Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Philosophy in Action Radio: Show Announcements

Rate this topic


dianahsieh
 Share

Recommended Posts

On Wednesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll interview English Ph.D student Kelly Elmore about "The Value of Rhetoric." This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Wednesday, 21 August 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. 

What is rhetoric? Why does it matter? How can the basic concepts of rhetoric help us write more effectively, understand advertising, or prepare for an interview? 

Kelly Elmore is an English graduate student in Rhetoric and Composition, an assistant director of the Georgia State University Writing Studio, a teacher of freshman composition, writing consultant for the geology department, homeschooling mom to Livy, partner to Aaron, and the instigator of family adventures for both, avid reader, lover of vampires and the Regency, separate or combined, Anglophile, extrovert, and proud possessor of a very tall soapbox. 

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: Kelly Elmore on The Value of Rhetoric. 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:

I hope you join us on Wednesday evening... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in this topic! 

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 161
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On Wednesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll interview Cheryl Hein about "Parenting a Child with Disabilities." This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Wednesday, 28 August 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. 

What are some of the rewards and challenges of parenting a child with disabilities? How should parents navigate family dynamics, education, and social interactions? How can parents do right by their disabled child, as well as themselves and other family members? 

Cheryl Hein is the mother of nineteen year old boy-girl twins, one of whom, her daughter, was born with developmental disabilities, including Down syndrome and autism. In choosing the approaches for educating their twins, Ms. Hein and her husband considered a number of key values, such as effective education, opportunities for intellectual and social enrichment, family dynamics, and, as they got older, their kids' preferences; practical considerations such as cost and logistics were also weighed. Ms. Hein became heavily involved in understanding and navigating public school special education services and other available private and government programs for educating her children, and in advocating for the choices she believed were right for them. As she has lived with the daily and long range parenting challenges, she has also thought deeply about matters of family, private and government support for the education, care and keeping of children and adults with intellectual disabilities. 

Ms. Hein received a B.S. degree in Industrial Engineering from the University of Wisconsin, Madison and an M.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering from UCLA. She has managed multi-million dollar R&D programs for private industry, state and federal governments for more than 30 years, in settings as broad as manufacturing, product development, private research laboratories and university research organizations. Most recently, as managing director of the UCLA Center for Advanced Surgical and Interventional Technology (CASIT) and in private entrepreneurial efforts, she has focused on fostering advances in technologies for education and training based on combining findings from the science of learning with interactive computer technologies such as simulation and games to create learning systems that align effectively with how our brains work. 

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: Cheryl Hein on Parenting a Child with Disabilities. 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:

I hope you join us on Wednesday evening... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in this topic! 

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on the value of competition, risking welfare by having children, the trolley problem, romantic infatuation, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 1 September 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 Value of Competition: What is the value of competition? You recently competed in your first three-phase event on your horse. Why did you bother to do that? How did that affect your mindset and training? What did you learn from the experience? More broadly, what is the value of such competition? Shouldn't people always do their best, even when not being tested against other people? 

Question 2: Risking Welfare by Having Children: Should a person forgo having children to avoid the risk of needing welfare? I know that accepting government welfare is wrong: it's a kind of loot stolen from taxpayers. For a person to accept welfare is damaging to his life and happiness. However, I would like children, but in today's economy, particularly with my spouse's frequent job turnover, I'm not sure that's possible without ever relying on welfare. If I had children, I don't know if I would be able to resist becoming a looter to care for them. What if the only alternative is for the state to take charge of them? I couldn't allow that. Wouldn't accepting welfare be better than that? 

Question 3: The Trolley Problem: Does the "trolley problem" have any validity or use? I often come across people who think ethical philosophy consists of asking others what they would do in hypothetical situations in which they are allowed only two options, both terrible. One I keep coming across is that of the Trolley Problem proposed by Philippa Foot and modified by Judith Thomson, in which one must choose whether to kill one person or let five others die. Is it valid for moral philosophers to pose the Trolley Problem to people and to insist that people's answers show that one can only either be a deontologist or a utilitarian? 

Question 4: Romantic Infatuation: Is it wrong to indulge romantic infatuation? I am infatuated with a young woman for whom I am not a suitable match, including because I am 30 and she is 16. It is strictly a fantasy; I make no effort to pursue or to make my feelings known to her and have no intention to ever do so. However, in private, I am deeply in love with her and practically worship her like a celebrity and collect all her pictures. (I refrain from masturbating to her because doing so makes me feel guilty.) Due to deficiencies in my life that I consider unfixable, I have low self-esteem and have given up on dating for the foreseeable future, if not indefinitely. Do you think my behavior is creepy, immoral, or bad for my own well being? 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: Competition, Risking Welfare, Trolley Problem, Infatuation, 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:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Wednesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll interview personal health coach Christian Wernstedt about "Your Health Versus Stress." This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Wednesday, 4 September 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. 

What are some of the common ways that stress impairs a person's health? What can a person do to resolve those problems? Personal health coach Christian Wernstedt helped me recover from adrenal insufficiency, leaky gut, and other problems stemming from my 2009 crash into hypothyroidism. In this interview, he'll share his basic approach and insights with us. 

Christian Wernstedt, born and raised in Sweden but now living in New York City, is a personal health coach, educator, and entrepreneur specializing in applying science and time proven empirical methodology to one's everyday practices such as diet, exercise, and supplementation. In 2008, while working as a freelance IT consultant, he became Interested in evolutionary concepts in nutrition and has since then studied and practiced these and other health related ideas and methodologies. In 2010 he founded the company VitalObjectives, which has since then become a successful coaching and educational practice with a track record of putting individuals on a path towards improved health and resolution of health issues. 

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: Christian Wernstedt on Your Health Versus Stress. 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:

I hope you join us on Wednesday evening... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in this topic! 

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on the value of a central purpose, self-confidence at work, keeping secrets for competitive advantage, hate crime laws, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 8 September 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 Value of a Central Purpose: What is the meaning and value of a central purpose? In "The Objectivist Ethics," Ayn Rand says that "productive work is the central purpose of a rational man's life, the central value that integrates and determines the hierarchy of all his other values." I find that confusing. What constitutes a central purpose? How does it function in a person's life, particularly in relation to other values like a spouse, children, and hobbies? Should I be worried if I don't have a clearly identified central purpose? 

Question 2: Self-Confidence at Work: How can a person gain the self-confidence required to ask for a promotion at work? I know some people who don't socialize much, and they really seem to struggle during interviews for promotions. They seem to lack confidence in themselves. How can they gain it? Does that kind of self-confidence depend on social acceptance and support? 

Question 3: Keeping Secrets for Competitive Advantage: Is it wrong to protect my competitive advantage in sport by refusing to share information? I am an aspiring MMA fighter. I've done a lot of work studying personal fitness, how to prevent and fix personal injuries, and how to maximize force output. I recently signed up for a MMA gym to prepare for some amateur fights. I'm concerned that when I do non-conventional "stretches" before or after a workout I'll get questions from curious people. Then I'm in a dilemma. I would like to make friends, but I really don't want to give away for free my knowledge that I have worked hard to achieve – knowledge which gives me an edge over many competitors. I don't want to tell them where I got this information either. Perhaps if they ask what I'm doing, I could say "trade secret" or something else. Ultimately though, I don't want to give potential competitors the tools that will help them beat me. Is this legitimate? Is it immoral or unwise? 

Question 4: Hate Crime Laws: Are hate crime laws just? Hate crime laws impose additional penalties for crimes motivated by hatred for or bias against the victim for his group membership, such as religious affiliation, sexual orientation, or ethnic background. Do such laws protect or violate individual rights? Should such laws be maintained, modified, or repealed? 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: Central Purpose, Self-Confidence, Secrets, Hate Crimes, 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:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on identifying a central purpose, Immanuel Kant on sex, becoming an educated voter, atheists patronizing religious businesses, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 15 September 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: Identifying a Central Purpose: How can I identify my own central purpose? I understand the importance of a central purpose to organize my values and pursuits. However, I'm not sure how to identify what my central purpose is. What if I have a few major pursuits, but none dominates the others? What if my career is in flux – or not yet settled? Also, how concrete or abstract should my central purpose be? 

Question 2: Immanuel Kant on Sex: What are Immanuel Kant's views on sex? In your June 30th, 2013 discussion of studying philosophy in academia, you said that Immanuel Kant has some very distinctive and revealing views about marriage, sex, and masturbation. What are they? What do they reveal about this ethics? Have they been influential in academia or the culture? 

Question 3: Becoming an Educated Voter: How should I educate myself so that I can cast informed votes in elections? I'm 25, and I've never voted in any local, state, or national election. I have good reason for that, I think: I've never been able to educate myself sufficiently on the candidates to be certain of who to vote for. Also, as a marketing student with a passion for advertising and public relations, I don't think I could vote until I'd seen the inside of a campaign team as a member of it, so that I have a personal understanding of how much the candidate presented is real or idealized. I know that that is unrealistic, because I wouldn't know which candidate to work for. Instead of that, what steps could I take to inform myself, without consuming too much time, so that I could vote in the next presidential election? 

Question 4: Atheists Patronizing Religious Businesses: Is it wrong for an atheist to patronize religious businesses? Is it an endorsement of religion or failure of integrity for an atheist to buy goods or services from a religious business, such as hiring an explicitly religious (and advertised as such) plumber or joining the local YMCA? 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: Central Purpose, Kant on Sex, Voter Education, 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:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Wednesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll interview Professor Robert Garmong about "Censorship in China." This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Wednesday, 18 September 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. 

How does censorship work in China? What can ordinary people access or not? What is the Chinese government most concerned to conceal? What are the consequences of speaking out? What do ordinary people think of the censorship? Robert Garmong, an American living and working in China, will answer these questions and more. 

Robert Garmong is Lecturer of Business at the Surrey International Institute of Dongbei University of Finance and Economics in Dalian, China. He studied economics and political science at the University of Chicago, and has a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Texas (Austin). His blog is "Professor in Dalian." 

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: Robert Garmong on Censorship in China. 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:

I hope you join us on Wednesday evening... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in this topic! 

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on fair use of intellectual property, teaching children to share, accepting risks in fun, keeping secrets, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 22 September 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: Fair Use of Intellectual Property: What is the moral line between respecting copyrights and fair use? From a moral rather than legal perspective, what are the requirements to respect someone's right to their own work? For example if you have a movie on DVD is it moral to switch it to electronic form for your own use or should you buy the other form? When is quoting from an article or making a spoof fair use versus not respecting the owner's ownership? 

Question 2: Teaching Children to Share: How do I teach my toddlers how to share voluntarily? I'm the father of 23 month-old girl/boy twins who are just beginning to develop morality. I'm also an atheist with strong Objectivist leanings. I don't want to teach my children that they shouldn't commit a particular offense because God is watching them, as that will instill only fear of the unknown in them. What should I do instead? The twins will fight over particular things (e.g. toys, books, plastic containers, etc.). Too often I find myself trying to keep the peace with the one word command of "Share!" Forced sharing offends me but I find myself using it with the children because their understanding is limited and because it's easy to use. What might I do instead? 

Question 3: Accepting Risks in Fun: How can I help my partner accept my doing risky activities? I would describe my partner as modestly adventurous. He's willing to try things now and then, but there are lots of things that I'd like to do that he not only refuses to do but forbids me to do as well. For example, I saw a deal to take a beginner pilot lesson on LivingSocial. I have no interest in getting my pilot's license, but I think it would be fun to sit in the seat with a teacher and learn a little something about how it's done. To my mind, this is perfectly safe. My partner, however, says, "No way." Also, I want to go swimming with sharks (with supervision, inside a cage). Yes, there's some risk, but I think that sounds like a lot of fun. My boyfriend disagrees. I did talk him into going skydiving with me once, but he refuses to go again. He bought me a gift certificate so I could do another tandem dive. But I loved it enough that I would consider getting certified to jump on my own. Yet he forbids it. People do these kinds of activities all the time without injury or any other harm. Plus, I want to do them with all proper supervision and safety precautions. I'm certain that my boyfriend understands these mandates of his carry little to no weight with me, but I wish he would be a little more reasonable about the way he assesses these risks. I definitely wish he'd find a better way of expressing his concern for my safety than just issuing commands about what I will and will not do. What should I do? 

Question 4: Keeping Secrets: When should I respect a person's request to keep information secret? Often, people ask me to keep something they've told me (or will tell me) to myself. Or, they'll ask me not to share it with anyone other than my spouse. Such secrets might consist of happy news that will soon be known, such as future career plans or a pregnancy. That's no problem. However, when the matter is more serious – like psychological struggles, personal wrongdoings, marital troubles, and conflicts with mutual friends – I feel like I'm caught in a bind. Often, I have reason to fear that other people I care about might be hurt, and I feel an obligation to warn them. Is that right? Or am I obliged to keep secrets scrupulously? 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: Fair Use, Sharing in Children, Risky Fun, Secrets, 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:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Wednesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll interview peanut allergy mom Jenn Casey about "Living Safely with Food Allergies." This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Wednesday, 25 September 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. 

Many Americans have food allergies to common foods such as peanuts, dairy, and eggs. Some of those allergies are so serious as to be life-threatening. Jenn Casey's son has a life-threatening peanut allergy, diagnosed when he was a toddler. What must people diagnosed with such allergies do to protect themselves from accidental ingestion? How can parents keep their children with such allergies safe? How should other people in their lives – such as family, friends, and teachers – do to protect them from harm? What should schools, clubs, and other organizations do? 

Jenn Casey is a homeschooling mom to three hilarious kids, wife, small business owner, CrossFit athlete and coach, Positive Discipline educator, sometime blogger, puppy trainer, reluctant 5K runner, urban-chicken-raising wannabe, amateur gardener, humor dabbler, serious Beatles enthusiast, longtime Objectivist, economics nerd, even bigger operations management nerd, Sauvignon Blanc lover, bourbon appreciator, and President of ATLOS. 

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: Jenn Casey on Living Safely with Food Allergies. 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:

I hope you join us on Wednesday evening... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in this topic! 

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on keeping secrets, choosing an ultimate end, studying history, moral blacks and whites, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 29 September 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: Keeping Secrets: When should I respect a person's request to keep information secret? Often, people ask me to keep something they've told me (or will tell me) to myself. Or, they'll ask me not to share it with anyone other than my spouse. Such secrets might consist of happy news that will soon be known, such as future career plans or a pregnancy. That's no problem. However, when the matter is more serious – like psychological struggles, personal wrongdoings, marital troubles, and conflicts with mutual friends – I feel like I'm caught in a bind. Often, I have reason to fear that other people I care about might be hurt, and I feel an obligation to warn them. Is that right? Or am I obliged to keep secrets scrupulously? 

Question 2: Choosing an Ultimate End: Can a person choose an ultimate value other than his own life? Ayn Rand claims that each person's life is his own ultimate value. Similarly, Aristotle says that each person's final end is his own flourishing or well-being. Does that mean that a person cannot have another ultimate value or final end? Or just that they should not? 

Question 3: Studying History: How should a person approach the study of history? I've always prided myself on being a "student of history" – meaning that I read and think a great deal about the past and try to apply its lessons to the future. Is this a valid concept? Am I missing a bigger picture? Do you have any tips on being a better "student of history"? 

Question 4: Moral Blacks and Whites: Can life be morally black and white? People often say life is not "black and white," meaning that sometimes we must navigate morally gray zones, particularly when dealing with complex decisions involving other people. However, if we make decisions based on objective absolutes, doesn't that eliminate these so-called "morally gray zones"? 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: Keeping Secrets, Ultimate Ends, Studying History, 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:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Wednesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll interview Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Timothy Sandefur about "Occupational Licensing Versus the Right to Earn a Living." This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Wednesday, 2 October 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. 

Many states require licenses to practice certain professions – from medicine to styling hair. What are the practical effects of such licensing requirements? Do they protect the public from quacks, as their defenders claim? Or do they violate a person's right to earn a living and promote poverty? How have the courts ruled on cases challenging licensing requirements? 

Timothy Sandefur is a Principal Attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation. As the lead attorney in the Foundation's Economic Liberty Project, he works to protect businesses against abusive government regulation, and has won important victories for free enterprise in California, Oregon, Missouri, and other states. He is the author of three books, Cornerstone of Liberty: Property Rights in 21st Century America (2006), The Right to Earn A Living: Economic Freedom And The Law (2010), and The Conscience of The Constitution: The Declaration of Independence And The Right to Liberty, which will appear in 2014. He has also published more than 45 scholarly articles on subjects ranging from property rights and economic freedom to intellectual property, evolution and creationism, slavery and the Civil War, and the political philosophy of Shakespeare and ancient Greek literature. 

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: Timothy Sandefur on Occupational Licensing Versus the Right to Earn a Living. 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:

I hope you join us on Wednesday evening... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in this topic! 

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on the rights of corporations, psychological egoism, objecting to a professor's views, deduction from axioms, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 6 October 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 Rights of Corporations: Do corporations have free speech rights? Many leftists (including left-libertarians) are vehemently opposed to the "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision, which recognized that corporations have the right to speak in elections. Do corporations have rights? What would it mean for corporations not to have rights? Should corporations be considered "persons" under the law? 

Question 2: Psychological Egoism: Isn't every action selfish, ultimately? Unless coerced, people act however they deem best at that moment. Even if that action is harmful to themselves, aren't they acting selfishly, so as to satisfy their own desires? Even paragons of altruism act because they want to help people, please God, or save the environment: that's what makes them happy. So isn't true, deep-down altruism impossible? 

Question 3: Objecting to a Professor's Views: How strongly should a student object to a professor's objectionable views? I am a senior undergraduate in a liberal arts major at a public university. I'm currently taking a class with the bleak subject matter of genocide. My blatantly socialist teacher presents her views in discussions of the Armenian genocide, the "genocide" in Soviet Russia, and the Holocaust. Often, she ignores the role of religion and flawed socialist policies. Also, she blames greed and capitalism to an unreasonable degree for the woes of the aforementioned countries. How should I respond to these objectionable claims of hers? How much should I try to undermine her wrongheaded views? 

Question 4: Deduction from Axioms: Is philosophy deduced from axioms? Often, I hear people claim that philosophy – particularly Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism – is deduced from axioms. Is that right? Personally, I don't see how that can be: How can anything be deduced from "existence exists"? But in that case, what's the purpose of the axioms? 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: Rights of Corporations, Psychological Egoism, Socialist Professors, 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:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on all sorts of topics from the Rapid Fire Queue. This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Thursday, 10 October 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. 

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: Rapid Fire Extravaganza. 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:

I hope you join us on Thursday 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Wednesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll interview peanut allergy mom Jenn Casey about "Living Safely with Food Allergies." This will be Part 2 of 2.  Part 1 is here.  This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Wednesday, 16 October 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. 

Many Americans have food allergies to common foods such as peanuts, dairy, and eggs. Some of those allergies are so serious as to be life-threatening. Jenn Casey's son has a life-threatening peanut allergy, diagnosed when he was a toddler. What must people diagnosed with such allergies do to protect themselves from accidental ingestion? How can parents keep their children with such allergies safe? How should other people in their lives – such as family, friends, and teachers – do to protect them from harm? What should schools, clubs, and other organizations do? This episode is part two of two. 

Jenn Casey is a homeschooling mom to three hilarious kids, wife, small business owner, CrossFit athlete and coach, Positive Discipline educator, sometime blogger, puppy trainer, reluctant 5K runner, urban-chicken-raising wannabe, amateur gardener, humor dabbler, serious Beatles enthusiast, longtime Objectivist, economics nerd, even bigger operations management nerd, Sauvignon Blanc lover, bourbon appreciator, and President of ATLOS. 

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: Jenn Casey on Living Safely with Food Allergies (Part 2). 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:

I hope you join us on Wednesday evening... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in this topic! 

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on the social effects of economic inequality, favoritism for the genetically engineered, the value of the Ten Commandments, property owners prohibiting firearms, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 20 October 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 Social Effects of Economic Inequality: Is an egalitarian society a better society? The 2009 book "The Spirit Level" argues that income inequality has a broad range of negative effects on society. According to the summary on Wikipedia, "It claims that for each of eleven different health and social problems: physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage pregnancies, and child well-being, outcomes are significantly worse in more unequal rich countries." Are these egalitarian arguments wrong? If so, what's the best approach to refuting them? 

Question 2: Favoritism for the Genetically Engineered: Once some children are genetically engineered, wouldn't discrimination against natural children be inevitable? Assume that humanity has advanced to the technological capacities of the movie "Gattaca," where the best possible genes for each child could be (and mostly would be) chosen before implantation of the embryo. In that case, how could society prevent discrimination against people who were conceived naturally? Those chosen genes would include genes for determination, the desire to learn, motivation, and more, such that engineered people would always win out based on merit. The movie "Gattaca" shows a natural child rising above his engineered counterparts because of his great determination and spirit. The movie's tagline is even "there is no gene for the human spirit." But if there is such a thing as a human spirit, then there surely must be a gene for it. So would discrimination against natural children be inevitable? If so, would it be unjust? 

Question 3: The Value of the Ten Commandments: Are the Ten Commandments of value to an atheist? Are the Ten Commandments a useful guide to living a good life, even for people who are not Jewish or Christian? Should a rational person look to religious scriptures for ethical guidance? 

Question 4: Property Owners Prohibiting Firearms: Should a person respect signs prohibiting guns in certain areas? Some businesses and government offices announce that firearms are prohibited in the building, yet no screening is conducted to ensure that firearms are excluded. In such "pretend gun-free zones," law-abiding people will disarm, while criminals and other dangerous or careless people will not. Is this a violation of a person's right to self-defense? Should people refuse to disarm in face of such signs? 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: Inequality, Genetic Engineering, Ten Commandments, 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:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Wednesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll talk with Dr. Paul Hsieh about "Highlights from the Personality Theory Workshop." This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Wednesday, 23 October 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. 

In early October, I gathered a few close friends in Atlanta to discuss the ins and outs of personality theory. We focused on various theories of personality, as well as the effects of personality differences at work, in parenting, in personal relations, and in activism. In this episode, my husband Paul and I will share the highlights. 

Dr. Paul Hsieh is a physician in practice in South Denver. He is the co-founder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM). He has written scores of op-eds, mostly on health care policy, as well as articles forThe Objective Standard. He blogs offbeat tech news at GeekPress

To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. 

If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Paul Hsieh on Highlights from the Personality Theory Workshop. 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:

I hope you join us on Wednesday evening... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in this topic! 

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on revealing a checkered past, racist names of sports teams, property owners prohibiting firearms, explaining Facebook unfriendings, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 27 October 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: Revealing a Checkered Past: How forthcoming should I be with new people I meet about my checkered past? My past is not a source of pride for me. Over four years ago, I read "Atlas Shrugged." That book altered the radical change I was already bringing into my life for the better. I've recently begun meeting other fans of Ayn Rand in real life, and I dislike discussing my white-trash, moocher-esque history with these new acquaintances. (At the time, I was between 17 and 20 years old.) If I shared my past with these people, I think they might judge me harshly and cut ties with me, given that they don't know me well. However, given my past, I have a clearer understanding of the irrational, twisted, cruel, and nasty nature of people who choose to live like leeches off of other human beings. I think that sharing these experiences with others can be a source of strength to them. (I don't want others to stumble into these poor decisions when they could do better!) So how much of my past should I share with other people, and how should I share it? 

Question 2: Racist Names of Sports Teams: Should sports teams with racist names change them? Dan Snyder, the owner of the Washington Redskins has vowed never to the team's name, insisting that it stands for bravery. I've read conflicting reports about polls of Native Americans. Some are offended, and some don't care. It appears that D.C. area politicians and various academics looking to make names for themselves are leading the charge to change the name, and they seem to have much to gain thereby. Personally, I am not offended by the name, but I wouldn't go onto a reservation and address the people there as "redskins." While the name may be racist and offensive to some, is that a sufficient reason to change it? 

Question 3: Property Owners Prohibiting Firearms: Should a person respect signs prohibiting guns in certain areas? Some businesses and government offices announce that firearms are prohibited in the building, yet no screening is conducted to ensure that firearms are excluded. In such "pretend gun-free zones," law-abiding people will disarm, while criminals and other dangerous or careless people will not. Is this a violation of a person's right to self-defense? Should people refuse to disarm in face of such signs? 

Question 4: Explaining Facebook Unfriendings: Does a person owe others an explanation for unfriending them on Facebook? I'm "friends" with many people on Facebook who I can't stand and with whom I would never willingly spend time in real life. I've purged many Facebook friends I didn't really know and/or who've contributed nothing of value to my life, all for the better. Now I am considering whether to unfriend former lovers and one-time real life friends from my youth for a host of insurmountable reasons – for example, our politics don't jive, I'm annoyed by seeing endless photos of their pets, and so on. Odds are I will never have any dealings with these people again, mostly because I don't want to. Do I owe them an explanation for the unfriending? 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: Checkered Pasts, Racist Names, Gun Rights, 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:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the next episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on the speed of free market reforms, the role of empathy in morality, accepting government welfare, mercenary essay contest writing, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 3 November 2013, in our live studio. If you can't listen live, you'll find the podcast on the episode's archive page

This week's questions are: 

Question 1: The Speed of Free Market Reforms: Should free-market reforms be gradual or instantaneous? Many advocates of free markets concede that reforms toward capitalism should be gradual. For example, Yaron Brook said recently about abolishing Social Security, "There is no way to eliminate it tomorrow. There is no way to eliminate it... cold turkey." (See: ) But why not? What's wrong with the "cold turkey" approach? Is the concern simply that the only way to get people to accept reforms is to make them slowly? Or would it be somehow unjust to cut off people's entitlements suddenly, given that they've come to depend on them? 

Question 2: The Role of Empathy in Morality: What is the relationship between empathy and morality? Must a person possess a strong sense of empathy to be moral? Is empathy an important quality of character or moral emotion – or the most important? What's the role of empathy in a rational person's life? 

Question 3: Accepting Government Welfare: Should a person without other options accept welfare from the government? I've had generalized anxiety disorder for as long as I can remember. I live in Sweden, and my government has so many labor regulations that no business can hire me, and charities don't exist to help me. Is it wrong, in such a case, to accept government assistance? I don't have any savings, and it seems like my only other options are criminal activity and suicide. 

Question 4: Mercenary Essay Contest Writing: Is it wrong to write essays I don't believe to win contest money? I am a current university student with severe financial limitations. I've found that one of my best assets is my knack for writing a solid, persuasive essay. Recently, I've come across a trove of very generous scholarship essay contests. I feel confident that I could write a solid essay for most of them. The problem is that the majority are funded by organizations whose values I don't support. Specifically, I'd have to write essays in favor of social and political policies with which I disagree. Would it be moral for me to enter these writing competitions? If I did, would I just be demonstrating my writing ability - or misleading the sponsor into thinking that I agree with what I've written? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." 

To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. 

The podcast of this episode will be available shortly after the live broadcast here: Radio Archive: Q&A: Free Market Reforms, Empathy, Accepting Welfare, and More. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

I hope you join us for the live show or enjoy the podcast later. Also, please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics! 

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the next episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on winning friends and influencing people, accepting government welfare, mercenary essay contest writing, government scientists in a free society, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 10 November 2013, in our live studio. If you can't listen live, you'll find the podcast on the episode's archive page

This week's questions are: 

Question 1: Winning Friends and Influencing People: Should a person try to "win friends and influence people"? In the classic book "How to Win Friends and Influence People," Dale Carnegie offers a wide range of advice on how to get what you want from other people. Some of this seems manipulative or second-handed, but is that right? Is the advice in the book of genuine value to a rational egoist seeking honest trade with others? 

Question 2: Accepting Government Welfare: Should a person without other options accept welfare from the government? I've had generalized anxiety disorder for as long as I can remember. I live in Sweden, and my government has so many labor regulations that no business can hire me, and charities don't exist to help me. Is it wrong, in such a case, to accept government assistance? I don't have any savings, and it seems like my only other options are criminal activity and suicide. 

Question 3: Mercenary Essay Contest Writing: Is it wrong to write essays I don't believe to win contest money? I am a current university student with severe financial limitations. I've found that one of my best assets is my knack for writing a solid, persuasive essay. Recently, I've come across a trove of very generous scholarship essay contests. I feel confident that I could write a solid essay for most of them. The problem is that the majority are funded by organizations whose values I don't support. Specifically, I'd have to write essays in favor of social and political policies with which I disagree. Would it be moral for me to enter these writing competitions? If I did, would I just be demonstrating my writing ability - or misleading the sponsor into thinking that I agree with what I've written? 

Question 4: Government Scientists in a Free Society: Would the government of a free society employ scientists? In a fully free society, would there be any scientists employed full-time by the government for police, legislative, or judicial services? If not, how would judges obtain the necessary scientific knowledge to make proper rulings in the court cases that would replace today's environmental and other regulations? Might scientists be hired by the government of a free society for the military or other purposes? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." 

To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. 

The podcast of this episode will be available shortly after the live broadcast here: Radio Archive: Q&A: Social Influence, Accepting Welfare, Government Scientists, and More. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

I hope you join us for the live show or enjoy the podcast later. Also, please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics! 

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the next episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on free will and moral responsibility, values destroyed by statism, leaving an inmate boyfriend, privacy in marriage, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 17 November 2013, in our live studio. If you can't listen live, you'll find the podcast on the episode's archive page

This week's questions are: 

Question 1: Free Will and Moral Responsibility: What's the relationship between free will and moral responsibility? To me, the concept of free will found in debates about determinism seems different from the concept of free will relevant to questions of moral responsibility. The former is a metaphysical concept, and a person either has free will or not. The latter is a psychological concept, and it seems to be a matter of degree based on nature and nurture. However, psychological free will seems to presuppose metaphysical free will. Is that right? What is the relationship between free will and moral responsibility? 

Question 2: Values Destroyed by Statism: What are the most significant values destroyed by statism? In other words, what values would be available to us — or more available — in a laissez-faire, rational society that are limited or unavailable to us today? What are some of the major (and perhaps under-appreciated) values destroyed or precluded by government overreach? To put the question another way: How would a proper government improve our lives? 

Question 3: Leaving an Inmate Boyfriend: Should I leave my inmate boyfriend? I am in a dilemma. My current boyfriend is in prison serving a six year sentence. He has been away for a year and a half. It took over two years for the legal matters to be settled and for him to finally get a sentence. This is also my first ever boyfriend and I am already 26. Is it wrong for me to want to move on with my life? After he gets out (if no appeal is granted) he will be forced into a very limited lifestyle being on a sex offender list. I keep thinking about trying to make new friends and what I should and should not disclose to them. Right now, I live with his parents and work with his mother. I feel like I am cornered and am drowning in this huge mess. I want my own life, but with zero support and friends I am terrified of the risk. Do I stick it out? Or do I suck it up and leave him, my home, and my job? 

Question 4: Privacy in Marriage: Are spouses entitled to privacy with each other? My wife thinks that she should have access to all my online accounts, including my email. I don't have any secrets from her, and my email doesn't contain anything scandalous. Still, I don't want her prying into my conversations, and I don't see that she has any reason to do so. I've never given her any reason to distrust me. Aren't I entitled to some privacy in my marriage? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." 

To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. 

The podcast of this episode will be available shortly after the live broadcast here: Radio Archive: Q&A: Moral Responsibility, Statism's Wreckage, Privacy in Marriage, and More. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

I hope you join us for the live show or enjoy the podcast later. Also, please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics! 

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the next episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on positive change in Islam, self-esteem and appearance, rational suicide, deep-down atheism, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 24 November 2013, in our live studio. If you can't listen live, you'll find the podcast on the episode's archive page

This week's questions are: 

Question 1: Positive Change in Islam: Can Islam change for the better? Many critics of Islam claim that the religion is inherently totalitarian, violent, and repressive – and hence, that change for the better is utterly impossible. An Islamic reformation or enlightenment will never happen, they say. Is that true? More generally, what are the limits of a religion's ties to its own scriptures? 

Question 2: Self-Esteem and Appearance: How is a person's appearance related to self-esteem? Should a rational person care much about his body – including height, weight, musculature, beauty, and so on? Is that second-handed somehow? How much effort should a person exert to make himself look the way he wants to look? Should a person's looks affect his self-esteem? Do a person's looks reveal his character or self-esteem to others? 

Question 3: Rational Suicide: When would suicide be rational? What conditions make suicide a proper choice? Are there situations other than a terminal illness or living in a dictatorship – such as the inability to achieve sufficient values to lead a happy life – that justify the act of suicide? 

Question 4: Deep-Down Atheism: How can I convince myself, deep-down, that God does not exist? I was raised Catholic, although I was never deeply religious. Now, many years later, a friend is showing me Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. I can see its benefits, but my religious upbringing still lingers in the back of my head. So part of me still thinks that God exists, even though I don't really believe that any longer. It was just engrained in me from such a young age that I can't seem to let it go. Can I change that? If so, how? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." 

To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. 

The podcast of this episode will be available shortly after the live broadcast here: Radio Archive: Q&A: Change in Islam, Appearance, Suicide, Atheism, and More. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

I hope you join us for the live show or enjoy the podcast later. Also, please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics! 

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the next episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on rational suicide, deep-down atheism, responsibility for another's medical emergencies, education in a free society, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 1 December 2013, in our live studio. If you can't listen live, you'll find the podcast on the episode's archive page

This week's questions are: 

Question 1: Rational Suicide: When would suicide be rational? What conditions make suicide a proper choice? Are there situations other than a terminal illness or living in a dictatorship – such as the inability to achieve sufficient values to lead a happy life – that justify the act of suicide? 

Question 2: Deep-Down Atheism: How can I convince myself, deep-down, that God does not exist? I was raised Catholic, although I was never deeply religious. Now, many years later, a friend is showing me Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. I can see its benefits, but my religious upbringing still lingers in the back of my head. So part of me still thinks that God exists, even though I don't really believe that any longer. It was just engrained in me from such a young age that I can't seem to let it go. Can I change that? If so, how? 

Question 3: Responsibility for Another's Medical Emergencies: Is it wrong to walk away from a person who suffers from repeated medical emergencies due to their own irresponsibility? Over a year ago, I was the tenant of a type-1 diabetic who refused to eat properly. As a result, I regularly had to call the ambulance for her, as she would allow her blood-sugar to drop to dangerous levels, such that she couldn't think or move for herself. She never learned anything from these experiences. She never put emergency food within reach, for example. So a few days or weeks later, I would have to call the ambulance again. I believe that I was being forced – literally – to take care of her. I feared that I'd face manslaughter or other criminal charges if I left her alone in that state. Would it have been morally proper for me to leave her in that state without any advance warning? Should that be legally permissible? 

Question 4: Education in a Free Society: What would a rational educational system look like in a free society? Everyone knows that government education is flawed in many ways. Many private schools aren't terribly different from public schools in their basic format and teachings. How might a school based on rational principles function? What would it teach – and by what style? Apart from questions of funding, how would it differ from current government schools? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." 

To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. 

The podcast of this episode will be available shortly after the live broadcast here: Radio Archive: Q&A: Suicide, Atheism, Irrational People, Rational Education, and More. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

I hope you join us for the live show or enjoy the podcast later. Also, please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics! 

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the next episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on Objectivism versus secular humanism, moral judgment of European colonizers, the right time to declare love, problems with an aggressive dog, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 8 December 2013, in our live studio. If you can't listen live, you'll find the podcast on the episode's archive page

This week's questions are: 

Question 1: Objectivism Versus Secular Humanism: What are the similarities and differences between Objectivism and secular humanism? Objectivism and secular humanism are two secular worldviews. What are their basic points? Are they hopelessly at odds? Or do they share some or even many attributes? 

Question 2: Moral Judgment of European Colonizers: How should European colonizers be judged for their treatment of Native Americans? Some people, especially conservatives, give blanket praise to Columbus and European colonizers, notwithstanding their conquest and displacement of native populations. Those Native Americans are sometimes denigrated as ignorant, brutal, and/or lacking any concept of property – and hence, as unworthy of the protection of rights. Many others consider the Native Americans either noble savages or at least the rightful owners of the land. They condemn European colonization as unethical conquest or even genocide. Are either of those approaches correct? What counts as a fair judgment of European colonizers in their behavior toward Native Americans? How should European colonizers have treated native persons? 

Question 3: The Right Time to Declare Love: When should a person declare his love for another? What is an appropriate amount of time to wait before saying "I love you" in a new relationship? New relationships often start out strong, but then the feelings of eros dissipate after a few months. When you meet someone who you share the same values and ideals (and you are super-attracted to him or her) when should you say those three little words? 

Question 4: Problems with an Aggressive Dog: What should a person do about a neighbor's aggressive dog? My husband was attacked (but barely injured) by a neighbor's dog. No one else was in the room at the time. Our children often play at this person's house, and the dog has always been friendly in the past. How do you suggest handling the situation? Should we allow our children to play with the dog, as we always have in the past? What should the owner do about the dog? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." 

To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. 

The podcast of this episode will be available shortly after the live broadcast here: Radio Archive: Q&A: Secular Humanism, European Colonizers, Dangerous Dogs, and More. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

I hope you join us for the live show or enjoy the podcast later. Also, please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics! 

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the next episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on explaining egoistic benevolence, public shamings, problems with an aggressive dog, photography as art, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 15 December 2013, in our live studio. If you can't listen live, you'll find the podcast on the episode's archive page

This week's questions are: 

Question 1: Explaining Egoistic Benevolence: Can actions done for the sake of others be egoistic? In your October 7, 2013 radio show, you mentioned that people have a difficult time understanding how exercising benevolence towards one's friends is egoistic and self-interested. Instead, they think that being benevolent toward anyone is "other-regarding" and hence, altruistic. How can we untangle this seeming conflict between egoism and benevolent action? 

Question 2: Public Shamings: Are public shamings morally justifiable? I often read of judges handing down sentences designed to humiliate the offender, such as standing at a busy intersection wearing a sandwich board apologizing for their offense. Many people favor these kinds of punishments in lieu of jail time because they consume less resources of the penal system. They may be more effective too. Does that justify such shamings? Moreover, what's the morality of similar shamings by parents and businesses? A bodega in my neighborhood posts surveillance camera footage of shoplifters, usually with some snarky comment about their theft. I find this practice amusing, but is that moral? Is it akin to vigilantism? 

Question 3: Problems with an Aggressive Dog: What should a person do about a neighbor's aggressive dog? My husband was attacked (but barely injured) by a neighbor's dog. No one else was in the room at the time. Our children often play at this person's house, and the dog has always been friendly in the past. How do you suggest handling the situation? Should we allow our children to play with the dog, as we always have in the past? What should the owner do about the dog? 

Question 4: Photography as Art: Does photography qualify as art? I've always viewed photography as a legitimate form of art. However, many people I disagree: Ayn Rand argued that it's a technical rather than a creative skill. However, I regard photography as a technical and creative skill, just like painting. So does photography qualify as art? If not, does that mean that photography doesn't have value – or has less value than proper art forms like painting? If photography has value nonetheless, what is the source of that value? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." 

To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. 

The podcast of this episode will be available shortly after the live broadcast here: Radio Archive: Q&A: Egoistic Benevolence, Public Shamings, Photography, and More. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

I hope you join us for the live show or enjoy the podcast later. Also, please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics! 

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the next episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on explaining egoistic benevolence, claims of white privilege, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 22 December 2013, in our live studio. If you can't listen live, you'll find the podcast on the episode's archive page

This week's questions are: 

Question 1: Explaining Egoistic Benevolence: How can we better explain how helping others can be egoistic? In your October 7, 2013 radio show, you observed that people often don't understand how acting kindly and generously towards friends is self-interested. Instead, they think that being benevolent toward anyone is "other-regarding" and hence, altruistic. How can we egoists untangle this seeming conflict for people? 

Question 2: Claims of White Privilege: What is the individualist response to claims about "white privilege"? In May 2013, you published a blog entry entitled, "Personal Motives for Benevolence" where you introduced the idea that prejudice is often formed by favoritism and not overt bigotry. Clearly, favoritism can extend to race too, in the same way it extended to your example of "professor" vs "quilter." So what is the proper response to advocates of "white privilege awareness" such as David Wise and David Sirota? In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing, David Sirota wrote a Salon article entitled "Let's hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American" where he argued that culturally,"white terrorists" are treated as lone wolves, whereas Islamists are treated as existential threats. David Wise wrote an article called "Terrorism and Privilege: Understanding the Power of Whiteness" where he claims "White privilege is knowing that even if the Boston Marathon bomber turns out to be white, his or her identity will not result in white folks generally being singled out for suspicion by law enforcement, or the TSA, or the FBI." What is the individualist answer to this collectivist viewpoint? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." 

To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. 

The podcast of this episode will be available shortly after the live broadcast here: Radio Archive: Q&A: Egoistic Benevolence, White Privilege, and More. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

I hope you join us for the live show or enjoy the podcast later. Also, please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics! 

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...