people who rejected that insular nuttiness as un-American? Really?!?
If y’all want to be doomy and gloomy about this election… well, go right ahead. It’s a free country: Obama hasn’t implemented his mind-control devices… yet. (No, really!) But pretty please with bacon on top, how about we keep a firm grip on the facts and make good use of the basic principles of logic?




Link to Original

Grow up, stop drinking so much, and stop attending these ridiculous parties.

Neither.
ARI's longstanding policy is to list only ARI donors as contacts for the community pages. (That's a perfectly reasonable policy, in my view.) I'm no longer a donor to ARI. That's why the link to OActivists was removed recently, as well as why I gave ARI a new contact person to be listed for FRO.

Neither.
ARI's longstanding policy is to list only ARI donors as contacts for the community pages. (That's a perfectly reasonable policy, in my view.) I'm no longer a donor to ARI. That's why the link to OActivists was removed recently, as well as why I gave ARI a new contact person to be listed for FRO.

How Not To Argue Against Environmentalists:
Pro-tip: Don’t attempt to dismiss concerns of environmentalists by claiming that the earth has been around for 6000 years, and that’s a long time, so surely this mine won’t cause any problems. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtzJhTfQiMA.



Original entry: See link at top of this post

Good stuff! I got a chance on Sunday to sit and listen to some of these Webcasts. Some good and helpful hints here and there and everywhere.

The thing I like most about them is the "philosophy in action" idea. After all, why go to the trouble of learning the philosophy if I am not going to use it?

I live my life in thinking and action. That is to say, in my everyday life, I have to think on my feet. I don't have time to sit and study problems, to sit around and write papers. I have to fix problems and keep everything going to the best of my ability.

In my spare time, I try to take the time to keep the philosophy fresh in my mind so that it will be there for me and I can put it to work for me when I want it.

For me, philosophy is practical and applied. It is high ideals I am striving for, of course, as I think I should always strive to be the best I can be, but it is also just a hammer, a pair of pliers or a shovel when I need one.

It is good to hear the philosophy applied in everyday life, in everyday situations.

The Rationally Selfish Webcast has a new name and new web site: Philosophy in Action! (The web site won't be available until the morning of the webcast.) Here's this week's announcement. I hope to see you on Sunday morning! — DMH

In my live "Philosophy in Action" Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll answer questions on the morality of working for a minister, giving away unhealthy food, voting for horrible politicians, celebrating holidays, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we'll apply rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy, and free lives!
What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins
When: Sunday, 6 November 2011 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET
Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com

Here are this week's questions:
Question 1: The Morality of Working for a Minister: Is working for a minister giving religion moral sanction? As an atheist, I once worked for an ordained minster who was the owner of a gallery. I became his manager when I made it clear that I was an atheist, but that I was a good framing manager. I don't think I gave him a moral sanction for his irrationality by working for him under those terms. What do you think?
Question 2: Giving Away Unhealthy Food: Is it immoral to give away food that you regard as unhealthy? Assuming that one believes (as I do) that candy and sweets are harmful to health (especially in quantity), is it immoral to participate in trick-or-treat by giving children candy when they come to your door? Or, is it immoral to "dispose" of an unwanted gift of, say, a rich chocolate cake by leaving it by the coffee machine at work to be quickly scarfed up by one's co-workers (as an alternative to simply discarding it)? Is the morality of these two cases different because in one case the recipients are children while in the other case they are adults?
Question 3: Voting for Horrible Politicians: All the candidates are nearly perfectly horrid, just in different ways. Why should I even bother to vote?
Question 4: Celebrating Holidays: What is the value of celebrating holidays? How do you think holidays should or should not be celebrated? Also, what is your favorite holiday and how do you like to celebrate it?

After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions."

For the past year-and-some, I've been re-reading Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand with a few local Objectivist gals. (We only read about 30 pages per month, so our progress is slow!) A few weeks ago, we read the chapter on "Government" -- and doing so raised a nagging question that I've had related to last summer's heated debate about the NYC Mosque.

On Facebook, I've seen some Objectivists defend Leonard Peikoff's position that the NYC Mosque ought to be forbidden by law by saying "the right to life trumps the right to property." At first, I thought that Peikoff must have said something like that in his podcast on the topic. However, I was pleased to discover that, although I still disagree with aspects of that podcast, that's not true. Here's what Peikoff said, according to Trey Givens' transcription:


Let's start with property rights. Property rights are limited and they are contextual. You cannot do anything you want with property even though it is yours, not if its ramifications objectively entail a threat to the rights of others. You can't build a bomb in your home. You can't even build a big bonfire in your backyard legitimately because the principle of rights is that property rights are a derivative of life as the standard and there can be no right to threaten anyone's life nor indeed to threaten anyone's property.

Second, rights are contextual. In any situation where metaphysical survival is at stake all property rights are out. You have no obligation to respect property rights. The obvious, classic example of this is, which I've been asked a hundred times, you swim to a desert island -- you know, you had a shipwreck -- and when you get to the shore, the guy comes to you and says, "I've got a fence all around this island. I found it. It's legitimately mine. You can't step onto the beach." Now, in that situation you are in a literal position of being metaphysically helpless. Since life is the standard of rights, if you no longer can survive this way, rights are out. And it becomes dog-eat-dog or force-against force.

Now, don't assume that any unsatisfied need therefore puts you in this metaphysical category. For instance, you are very poor and you are hungry. Well, you need feed. But in a capitalist society, even in a mixed economy, that is not a metaphysical deprivation. There's always all sorts of choices and ways in a free society for you to gain food. Always. I agree with that portion of his podcast, and I think that's consistent with what he says in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand about rights as as unity:


In content, as the Founding Fathers recognized, there is one fundamental right, which has several major derivatives. The fundamental right is the right to life. Its major derivatives are the right to liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

The right to life means the right to sustain and protect one's life. It means the right to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the preservation of his life. To sustain his life, man needs a method of survival—he must use his rational faculty to gain knowledge and choose values, then act to achieve his values. The right to liberty is the right to this method; it is the right to think and choose, then to act in accordance with one's judgment. To sustain his life, man needs to create the material means of his survival. The right to property is the right to this process; in Ayn Rand's definition, it is "the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values." To sustain his life, man needs to be governed by a certain motive—his purpose must be his own welfare. The right to the pursuit of happiness is the right to this motive; it is the right to live for one's own sake and fulfillment.

Rights form a logical unity. In the words of Samuel Adams, all are "evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature." It would be a crude contradiction to tell a man: you have a right to life, but you need the permission of others to think or act. Or: you have a right to life, but you need the permission of others to produce or consume. Or: you have a right to life, but don't dare pursue any personal motive without the approval of the government. I don't think that Peikoff's views in his podcast or book can be properly summarized as "the right to life trumps the right to property." That implies a false theory of rights, according to which rights can conflict, and when they do, the "lesser" rights must give way to the "greater" rights. That's not just wrong: it's an outright rejection of the demands of logic in politics. That's because the whole point of calling something a "right" is to identify it not just as one value among others to be weighed, but instead to say that it's a "trump." Rights are supposed to settle -- authoritatively -- what people should be permitted to do. If rights can conflict, then rights aren't meaningful any longer. They're just a mush of who-knows-what.

Of all the errors in modern politics, the idea that people's rights routinely conflict is probably the most pernicious of all. It opens the door to any and all rights violations -- from OSHA to Medicare to the ADA to the Drug War -- because when logic is removed from politics, it's deuces wild.

So if you want to summarize Dr. Peikoff's position, I'd think that something along the lines of "property rights are contextual, and in the context of America's war against militant Islam, the property rights of the enemy are null and void" would be more accurate.

As for my own views, I agree with Peikoff's general claims about rights in wartime. I continue to disagree about the proper application of those principles in the context of American's current foreign policy. In particular, I regard voiding anyone's property rights by any means necessary in an undeclared and unfought war as extraordinarily dangerous to the liberties of all dissenting Americans, including Objectivists. However, as is true for all mosques, any terrorist connections should be vigorously investigated -- and prosecuted if confirmed.

Over the last year, the controversy over the project has died down, but I've not heard whether the project has been abandoned, delayed, or continues. I hope that it's deader than Bin Laden, but if not, I'd be interested to hear about its current state.


Cross-posted from Metablog

In Sunday's Rationally Selfish Webcast, I answered the following question about the child support obligations of unwilling fathers:


Should a man unwilling to be a father have to pay child support? Suppose that a man and a woman have sex, and the woman becomes pregnant -- even though the couple used contraception based on a shared and expressed desire not to have children. If the woman decides to raise the baby, should she be able to collect child support from the man? What if they'd never discussed the possibility of pregnancy? What if they didn't use any form of birth control? Here's my answer, now http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66JvxW5eu2k:



No involuntary servitude! No involuntary parentude!

The policy paper mentioned in the video is The 'Personhood' Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception by Ari Armstrong and me.

Cross-posted from Metablog

The religious right claims to advocate "biblical marriage"... but what does that actually mean? Take a look, and be sure to read the fine print:



Hooray for family values!



Cross-posted from Metablog

The religious right claims to advocate "biblical marriage"... but what does that actually mean? Take a look, and be sure to read the fine print:



Hooray for family values!



Cross-posted from Metablog

Paul and I published a lengthy NoodleFood post on the facts surrounding John McCaskey's resignation from the boards of ARI and Anthem. You can read it here:

The Resignation of John McCaskey: The Facts

As we say toward the end: "We hope that the information in this post will help others make better-informed judgments of these events. In addition, we hope that discussions of this topic, whether online or in-person, will be conducted with greater concern for the facts, mutual respect, and basic manners than we've seen from many people so far."