Philosophy in Action: Sunday Webcast

Ethics
, , , ,
21

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I’ll answer questions on overcoming perfectionism, false but beneficial ideas, possessiveness in romance, term limits for politicians, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we apply rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy, and free lives!

  • What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
  • Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins
  • When: Sunday, 5 February 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET
  • Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com

Here are this week’s questions:

  • Question 1: Overcoming Perfectionism: What is the problem with and solution to perfectionism? Lately, I’ve realized that I might have a problem with “perfectionism” – meaning that I hold myself to unrealistically high standards in some areas of my life. For example, I feel like I should be much more productive, to the point of being unrealistic about what I can do in a day. What’s the basic error of such perfectionism? And what can I do to overcome it?
  • Question 2: False But Beneficial Ideas: Should you just keep quiet when a friend’s bad philosophy works for him? If someone you know pretty well believes in something mystical, such as “The Law of Attraction” (from “The Secret”), or “The Power of Prayer,” and this has helped them move their outlook on life toward a benevolent universe premise, and they are more productive and happier, is it better to leave them with their faulty metaphysics and avoid the topic, or should you try to show them the error? What do you say when they start trying to convince you of the truth of their view?
  • Question 3: Possessiveness in Romance: Is possessiveness wrong in a romantic relationship? I have a drawback: I’m extremely possessive. I expect that the person who loves and understands me – he being the only one who understands me – should be mine and only mine. I can accept other women in his life and contain my jealousy on the condition that he reveals to me every single of them who was, is, or will be. But he should love me the most. And I expect that he should stay with me till the end and that we spend the last days together reflecting on the past and life. Am I wrong in expecting all that from my partner? If so, what can I do to change?
  • Question 4: Term Limits for Politicians: Are term limits necessary and proper for good government? Many people – usually conservatives – claim that term limits are essential to liberty. They say that the Founders never intended to have career politicians, and they blame the growth of government on those career politicians and their pork projects. Do you support term limits? Are they an important restraint on the growth of government?

After that, we’ll do a round of totally impromptu “Rapid Fire Questions.”

In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode. And go to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes.

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

22

In Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Webcast, I answered questions on overcoming perfectionism, false but beneficial ideas, possessiveness in romance, term limits for politicians, and more. The episode is now available as an audio podcast in the Webcast Archives here:

Philosophy in Action Webcast: 5 February 2012

You can also just listen to the questions of most interest to you:

Join the next Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live.

In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode. And go to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes.

23

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I’ll answer questions on low passion for career, patriotism as a virtue, artificial intelligence, boycotting Chick-Fil-A, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we apply rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy, and free lives!

  • What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
  • Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins
  • When: Sunday, 12 February 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET
  • Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com

Here are this week’s questions:

  • Question 1: Low Passion for Career: What should I do if I have a good job but not burning professional ambition? I have a good job that pays well. I perform my job well to the best of my ability. But I don’t feel about it the same way that Howard Roark felt about the field of architecture in “The Fountainhead” or that Dagny felt about the railroad business in “Atlas Shrugged.” I don’t hate my job – I do enjoy the work and the people I work with. But it’s not my burning passion. On a scale of 1-to-10, my paying job (and the overall field) is a 7, but I also have various non-paying outside hobbies and activities that are more of a 8 or 9 for me. Should I try to cultivate a strong passion for my paying job? Or look for a different line of work? Or ramp up my pursuit of various hobbies and outside activities that give my greater satisfaction on the side?

  • Question 2: Patriotism as a Virtue: Is patriotism a virtue? Is patriotism towards America a virtue? Should a person “love America” – or is that just jingoistic nationalism?

  • Question 3: Artificial Intelligence: Is artificial intelligence possible? Can consciousness be created on a purely logical system such as a computer? Might consciousness and even free will somehow “emerge” out of a purely logical system? Also, what do you think of the “Turing Test” as a test of intelligence?

  • Question 4: Boycotting Chick-Fil-A: Should people boycott Chick-Fil-A for its hostility to gays? The fast food chain Chick-Fil-A is well-known for its promotion of Christian values. In recent years, the company has actively worked against gay marriage, in alliance with other organizations promoting the imposition of biblical commands by law. More generally, the company is hostile to same-sex couples. Given that Chick-Fil-A uses money from customers and shareholders to promote theocracy and other rights-violations, should people condemn and boycott the chain?

After that, we’ll do a round of totally impromptu “Rapid Fire Questions.”

In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode. And go to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes.

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

24

In Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Webcast, I answered questions on low passion for career, patriotism as a virtue, artificial intelligence, boycotting Chick-Fil-A, and more. The episode is now available as an audio podcast in the Webcast Archives here:

Philosophy in Action Webcast: 12 February 2012

You can also just listen to the questions of most interest to you:

Join the next Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live.

In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode. And go to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes.

25

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I’ll answer questions on better and worse religions, telling a friend about romantic feelings, overfeeding a child as abuse, interest in a lover’s writings, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we apply rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy, and free lives!

  • What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
  • Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins
  • When: Sunday, 19 February 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET
  • Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com

Here are this week’s questions:

  • Question 1: Better and Worse Religions: Are some religions better than others? Do certain religions encourage rationality more than others? Do some promote better moral systems than others? I am curious both about different forms of Christianity (Catholic, Protestant, Unitarian, Mormon, etc.), as well as other religions (Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Baha’i, etc.). Should rational atheists respect followers of certain religions more than others?

  • Question 2: Telling a Friend about Romantic Feelings: Am I obliged to tell a friend that I’ve developed romantic feelings towards her? Recently, I’ve developed romantic feelings for a platonic friend. Is it dishonest to withhold this information from her and just continue our friendship? What should I do if she asks me a direct question about my feelings? When would it be wrong to withhold this information from her, if ever?

  • Question 3: Overfeeding a Child as Abuse: Is overfeeding a child a form of abuse? In November, county officials in Ohio placed a third-grade child into foster care on the grounds that he’s over 200 pounds and his mother isn’t doing enough to control his weight. (See http://bit.ly/s3llRw ) The boy does not currently have any serious medical problems: he’s merely at risk for developing diabetes, hypertension, etc. The county worked with the mother for a year before removing the child, and it claims that her actions constitute medical neglect. Now his mother is only permitted to see him once per week for two hours. Did the state overreach its proper authority in removing the child from his home?

  • Question 4: Interest in a Lover’s Writings: Should a person always be interested in the creative works of a romantic interest or lover? I’m romantically interested in a woman who writes as her career. While my admiration of her is based in her virtues and even heroic qualities, I’m don’t find the subjects of her writing to be particularly interesting. If I were to begin dating this woman, should I read everything that she’s written and writes?

After that, we’ll do a round of totally impromptu “Rapid Fire Questions.”

In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode. And go to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes.

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

26

In Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Webcast, I answered questions on judging religions as better and worse, telling a friend about romantic feelings, overfeeding a child as abuse, interest in a lover’s writings, and more. The episode is now available as an audio podcast in the Webcast Archives here:

Philosophy in Action Webcast: 19 February 2012

You can also just listen to the questions of most interest to you:

Join the next Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live.

In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode. And go to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes.

27

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I’ll answer questions on consent in sex, terminating online versus in-person acquaintances, compensating the victims of your negligence, the meaning of faith, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we apply rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy, and free lives!

  • What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
  • Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins
  • When: Sunday, 26 February 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET
  • Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com

Here are this week’s questions:

  • Question 1: Consent in Sex: What constitutes consent in sex? Can a person give tacit consent by his or her actions? Is explicit consent required for some sex acts? Once consent has been given, when and how can a person withdraw that consent? Does the legal perspective on these questions differ from the moral perspective?

  • Question 2: Terminating Online Versus In-Person Acquaintances: What’s the proper threshold for cutting off a digital versus in-person acquaintance? Morally, when it is wrong to end your friendly interactions with an in-person acquaintance? And when is it wrong not to do so? Does the answer differ for a digital acquaintance – meaning, for example, someone that you know only via Facebook?

  • Question 3: Compensating the Victims of Your Negligence: What should you do for a person that you injured in a car accident that was your fault? Does a person have moral obligations – over and above any legal obligations – to the victim, since the accident was due to your own carelessness or mistake?

  • Question 4: The Meaning of Faith: Is it wrong to use “faith” to mean “trust and confidence in a person”? Some people talk about having “faith” in their friends or in themselves – and by that, they mean that they trust and have confidence in those people. Is it wrong to use “faith” in that way? In other words, blind faith is wrong, but is all faith blind faith?

After that, we’ll do a round of totally impromptu “Rapid Fire Questions.”

In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode. And go to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes.

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

28

In Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Webcast, I answered questions on consent in sex, terminating online versus in-person acquaintances, compensating the victims of your negligence, the meaning of faith, and more. The episode is now available as an audio podcast in the Webcast Archives here:

Philosophy in Action Webcast: 26 February 2012

You can also just listen to the questions of most interest to you:

Join the next Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live.

In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode. And go to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes.

29

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I’ll answer questions on giving the benefit of the doubt, requests for prayers, selling yourself into slavery, the depth of Ayn Rand’s fictional characters, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we apply rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy, and free lives!

  • What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
  • Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins
  • When: Sunday, 4 March 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET
  • Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com

Here are this week’s questions:

  • Question 1: Giving the Benefit of the Doubt: When should we give another person “the benefit of the doubt”? Often, people say that public figures facing some scandal should be given “the benefit of the doubt”? What does that mean in theory and in practice? When ought people give the benefit of the doubt? Is doing so a matter of generosity or justice?

  • Question 2: Requests for Prayers: What is the proper response to requests for prayers? A relative of mine recently had surgery to have his appendix removed. I was asked by another relative to pray for the first relative, even though everyone in my family knows that I don’t believe in God or the power of prayer. I tried to let it slide during the conversation, but she was insistent. How should I respond to such requests for prayers, particularly when I don’t want to offend anyone or seem unconcerned?

  • Question 3: Selling Yourself into Slavery: Why can’t a person sell himself into slavery? People often decry indentured servitude, whereby people paid for their travel to America with several years of service. But this seems like a perfectly sound trade given certain assumptions about the terms of that service, e.g. you can’t starve or abuse the servant. Is that right? If so, why can’t a person sell himself into slavery? For instance, suppose that my family is poor, so I arrange with someone to give my family money in exchange for me becoming their slave, i.e. literally becoming their property. Is that possible? Should the law forbid that?

  • Question 4: The Depth of Ayn Rand’s Fictional Characters: Are the characters in Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged flat due to philosophic consistency? I’m reading Atlas Shrugged currently, and rather enjoying it. However, I’ve heard many people claim her characters are ‘flat’, ‘one-dimensional’ etc. I usually respond to this by saying that Ayn Rand’s characters are the incarnation of her ideas, the physical embodiment of her ideas: an individual is consumed with this philosophy, so much so that they are entirely logically consistent (or at least as much as humanly possible, they are human, and do make mistakes, e.g. Rearden’s marriage), thus, because of their abnormally extensive logical consistency within their philosophy, these characters merely appear to be ‘one-dimensional’. Is this an accurate understanding of Rand’s characters?

After that, we’ll do a round of totally impromptu “Rapid Fire Questions.”

In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode. And go to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes.

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

30

In Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Webcast, I answered questions on giving the benefit of the doubt, responding to requests for prayers, selling yourself into slavery, the depth of Ayn Rand’s fictional characters, and more. The episode is now available as an audio podcast in the Webcast Archives here:

Philosophy in Action Webcast: 4 March 2012

You can also just listen to the questions of most interest to you:

Join the next Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live.

In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode. And go to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes.

31

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I’ll answer questions on Ayn Rand’s view of women, the proper place of women, the health of cynicism and sarcasm, praying for atheists, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we apply rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy, and free lives!

  • What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
  • Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins
  • When: Sunday, 11 March 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET
  • Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com

Here are this week’s questions:

  • Question 1: Ayn Rand’s View of Women: Did Ayn Rand regard women as inferior to men? I admire Ayn Rand, and I’ve used her philosophy in my business and personal life, but I disagree with her view of women. In her article “About a Woman President,” Ayn Rand said that “For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship – the desire to look up to man. ‘To look up’ does not mean dependence, obedience or anything implying inferiority.” Yet her view seems to imply inferiority in practice: Rand says that no woman should aspire to be U.S. President because that would put her in the psychologically unbearable position of not having any man to look up to. So, does Rand’s view imply that women are inferior to men? What is the factual basis of her view, if any? Do you agree with her?
  • Question 2: The Proper Place of Women: Are women subservient to men in Objectivism like in Christianity? The Bible and Christians teach that God made women to be subservient to men and not to be their leader. Ayn Rand thinks that women are naturally subservient to men and should not be their leader. Aside from the appeal to God, what’s the difference?
  • Question 3: The Health of Cynicism and Sarcasm: Are cynicism and sarcasm unhealthy? I know some very bright people who also frequently express cynicism and sarcasm towards world events, public figures, etc. Their remarks can often be quite witty and insightful. But is there something unhealthy about looking at the world in this way, or can that be an appropriate response to all the many real negative facts of reality?
  • Question 4: Praying for Atheists: What should I do when other people offer to pray for me? Sometimes my friends and family members offer to pray for me – whether because I’ve got some problem in my life or because they know that I’m an atheist. How should I respond?

After that, we’ll do a round of totally impromptu “Rapid Fire Questions.”

In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode. And go to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes.

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

32

In Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Webcast, I answered questions on Ayn Rand’s view of women, the proper place of women, the health of cynicism and sarcasm, offers of prayers for atheists, and more. The episode is now available as an audio podcast in the Webcast Archives here:

Philosophy in Action Webcast: 11 March 2012

You can also just listen to the questions of most interest to you:

Join the next Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live.

In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode. And go to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes.

33

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I’ll answer questions on belligerence in online communities, managing projects better, statutory rape laws, talking about selfishness, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we apply rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy, and free lives!

  • What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
  • Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins
  • When: Sunday, 18 March 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET
  • Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com

Here are this week’s questions:

  • Question 1: Belligerence in Online Communities: Why are disputes so belligerent in online communities? I’ve noticed that people get into very loud and heated disputes online, whereas that doesn’t seem to happen in local communities. Disputes in local communities tend to be less frequent, less belligerent, and last for a shorter time – even when some people end up hating each other and refusing to have anything to do with each other in the end. Why is that? Also, why do people who are closest with each other (whether close friends, dating, or married) seem to agree more on hot-button issues? Are people are more willing to reject a stranger’s arguments than those of a friend? Is that an error?

  • Question 2: Managing Projects Better: How can I manage my projects better? Too often, I’m overwhelmed by the sheer volume of projects on my agenda. Because I’m overcommitted, I’ll miss important deadlines or allow some projects to be delayed into oblivion. Other times, my work is rushed and sloppy. Sometimes I feel so overwhelmed that I become paralyzed, and then I don’t get any work done. What can I do to manage my various work and home projects better, so that I keep making progress on what really matters to me?

  • Question 3: Statutory Rape Laws: Are statutory rape laws proper? Statutory rape laws criminalize seemingly consensual sex when at least one party is below the age of consent, but sexually mature, e.g. when an 18 year old has sex with a 15 year old. Are such laws proper? Should the over-age person be convicted if he or she didn’t know (or couldn’t reasonably know) that the under-age person was under-age? What if the under-age person lied about his or her age? What, if anything, should happen legally when both parties are under-age, e.g. when two 15 year olds have sex?

  • Question 4: Talking About Selfishness: Should I use the term “selfish” in conversation without explanation? According to Ayn Rand, selfishness means acting for your own long-range life and happiness, and that’s moral and proper. Yet most people think that selfishness means brutalizing other people, lying and cheating to satisfy your desires, or at least acting like an insensitive jerk. Should I avoid using the term unless I can explain what I mean by it? And how can I best explain its proper meaning?

After that, we’ll do a round of totally impromptu “Rapid Fire Questions.”

In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode. And go to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes.

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

34

Last week, I had to cancel the Philosophy in Action webcast due to the overwhelming demands of fun at SnowCon. (Alas, I forgot to post an announcement here. Sorry!) So… last week’s questions are still on tap for this week. Here’s the announcement again.

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I’ll answer questions on unfriendly disputes in online communities, overcommittment in projects, statutory rape laws, talking about selfishness, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we apply rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy, and free lives!

  • What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
  • Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins
  • When: Sunday, 25 March 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET
  • Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com

Here are this week’s questions:

  • Question 1: Unfriendly Disputes in Online Communities: Why are disputes so belligerent in online communities? I’ve noticed that people get into very loud and heated disputes online, whereas that doesn’t seem to happen in local communities. Disputes in local communities tend to be less frequent, less belligerent, and last for a shorter time – even when some people end up hating each other and refusing to have anything to do with each other in the end. Why is that? Also, why do people who are closest with each other (whether close friends, dating, or married) seem to agree more on hot-button issues? Are people more willing to reject a stranger’s arguments than those of a friend? Is that an error?
  • Question 2: Overcommittment in Projects: How can I manage my projects better? Too often, I’m overwhelmed by the sheer volume of projects on my agenda. Because I’m overcommitted, I’ll miss important deadlines or allow some projects to be delayed into oblivion. Other times, my work is rushed and sloppy. Sometimes I feel so overwhelmed that I become paralyzed, and then I don’t get any work done. What can I do to manage my various work and home projects better, so that I keep making progress on what really matters to me?
  • Question 3: Statutory Rape Laws: Are statutory rape laws proper? Statutory rape laws criminalize seemingly consensual sex when at least one party is below the age of consent, but sexually mature, e.g. when an 18 year old has sex with a 15 year old. Are such laws proper? Should the over-age person be convicted if he or she didn’t know (or couldn’t reasonably know) that the under-age person was under-age? What if the under-age person lied about his or her age? What, if anything, should happen legally when both parties are under-age, e.g. when two 15 year olds have sex?
  • Question 4: Talking About Selfishness: Should I use the term “selfish” in conversation without explanation? According to Ayn Rand, selfishness means acting for your own long-range life and happiness, and that’s moral and proper. Yet most people think that selfishness means brutalizing other people, lying and cheating to satisfy your desires, or at least acting like an insensitive jerk. Should I avoid using the term unless I can explain what I mean by it? And how can I best explain its proper meaning?

After that, we’ll do a round of totally impromptu “Rapid Fire Questions.”

In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode. And go to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes.

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

35

In Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Webcast, I answered questions on unfriendly disputes in online communities, overcommittment in projects, talking about selfishness, and more. The episode is now available as an audio podcast in the Webcast Archives here:

Philosophy in Action Webcast: 25 March 2012

You can also just listen to the questions of most interest to you:

Join the next Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live.

In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode. And go to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes.

36

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I’ll answer questions on statutory rape laws, outing anti-gay politicians as gay, potential employers demanding facebook logins, enjoying fantasy and theology literature, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we apply rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy, and free lives!

  • What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
  • Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins
  • When: Sunday, 1 April 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET
  • Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com

Here are this week’s questions:

  • Question 1: Statutory Rape Laws: Are statutory rape laws proper? Statutory rape laws criminalize seemingly consensual sex when at least one party is below the age of consent, but sexually mature, e.g. when an 18 year old has sex with a 15 year old. Are such laws proper? Should the over-age person be convicted if he or she didn’t know (or couldn’t reasonably know) that the under-age person was under-age? What if the under-age person lied about his or her age? What, if anything, should happen legally when both parties are under-age, e.g. when two 15 year olds have sex?

  • Question 2: Outing Anti-Gay Politicians as Gay: Is it wrong to “out” a hypocritical anti-gay public figure who is secretly gay? Some conservative politicians have taken strongly anti-gay positions, but are secretly gay themselves. If one learns of this, is it wrong for gay activists to publicly “out” them? What if they don’t take engage in public hypocrisy, but are just quietly “in the closet”? Should activists respect their privacy in that case?

  • Question 3: Potential Employers Demanding Facebook Logins: Should employers ask applicants for their Facebook logins and passwords? More employers are asking job applicants for their Facebook logins and passwords as part of a background check. (See http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_20218922/privacy-red-flag-raised-more-job-applicants-asked ) Of course, applicants can decline, in which case they might not be considered for the job. Should employers be asking for this information? Is it proper to want to check on the online activities of potential employees? Is that an invasion of privacy? How should someone respond if asked by a potential employer?

  • Question 4: Enjoying Fantasy and Theology Literature: Is an interest in fantasy and theology literature proper? I’m fascinated with fantasy as a literary genre. I find it easier to get excited about a fantastic story rather than about a realistic one, and I’m also really interested in fantasy with a certain sophistication: the extremely well-constructed world of Tolkien in “Lord of the Rings,” for example, or the mythological background of vampire stories and so on. Along the same line, I am also fascinated with theology. For example, I found it extremely interesting to read “Paradise Lost,” and to read up on the many theological questions it raises and answers. Is such an interest proper – or am I indulging in some kind of evasion or escapism from reality? Does it matter that I want to become a writer and so find much inspiration for potential own stories this way?

After that, we’ll do a round of totally impromptu “Rapid Fire Questions.”

In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode. And go to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes.

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

37

In Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Webcast, I answered questions on statutory rape laws, outing anti-gay politicians as gay, potential employers demanding Facebook logins, enjoying fantasy and theology literature, and more. The episode is now available as an audio podcast in the Webcast Archives here:

Philosophy in Action Webcast: 1 April 2012

You can also just listen to the questions of most interest to you:

Join the next Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live.

In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode. And go to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes.

38

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I’ll answer questions on cultivating good luck, public breastfeeding, national identification card, repeatedly reviewing memories, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we apply rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy, and free lives!

  • What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
  • Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins
  • When: Sunday, 8 April 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET
  • Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com

Here are this week’s questions:

  • Question 1: Cultivating Good Luck: Can and should a person try to cultivate his own “good luck”? For example, a construction worker might leave his business card with neighbors in case they or anyone they might know happens to need his services in the future. Similarly, an investor might look to buy stock in companies with promising patents pending or forthcoming products. Is pursuing these kinds of uncertain opportunities a means of cultivating good luck?

  • Question 2: Public Breastfeeding: Is breastfeeding children in public wrong? My wife and I want to have kids, and one question we have concerns public breastfeeding. Is it immodest or improper to breastfeed in public? Should stores permit or forbid it on their premises? Should public breastfeeding be restricted or banned by law as indecent?

  • Question 3: National Identification Card: Should the government institute a national id card? Periodically, politicians speak of instituting a national identification card in order to protect identify and track potential terrorists, prevent the hiring of illegal immigrants, stop welfare fraud, and more. Would such a national id card violate rights – or be unwise for other reasons? Are state-level identification cards sufficient? Are they proper?

  • Question 4: Repeatedly Reviewing Memories: Should I mull over my memories less frequently? Is it unhealthy for a person to continuously mull over previous events and specific memories? I go over past events in my mind on a constant basis. I try to recall specific details (i.e., things I was thinking at the time, etc.) and keep a perfect “image” of the memory/event in my mind as long as possible. Is this strange, unhealthy, or counterproductive?

After that, we’ll do a round of totally impromptu “Rapid Fire Questions.”

In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode. And go to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes.

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

39

In Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Webcast, I answered questions on cultivating good luck, public breastfeeding, national identification card, mulling over memories, and more. The episode is now available as an audio podcast in the Webcast Archives here:

Philosophy in Action Webcast: 8 April 2012

You can also just listen to the questions of most interest to you:

Join the next Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live.

In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode. And go to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes.

40

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I’ll answer questions on the morality of breaking the law, the morality of vigilantism, stealing valor, selling sub-optimal products, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we apply rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy, and free lives!

  • What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
  • Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins
  • When: Sunday, 15 April 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET
  • Where: www.PhilosophyInAction.com

Here are this week’s questions:

  • Question 1: The Morality of Breaking the Law: When is it moral to break the law? Laws should be written to protect individual rights. Unfortunately, many laws today violate rights. When should I abide by a rights-violating law, and when is it proper to break it?

  • Question 2: The Morality of Vigilantism: Where is the line between justice and vigilantism? When is it moral to take the law into your own hands – meaning pursuing, detaining, and/or punishing criminals as a private citizen? Suppose that you know – without a shadow of a doubt – that some person committed a serious crime against you or a loved one. If the justice system cannot punish the person due to some technicality, is it wrong for you to do so? If you’re caught, should a judge or jury punish you, as if you’d committed a crime against an innocent person?

  • Question 3: Stealing Valor: Should “stealing valor” be a crime? Rencently, a man was arrested by the FBI in Houston and charged with “stolen valor.” (See: http://bit.ly/IcWwCV ) This is the charge made against someone who falsely poses as a decorated soldier. Is it proper to make this a crime? Why or why not?

  • Question 4: Selling Sub-Optimal Products: What should a businessman do if he decides that his product or service is not really good? More specifically, what should a businessman do if he’s rises up in the business world on promoting a particular product or service, only to learn decades into the ventures that there are better alternatives? As a fictional example, let’s take a mattress manufacturer CEO. He has spent decades of his life trying to make the most comfortable mattresses possible, but then read scientific studies that concludes that there is no healthier sleeping surface than the solid floor, and in using his honest judgment he agrees. Being so high up and so long involved in the mattress world, what are the moral range of options for him?

After that, we’ll do a round of totally impromptu “Rapid Fire Questions.”

In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode. And go to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes.

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!