Rationally Selfish Webcast

Ethics
1

As usual, I’ll be answering questions on practical ethics and the principles of living well in my Rationally Selfish Webcast on Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. This week, I’m answer questions on prisoner’s dilemma, hiring people with an internet presence, the morality of revenge, building codes, numbers of men versus women in Objectivism, and wealth creation as net positive. Don’t miss out on this hour of thought-provoking discussion and lively fun!

To watch the live webcast and join in the text chat with other audience members, just go to www.RationallySelfish.com at the appointed hour.

Here are this week’s questions:

  • Question 1: Prisoner’s Dilemma: What do you think of the “Prisoner’s Dilemma”? Something about the “Prisoner’s Dilemma” as a basis for economic and ethical claims never settled with me, but I’m not sure why. What is your opinion of it from a philosophical point of view?

  • Question 2: Hiring People with an Internet Presence: What do you think about the dangers of hiring someone with an internet presence? Some people in business have concerns about hiring people active on blogs, social media, and other online forums. Often that’s because of controversial positions advocated by the potential employee that they don’t want to reflect on the company or cause drama internally. Also, they might have concerns that the person would share information about the company (including co-workers) that ought to be be kept private. So what are the principles involved in hiring someone who posts controversial material online? For example, should their potential position in the company matter, such as whether they’ll be working in the back office or with the public? Or, should companies simply ignore what people say and do on their off-time, including on the internet?

  • Question 3: The Morality of Revenge: Is revenge ever moral? In a famous song, singer Carrie Underwood describes trashing her boyfriend’s truck after she finds out that he cheated on her. Is it ever moral to seek out revenge like this on someone who has lied to you or has done something for which there are no real legal repercussions? What are the limits of moral revenge, if any?

  • Question 4: Building Codes: Are building codes ethical? In light of the building earthquake and tsunami in Japan, a lot of people are crediting the strict building codes and urban planning for reducing the damage. Is it proper to support building codes, which limit property rights, if the goal is to prevent damage and destruction in the event of an inevitable natural disaster, such as an earthquake?

  • Question 5: Numbers of Men Versus Women in Objectivism: Why are more men than women attracted to Objectivism? More men than women seem to be attracted to Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism. Why is that? And does it matter?

  • Question 6: From Objectivist Answers: Wealth Creation as Net Positive: Why is wealth not a zero-sum game? If someone makes a profit, doesn’t that mean that someone else loses?

Again, you can join the live webcast on Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at www.RationallySelfish.com.

You can listen to these webcasts later as audio-only podcasts by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS feed:

However, I hope that you’ll join the live webcast, because that’s more exciting and lively than the podcast. People chat merrily amongst themselves while watching the webcast. And I love the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

Also, please submit your questions, as well as vote on your favorite questions from the ongoing queue! And be sure to “like” the Rationally Selfish Page on Facebook.

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

2

As usual, I answered six questions on practical ethics and the principles of living well in my Rationally Selfish Webcast on Sunday morning on reasoning from the prisoner’s dilemma, hiring people with an internet presence, the morality of revenge, building codes, numbers of men versus women in Objectivism, and wealth creation as net positive. An audio recording of the webcast is now available as an audio-only podcast here: NoodleCast #75: Live Rationally Selfish Webcast.

Here are the questions that I answered:

Question 1: Reasoning from the Prisoner’s Dilemma (5:07)

What do you think of the “Prisoner’s Dilemma”? Something about the Prisoner’s Dilemma as a basis for economic and ethical claims never settled with me, but I’m not sure why. What is your opinion of it from a philosophical point of view?

My Answer, In Brief: The Prisoner’s Dilemma cannot be used as a basis for ethical or economic reasoning, because it’s a narrow case that only confirms some more fundamental principles of justice and cooperation.

Question 2: Hiring People with an Internet Presence (14:35)

What do you think about the dangers of hiring someone with an internet presence? Some people in business have concerns about hiring people active on blogs, social media, and other online forums. Often that’s because of controversial positions advocated by the potential employee that they don’t want to reflect on the company or cause drama internally. Also, they might have concerns that the person would share information about the company (including co-workers) that ought to be be kept private. So what are the principles involved in hiring someone who posts controversial material online? For example, should their potential position in the company matter, such as whether they’ll be working in the back office or with the public? Or, should companies simply ignore what people say and do on their off-time, including on the internet?

My Answer, In Brief: A person’s internet activities can reveal facts relevant to suitability for a job, such as character, personality, interests, and judgment. To that extent, as well as for other matters relevant to the work, a person’s online activities are of interest to a current or potential employer.

Question 3: The Morality of Revenge (29:49)

Is revenge ever moral? In a famous song, singer Carrie Underwood describes trashing her boyfriend’s truck after she finds out that he cheated on her. Is it ever moral to seek out revenge like this on someone who has lied to you or has done something for which there are no real legal repercussions? What are the limits of moral revenge, if any?

My Answer, In Brief: It’s never moral to violate a person’s rights, including property rights. In addition, it’s self-destructive to focus on getting one’s revenge. Instead, exercise your right to free association – and cut the person out of your life so that you can pursue goals and projects that matter to you.

Question 4: Building Codes (38:30)

Are building codes ethical? In light of the building earthquake and tsunami in Japan, a lot of people are crediting the strict building codes and urban planning for reducing the damage. Is it proper to support building codes, which limit property rights, if the goal is to prevent damage and destruction in the event of an inevitable natural disaster, such as an earthquake?

My Answer, In Brief: Again, it’s never moral to violate a person’s rights, including property rights. Building codes are neither effective nor necessary means to protect people and property in natural disasters.

Question 5: Numbers of Men Versus Women in Objectivism (49:08)

Why are more men than women attracted to Objectivism? More men than women seem to be attracted to Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism. Why is that? And does it matter?

My Answer, In Brief: Presumably, more men are attracted to Objectivism than women for the same reason that more men are attracted to philosophy than women. Those reasons may be due to innate differences or cultural influences, yet ultimately, they reflect people’s choices. However, the gender gap is not nearly as wide today as it used to be.

Question 6: Objectivist Answers: Wealth Creation as Net Positive (52:40)

Why is wealth not a zero-sum game? If someone makes a profit, doesn’t that mean that someone else loses?

My Answer, In Brief: Values are not mere material things: they can be created and destroyed – and they are increased by voluntary trade. As such, profits are the creation of value, not merely the extraction of values from other people.

To catch all the Rationally Selfish Podcasts, subscribe to the podcast feeds in iTunes in enhanced M4A format (RSS) or standard MP3 format (RSS). Or better yet, join Greg Perkins and me for the live Rationally Selfish Webcast on Sundays at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET.

3

As usual, I’ll be answering questions on practical ethics and the principles of living well in my Rationally Selfish Webcast on Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. This week, I’m answering questions on the morality of spreading germs, celebrating birthdays, married couples separating for their careers, compulsory juries, growing out of Ayn Rand, and optimism for the future. Don’t miss out on this hour of thought-provoking discussion and lively fun!

To watch the live webcast and join in the text chat with other audience members, just go to www.RationallySelfish.com at the appointed hour.

Here are this week’s questions:

  • Question 1: The Morality of Spreading Germs: If you have a mild to moderate contagious disease, is it immoral to go about your ordinary business knowing that this will expose other people to the disease? I’m not talking about life-threatening illness here, nor am I talking about intentionally trying to get someone sick (like spitting in their food). I’m just talking about going to work, school, entertainment events, or scheduled appointments while you have an ordinary disease like a cold, flu, or strep throat. Is that moral?

  • Question 2: Celebrating Birthdays: How should a person celebrate his birthday, if at all? And if so, why? Would a rational egoist throw a party and invite people that he doesn’t value much, like estranged family members?

  • Question 3: Married Couples Separating for Their Careers: Should a married couple ever separate temporarily for the sake of their respective careers? In your May 1st webcast, you said that long-distance relationships are inherently problematic because the people are living separate lives due to the physical distance between them. Does that mean that committed couples should never separate temporarily for career reasons? If they do, how can they manage that better so as to preserve the relationship?

  • Question 4: Compulsory Juries: Are compulsory juries moral? Is it necessary and/or proper to compel citizens to serve on a jury? If not, what is the best way to ensure the right to a trial by a jury of your peers, rather than trial by government agents? Should a free society have professional volunteer juries like the military?

  • Question 5: Growing Out of Ayn Rand: What do people mean when they say “I liked Ayn Rand’s ideas, but then I grew up”? On several occasions, I have discussed Rand’s ideas with others. They have admitted to reading <I>Atlas Shrugged</I> or <I>The Fountainhead</I> when a teenager. They claim that they liked or even agreed with her ideas back then. “But, now I’ve grown up.” I guess that is supposed to embarrass me since I am in my mid-40’s. It doesn’t. But I am left wondering, what is going on in their heads? Are they just jaded? Do they think life naturally leads to pragmatism or an acceptance of evil?

  • Question 6: From Objectivist Answers: Optimism for the Future: How can I be optimistic when society seems doomed? I am beginning to see the United States as the oak tree at the beginning of Atlas Shrugged, an empty shell whose heart rotted away long ago. Ayn Rand writes often of the failure of our age, of seeing corruption rewarded and honesty becoming self-sacrifice, and of seeing these as evidence of our society being doomed. Given the recent, and increased, interest in Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand, I should be hopeful for the future. But is it too little, too late? I have small children, and I never thought it would become generally accepted that America’s best days are behind us. How do I cope with the destruction going on today? How can I be optimistic for my children’s future? As an Objectivist it seems as though I must be missing the obvious answer.

Again, you can join the live webcast on Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at www.RationallySelfish.com.

You can listen to these webcasts later as audio-only podcasts by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS feed:

However, I hope that you’ll join the live webcast, because that’s more exciting and lively than the podcast. People chat merrily amongst themselves while watching the webcast. And I love the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

Also, please submit your questions, as well as vote on your favorite questions from the ongoing queue! And be sure to “like” the Rationally Selfish Page on Facebook.

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

4

As usual, I answered six questions on practical ethics and the principles of living well in my Rationally Selfish Webcast on Sunday morning on the morality of spreading germs, celebrating birthdays, married couples separating for their careers, compulsory juries, growing out of Ayn Rand, and optimism for the future. An audio recording of the webcast is now available as an audio-only podcast here: NoodleCast #77: Live Rationally Selfish Webcast.

Here are the questions that I answered:

Question 1: The Morality of Spreading Germs (3:54)

If you have a mild to moderate contagious disease, is it immoral to go about your ordinary business knowing that this will expose other people to the disease? I’m not talking about life-threatening illness here, nor am I talking about intentionally trying to get someone sick (like spitting in their food). I’m just talking about going to work, school, entertainment events, or scheduled appointments while you have an ordinary disease like a cold, flu, or strep throat. Is that moral?

My Answer, In Brief: Minor illnesses are a part of life; they’re an ordinary and inherent risk of social interaction. People often have good reason to be out in society, even though sick, but the rationally selfish person doesn’t want family, friends, co-workers, or even strangers sick, and so will take reasonable measures to prevent the spread of disease.

Question 2: Celebrating Birthdays (11:57)

How should a person celebrate his birthday, if at all? And if so, why? Would a rational egoist throw a party and invite people that he doesn’t value much, like estranged family members?

My Answer, In Brief: Your birthday – meaning the date marking the start of your life in the world – is a wonderful day for friends to show their appreciation of you – and for you do so something special with people that you love.

Question 3: Married Couples Separating for Their Careers (17:45)

Should a married couple ever separate temporarily for the sake of their respective careers? In your May 1st webcast, you said that long-distance relationships are inherently problematic because the people are living separate lives due to the physical distance between them. Does that mean that committed couples should never separate temporarily for career reasons? If they do, how can they manage that better so as to preserve the relationship?

My Answer, In Brief: A couple might need to separate temporarily for careers, and that can work, despite the perils of living separate lives, if the couple recognizes the risks and acts to mitigate them.

Question 4: Compulsory Juries (28:13)

Are compulsory juries moral? Is it necessary and/or proper to compel citizens to serve on a jury? If not, what is the best way to ensure the right to a trial by a jury of your peers, rather than trial by government agents? Should a free society have professional volunteer juries like the military?

My Answer, In Brief: The government of a free society cannot justly compel taxes or military service – or jury duty. It’s a violation of rights – and hence, immoral and impractical.

Question 5: Growing Out of Ayn Rand (42:00)

What do people mean when they say “I liked Ayn Rand’s ideas, but then I grew up”? On several occasions, I have discussed Rand’s ideas with others. They have admitted to reading Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead when a teenager. They claim that they liked or even agreed with her ideas back then. “But, now I’ve grown up.” I guess that is supposed to embarrass me since I am in my mid-40’s. It doesn’t. But I am left wondering, what is going on in their heads? Are they just jaded? Do they think life naturally leads to pragmatism or an acceptance of evil?

My Answer, In Brief: People who no longer agree with Ayn Rand could just say that, but this claim is a kind of argument from intimidation, perhaps from someone who was intimidated out of his own genuine interest in Ayn Rand.

Question 6: Objectivist Answers: Optimism for the Future (52:04)

How can I be optimistic when society seems doomed? I am beginning to see the United States as the oak tree at the beginning of Atlas Shrugged, an empty shell whose heart rotted away long ago. Ayn Rand writes often of the failure of our age, of seeing corruption rewarded and honesty becoming self-sacrifice, and of seeing these as evidence of our society being doomed. Given the recent, and increased, interest in Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand, I should be hopeful for the future. But is it too little, too late? I have small children, and I never thought it would become generally accepted that America’s best days are behind us. How do I cope with the destruction going on today? How can I be optimistic for my children’s future? As an Objectivist it seems as though I must be missing the obvious answer.

My Answer, In Brief: The key to keep fighting, even if one is pessimistic about the future, is to understand and live Ayn Rand’s phrase “Anyone who fights for the future lives in it today.”

To catch all the Rationally Selfish Podcasts, subscribe to the podcast feeds in iTunes in enhanced M4A format (RSS) or standard MP3 format (RSS). Or better yet, join Greg Perkins and me for the live Rationally Selfish Webcast on Sundays at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET.

5

As usual, I’ll be answering questions on practical ethics and the principles of living well in my Rationally Selfish Webcast on Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. This week, I’ll answer questions on subpoenas in a free society, advice on office romances, the morality of lending books, developing expertise in the Objectivist ethics, my personal art recommendations, and wealth and responsibility. Don’t miss out on this hour of thought-provoking discussion and lively fun!

To watch the live webcast and join in the text chat with other audience members, just go to www.RationallySelfish.com at the appointed hour.

Here are this week’s questions:

  • Question 1: Subpoenas in a Free Society: Why are subpeonas justified but not compulsory juries? In your May 15th webcast, you contrasted your position on jury duty with that of Dr. Peikoff’s, saying that jury duty constituted the initiation of force. My understanding is that Ayn Rand’s position was that subpoenas and the jury selection process was entirely consistent with justice, as Peikoff mentions in this podcast. Juries are selected using subpoenas. How would you reconcile being for subpoenas but against jury duty? And, does this also mean that you disagree with Ayn Rand’s view of justice?

  • Question 2: Advice on Office Romances: What advice do you have about dating coworkers? A romantic interest, who is a sort of coworker of mine, is concerned about the effect on her reputation (she’s new), as well as conflicts of interest, should we decide to date. If this is the reason she gave for declining a date, does it make sense to ask again after a period of friendship and to suggest we keep our relationship secret? On the other hand, it might be hard to maintain such a secret.

  • Question 3: The Morality of Lending Books: Is it moral to lend a book to a friend? Given the intellectual property issues regarding downloading music, movies etc… would lending a book, say Atlas Shrugged, to a friend or relative be considered a violation of the rights of the intellectual property holder?

  • Question 4: Developing Expertise in the Objectivist Ethics: How do I become an expert on the Objectivist ethics? I want a complete understanding. I want to be able to prove it to myself and others. How do I get there most effectively? Can you recommend any material other than the most popular books out there?

  • Question 5: My Personal Art Recommendations: Can you give some art recommendations? Specifically, what would say would be your two or three favorites in the following categories, and why? (1) fiction/literature, (2) paintings/sculpture, (3) music, and (4) movies/television.

  • Question 6: From Objectivist Answers: Wealth and Responsibility: Doesn’t greater wealth entail greater responsibility? If you have amassed a great fortune, don’t you also have to shoulder a greater responsibility to society and your fellow man than others? After all, success in business doesn’t occur in a vacuum: it always depends on the community to some extent. People like Michael Bloomberg or George Lucas know that they would not be where they are today without some pretty significant assistance from others. So shouldn’t they assume more responsibility for their fellow man than others?

Again, you can join the live webcast on Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at www.RationallySelfish.com.

You can listen to these webcasts later as audio-only podcasts by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS feed:

However, I hope that you’ll join the live webcast, because that’s more exciting and lively than the podcast. People chat merrily amongst themselves while watching the webcast. And I love the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

Also, please submit your questions, as well as vote on your favorite questions from the ongoing queue! And be sure to “like” the Rationally Selfish Page on Facebook.

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

6

As usual, I answered six questions on practical ethics and the principles of living well in my Rationally Selfish Webcast on Sunday morning on subpoenas in a free society, office romances, the morality of lending books, developing expertise in the Objectivist ethics, personal art recommendations, and wealth and responsibility. An audio recording of the webcast is now available as an audio-only podcast here: NoodleCast #78: Live Rationally Selfish Webcast.

Here are the questions that I answered:

Question 1: Subpoenas in a Free Society (03:46)

Why are subpoenas justified but not compulsory juries? In your May 15th webcast, you contrasted your position on jury duty with that of Dr. Peikoff’s, saying that compulsory jury duty constituted the initiation of force. My understanding is that Ayn Rand’s position was that subpoenas and the jury selection process are entirely consistent with justice, as Peikoff mentions in this podcast. Juries are selected using subpoenas. How would you reconcile being for subpoenas but against compulsory jury duty? And, does this also mean that you disagree with Ayn Rand’s view of justice?

My Answer, In Brief: Ayn Rand’s view of subpoenas, which I suspect to be right, seems to have been that for a person to fail to testify when required is a violation of the rights of the people involved in the court case, presumably their right to a fair trial. (That’s different from the rationale offered by Dr. Peikoff.) A full theory, adequately defended, will depend on the work of philosophers of law.

Question 2: Office Romances (26:12)

What advice do you have about dating coworkers? A romantic interest, who is a sort of coworker of mine, is concerned about the effect on her reputation (she’s new), as well as conflicts of interest, should we decide to date. If this is the reason she gave for declining a date, does it make sense to ask again after a period of friendship and to suggest we keep our relationship secret? On the other hand, it might be hard to maintain such a secret.

My Answer, In Brief: The problem with office romances – particularly when the people are working in the same team or in the chain of command – is that conflicts over the romance (or its demise) may create problems at work, or vice versa. In this case, if she’s accurately representing her concerns, then it might make sense to be discreet about the relationship. Super-secrecy would be untenable – and unwise, however.

Question 3: The Morality of Lending Books (32:58)

Is it moral to lend a book to a friend? Given the intellectual property issues regarding downloading music, movies etc. would lending a book, say Atlas Shrugged, to a friend or relative be considered a violation of the rights of the intellectual property holder?

My Answer, In Brief: Yes, it’s perfectly moral to lend a book to a friend. Intellectual property cannot be duplicated and distributed without permission, but a person can use his copy thereof as he sees fit, absent some further contract.

Question 4: Developing Expertise in the Objectivist Ethics (41:46)

How do I become an expert on the Objectivist ethics? I want a complete understanding. I want to be able to prove it to myself and others. How do I get there most effectively? Can you recommend any material other than the most popular books out there?

My Answer, In Brief: A person ought to focus on cultivating the knowledge of the philosophy required to serve his goals in life, aiming for a deeper understanding of the relevant principles and their applications – not striving for the impossibility of a “complete understanding.”

Question 5: Personal Art Recommendations (49:18)

Can you give some art recommendations? Specifically, what would say would be your two or three favorites in the following categories, and why? (1) literature, (2) paintings/sculpture, (3) music, (4) movies, and (5) television.

My Answer, In Brief: Listen to the answer! (Sorry, but I’m too lazy to compile all those links!)

Question 6: Objectivist Answers: Wealth and Responsibility (1:00:09)

Doesn’t greater wealth entail greater responsibility? If you have amassed a great fortune, don’t you also have to shoulder a greater responsibility to society and your fellow man than others? After all, success in business doesn’t occur in a vacuum: it always depends on the community to some extent. People like Michael Bloomberg or George Lucas know that they would not be where they are today without some pretty significant assistance from others. So shouldn’t they assume more responsibility for their fellow man than others?

My Answer, In Brief: The person who has amassed much wealth has done so by offering people much-valued products and services in voluntary trades. He does not become the keeper of humanity thereby.

To catch all the Rationally Selfish Podcasts, subscribe to the podcast feeds in iTunes in enhanced M4A format (RSS) or standard MP3 format (RSS). Or better yet, join Greg Perkins and me for the live Rationally Selfish Webcast on Sundays at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET.

7

As usual, I’ll be answering questions on practical ethics and the principles of living well in my Rationally Selfish Webcast on Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. This week, I’ll answer questions on the rights of the severely retarded, the morality of risky sports, francisco’s slap of dagny, the “rape” scene in the fountainhead, accepting unauthorized discounts, and buying votes. Don’t miss out on this hour of thought-provoking discussion and lively fun!

Note: This week, I’m broadcasting live from AtlosCon in Atlanta. Yay extra fun!

To watch the live webcast and join in the text chat with other audience members, just go to www.RationallySelfish.com at the appointed hour.

Here are this week’s questions:

  • Question 1: The Rights of the Severely Retarded: What rights do severely mentally disabled people have? If someone is mentally disabled to the extent that he or she will never be able to be rational and/or live independently, does that person have rights? Who should be financially responsible for the care of such people?

  • Question 2: The Morality of Risky Sports: Are risky sports immoral? Some people engage in highly risky sports, such as freestyle skiing or snowboarding, mountain climbing in extreme conditions, surfing huge waves, skydiving, free (non-scuba) diving, super-technical mountain biking, and so on. Since life is the standard of value, is it wrong to risk your life (or limbs) in such pursuits? Should a person take pleasure in risks for its own sake? What is the value of such sports, if any?

  • Question 3: Francisco’s Slap of Dagny: Was Francisco justified in slapping Dagny? In their teenage years, when Dagny asked Francisco whether she should try to get D’s in order to gain popularity in school, Francisco slapped her. I understand what he meant by the “unspeakable” thing that she said. But couldn’t have he talked it over with her instead of slapping her – and shouldn’t he have done so? Why does he use physical violence – and why does Dagny not just accept but relish in it?

  • Question 4: The “Rape” Scene in The Fountainhead: Should a man ever act in real life as Howard Roark did in his first sexual encounter with Dominique? In your April 24th webcast, you said that a person should not act as Howard Roark did in the “rape” scene in The Fountainhead, implying it would be immoral. Could you explain why? Is the problem that you cannot know for certain what the woman wants? I’ve slept with a few women and only once have I ever been 100% certain that she wanted it that way and so I took it without any real permission and I was right. She even told me later she wouldn’t have wanted it any other way. I understand it is very dangerous to say to guys, “Hey, its okay to do this!” because most people are idiots, but wouldn’t there be rare real-life cases in which a man would be right to act like Roark did?

  • Question 5: Accepting Unauthorized Discounts: Is it moral to accept discounts for products and services when the person giving you the discount isn’t a manager or owner of the business? Is it moral for a person to accept “nice face” discounts? I’ve had people (mostly women) tell me that they’ve received discounts or better service for being nice, dressing in low-cut shirts or short skirts, being cheerful or otherwise friendly to store clerks or employees (usually of the opposite sex). Is it moral to offer or accept such discounts?

  • Question 6: From Objectivist Answers: Buying Votes: Should it be legal in a free society to buy votes? It doesn’t seem that the practice would violate anyone’s rights, so shouldn’t it be legal for a person who wants to hold office to pay willing voters to cast their vote for him?

Again, you can join the live webcast on Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at www.RationallySelfish.com.

You can listen to these webcasts later as audio-only podcasts by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS feed:

However, I hope that you’ll join the live webcast, because that’s more exciting and lively than the podcast. People chat merrily amongst themselves while watching the webcast. And I love the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

Also, please submit your questions, as well as vote on your favorite questions from the ongoing queue! And be sure to “like” the Rationally Selfish Page on Facebook.

8

With a live audience at AtlosCon in Atlanta, I answered six questions on practical ethics and the principles of living well in my Rationally Selfish Webcast on Sunday morning on the rights of the severely retarded, the morality of risky sports, Francisco’s slap of Dagny in Atlas Shrugged, the “rape” scene in The Fountainhead, accepting unauthorized discounts, and buying votes in elections.. An audio recording of the webcast is now available as an audio-only podcast here: NoodleCast #79: Live Rationally Selfish Webcast.

Here are the questions that I answered:

Question 1: The Rights of the Severely Mentally Disabled (2:41)

What rights do severely mentally disabled people have? If someone is mentally disabled to the extent that he or she will never be able to be rational and/or live independently, does that person have rights? Who should be financially responsible for the care of such people?

My Answer, In Brief: A disabled person with some capacity to reason has rights, although may require the guidance and assistance of a guardian. However, humans born without any capacity to reason (such as anencephalics) cannot be said to have rights, since rights protect a person’s capacity to act on his own rational judgment.

Question 2: The Morality of Risky Sports (21:31)

Are risky sports immoral? Some people engage in highly risky sports, such as freestyle skiing or snowboarding, mountain climbing in extreme conditions, surfing huge waves, skydiving, free (non-scuba) diving, super-technical mountain biking, and so on. Since life is the standard of value, is it wrong to risk your life (or limbs) in such pursuits? Should a person take pleasure in risks for its own sake? What is the value of such sports, if any?

My Answer, In Brief: While the pursuit of risk per se is self-destructive, most extreme athletes have the skills required to safely perform the activity or risk only minor injuries.

Question 3: Francisco’s Slap of Dagny in Atlas Shrugged (33:16)

Was Francisco justified in slapping Dagny? In their teenage years, when Dagny asked Francisco whether she should try to get D’s in order to gain popularity in school, Francisco slapped her. I understand what he meant by the “unspeakable” thing that she said. But couldn’t have he talked it over with her instead of slapping her – and shouldn’t he have done so? Why does he use physical violence – and why does Dagny not just accept but relish in it?

My Answer, In Brief: The slap in question was not just deliberately provoked, but necessary in the context of fiction to dramatize the conflict.

Question 4: The “Rape” Scene in The Fountainhead (37:49)

Should a man ever act in real life as Howard Roark did in his first sexual encounter with Dominique? In your April 24th webcast, you said that a person should not act as Howard Roark did in the “rape” scene in The Fountainhead, implying it would be immoral. Could you explain why? Is the problem that you cannot know for certain what the woman wants? I’ve slept with a few women and only once have I ever been 100% certain that she wanted it that way and so I took it without any real permission and I was right. She even told me later she wouldn’t have wanted it any other way. I understand it is very dangerous to say to guys, “Hey, its okay to do this!” because most people are idiots, but wouldn’t there be rare real-life cases in which a man would be right to act like Roark did?

My Answer, In Brief: The “rape” scene is wonderful drama, but to do the same in real life would risk actually raping the woman – which is not merely horrible in and of itself, but also likely to result in years of imprisonment.

Question 5: Accepting Unauthorized Discounts (44:58)

Is it moral to accept discounts for products and services when the person giving you the discount isn’t a manager or owner of the business? Is it moral for a person to accept “nice face” discounts? I’ve had people (mostly women) tell me that they’ve received discounts or better service for being nice, dressing in low-cut shirts or short skirts, being cheerful or otherwise friendly to store clerks or employees (usually of the opposite sex). Is it moral to offer or accept such discounts?

My Answer, In Brief: Businesses are free to offer discounts to any customers, and you should feel free to accept them. However, if you know that the discount is offered in secret, without the permission of the business owner or manager, you should refuse.

Question 6: Objectivist Answers: Buying Votes in Elections (52:00)

Should it be legal in a free society to buy votes? It doesn’t seem that the practice would violate anyone’s rights, so shouldn’t it be legal for a person who wants to hold office to pay willing voters to cast their vote for him?

My Answer, In Brief: To buy votes in an election not would wildly expensive – and likely ultimately ensure defeat. It’s not a problem that need to be outlawed.

To catch all the Rationally Selfish Podcasts, subscribe to the podcast feeds in iTunes in enhanced M4A format (RSS) or standard MP3 format (RSS). Or better yet, join Greg Perkins and me for the live Rationally Selfish Webcast on Sundays at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET.

9

As usual, I’ll be answering questions on practical ethics and the principles of living well in my Rationally Selfish Webcast on Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. This week, I’ll answer questions on the process of forgiveness, visiting home for the holidays, recycling, pharmacies selling homeopathic remedies, Objectivism and psychology, and doctors prescribing placebos. Don’t miss out on this hour of thought-provoking discussion and lively fun!

To watch the live webcast and join in the text chat with other audience members, just go to www.RationallySelfish.com at the appointed hour.

Here are this week’s questions:

  • Question 1: The Process of Forgiveness: What is the proper process of forgiveness? In your March 6th episode, you spoke about forgiveness from the perspective of the person wronged. However, imagine that you’re the person who has done wrong to someone else, thereby harming him. What should you do now? How can you prove to that person that you’re not as bad as you seemed at that time? What should you do if the other person isn’t willing to hear you out?

  • Question 2: Visiting Home for the Holidays: Am I obliged to visit my family for the holidays? I’m in my mid-20s. My family expects me to return home for the holidays, i.e. for Thanksgiving or Christmas. I dislike the trouble of travelling during that hectic time. (I live across the country.) Also, I dislike the chaotic bustle at my parents’ home during the holidays. I feel like I never get to spend meaningful time with anyone, and I’m stuck with people I can barely tolerate. I’d prefer to visit family I like at other times in the year. However, my parents would be extremely angry with me if I refused to come home during the holidays. They’d probably attempt to make me feel guilty for ruining their holidays. Should I just give in to their wishes? If not, how can I make them accept that I’d rather visit at some other time?

  • Question 3: Recycling: Should I recycle? When I don’t have to go out of my way to recycle – if both bins are right in front of me, say – should I? And what if I am sharing an apartment with someone who will fish recyclables out of the trash and put them in the recycling bin? Are there cases where one should just recycle in order to avoid confrontations at home or work?

  • Question 4: Pharmacies Selling Homeopathic Remedies: Should pharmacies sell homeopathic remedies next to real medicines? For example, Cobroxin with Asian Cobra Venom 4x HPUS is sometimes sold next to acetaminophen. Calms Forte’s non-drowsy sleeping pills are often displayed next to diphenhydramine (the generic for Benadryl or Tylenol p.m.) James Randi, a magician in his 80’s, took 30 of these sleeping pills with no effect. Basically, these homeopathic alternatives are nothing more than expensive water. So is it wrong for pharmacies to sell them as if they were effective medicine?

  • Question 5: Objectivism and Psychology: Does Objectivism need a psychology? The philosophy of Objectivism does not address the domain of human psychology as a distinct and significant category. Does that make it incomplete? If so, is that important?

  • Question 6: From Objectivist Answers: Doctors Prescribing Placebos: Is a psychiatrist (or other doctor) prescribing placebos ethical? This question arose as a result of this article: The power of placebos. While the alleged benefits of placebos mentioned in the article can be argued, my question is: To the extent a placebo is beneficial to a patient, is the doctor justified in prescribing it to him? Of course, the doctor cannot reveal to the patient at the time of prescription since it nullifies the effect of the placebo.

Again, you can join the live webcast on Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at www.RationallySelfish.com.

You can listen to these webcasts later as audio-only podcasts by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS feed:

However, I hope that you’ll join the live webcast, because that’s more exciting and lively than the podcast. People chat merrily amongst themselves while watching the webcast. And I love the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

Also, please submit your questions, as well as vote on your favorite questions from the ongoing queue! And be sure to “like” the Rationally Selfish Page on Facebook.

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

10

As usual, I answered six questions on practical ethics and the principles of living well in my Rationally Selfish Webcast on Sunday morning on the process of forgiveness, visiting home for the holidays, recycling, pharmacies selling homeopathic remedies, Objectivism and psychology, and doctors prescribing placebos. An audio recording of the webcast is now available as an audio-only podcast here: NoodleCast #80: Live Rationally Selfish Webcast.

Here are the questions that I answered:

Question 1: The Process of Forgiveness (6:24)

What is the proper process of forgiveness? In your March 6th episode, you spoke about forgiveness from the perspective of the person wronged. However, imagine that you’re the person who has done wrong to someone else, thereby harming him. What should you do now? How can you prove to that person that you’re not as bad as you seemed at that time? What should you do if the other person isn’t willing to hear you out?

My Answer, In Brief: Although errors and wrongs differ in significant ways – ranging from honest ignorance to willful evasion – the basic process is always (1) identify what happened, (2) make amends as necessary, and (3) ensure no repetition, if possible.

Question 2: Visiting Home for the Holidays (27:27)

Am I obliged to visit my family for the holidays? I’m in my mid-20s. My family expects me to return home for the holidays, i.e. for Thanksgiving or Christmas. I dislike the trouble of traveling during that hectic time. (I live across the country.) Also, I dislike the chaotic bustle at my parents’ home during the holidays. I feel like I never get to spend meaningful time with anyone, and I’m stuck with people I can barely tolerate. I’d prefer to visit family I like at other times in the year. However, my parents would be extremely angry with me if I refused to come home during the holidays. They’d probably attempt to make me feel guilty for ruining their holidays. Should I just give in to their wishes? If not, how can I make them accept that I’d rather visit at some other time?

My Answer, In Brief: A person ought always pursue his own happiness, including during the holidays. That might require making plans apart from family and visiting at other times, even in face of much opposition.

Question 3: Recycling (35:02)

Should I recycle? When I don’t have to go out of my way to recycle – if both bins are right in front of me, say – should I? And what if I am sharing an apartment with someone who will fish recyclables out of the trash and put them in the recycling bin? Are there cases where one should just recycle in order to avoid confrontations at home or work?

My Answer, In Brief: The fervor to recycle raw materials from consumer goods is based on a series of myths about its costs and benefits, but when faced with requests or mandates to recycle, a person ought to do what’s most convenient, without infringing on the rights of others.

Question 4: Pharmacies Selling Homeopathic Remedies (51:02)

Should pharmacies sell homeopathic remedies next to real medicines? For example, Cobroxin with Asian Cobra Venom 4x HPUS is sometimes sold next to acetaminophen (or Tylenol). Calms Forte’s non-drowsy sleeping pills are often displayed next to diphenhydramine (the generic for Benadryl or Tylenol p.m.). James Randi, a magician in his 80’s, took 30 of these sleeping pills with no effect. Basically, these homeopathic alternatives are nothing more than expensive water. So is it wrong for pharmacies to sell them as if they were effective medicine?

My Answer, In Brief: Homeopathy is pure pseudo-science, and pharmacies ought not sell it at all. But if they do, the posted warnings ought to be very, very clear about what’s not being bought, namely medicine.

Question 5: Objectivism and Psychology (1:00:00)

Does Objectivism need a psychology? The philosophy of Objectivism does not address the domain of human psychology as a distinct and significant category. Does that make it incomplete? If so, is that important?

My Answer, In Brief: Objectivism is a philosophy, not the sum of all knowledge. Psychology is and ought to be respected as a separate discipline.

Question 6: Objectivist Answers: Doctors Prescribing Placebos (1:03:46)

Is it ethical for a psychiatrist (or other doctor) to prescribe placebos? This question arose as a result of this article: The power of placebos. While the alleged benefits of placebos mentioned in the article can be argued, my question is: To the extent a placebo is beneficial to a patient, is the doctor justified in prescribing it to him? Of course, the doctor cannot reveal to the patient at the time of prescription since it nullifies the effect of the placebo.

My Answer, In Brief: The placebo effect is genuine, in that the mind can stimulate healing even without effective medicines. Doctors might prescribe them with some general consent of their patients, particularly if the alternatives risk significant side-effects or other harms.

To catch all the Rationally Selfish Podcasts, subscribe to the podcast feeds in iTunes in enhanced M4A format (RSS) or standard MP3 format (RSS). Or better yet, join Greg Perkins and me for the live Rationally Selfish Webcast on Sundays at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET.

11

As usual, I’ll be answering questions on practical ethics and the principles of living well in my Rationally Selfish Webcast on Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. This week, I’ll answer questions on proper reliance on experts, the evil of Immanuel Kant, responding to expressions of hatred for work, the morality of exploiting flaws in government lotteries, appropriating insulting terms, and dismissing arguments with pejorative language. Don’t miss out on this hour of thought-provoking discussion and lively fun!

To watch the live webcast and join in the text chat with other audience members, just go to www.RationallySelfish.com at the appointed hour.

Here are this week’s questions:

  • Question 1: Proper Reliance on Experts: What role should experts play in our decision-making? Specifically, should a person defer to experts in fields where he’s not well-informed? What if he’s only partially knowledgeable? Should experts expect such deference? Does it matter whether the field is philosophy, plumbing, diet, or something else?

  • Question 2: The Evil of Immanuel Kant: Was Immanuel Kant evil rather than just wrong – and if so, why and how? I understand that Kant’s ideas are very wrong, even evil. But couldn’t he have been honestly mistaken, perhaps not taking his own work seriously? Given that he never advocated or did anything even remotely comparable to Hitler’s genocide, why should he be regarded as evil, if at all?

  • Question 3: Responding to Expressions of Hatred for Work: How should I respond when people disparage their work? Often, people often make comments about the great burden that work is – not in the sense that they’re unhappy with some problem in their current job, but that they resent the need to work at all. These are the kinds of people who live for weekends and vacations. I don’t feel that way about my work, and I think these people are missing so much in life. How can I respond to such casual remarks in a way that might make the person re-think their attitude?

  • Question 4: The Morality of Exploiting Flaws in Government Lotteries: Is it moral to exploit a design flaw in a government or private lottery? An article in Wired describes how a statistician noticed a design flaw in the Ontario government lottery “scratchers” game which would allow people to consistently win money. He was described as being “ethical” because he alerted the authorities rather than taking advantage of it for personal gain, and they fixed the problem. Would it be moral to exploit a mathematical flaw in a government lottery without alerting anyone? Would it make a difference if the game was the work of a private casino rather than the government (e.g., exploiting a bias in a casino’s roulette wheel)?

  • Question 5: Appropriating Insulting Terms: What do you think of people using pejorative terms for themselves, such as gays referring to themselves as “faggots” or Objectivists calling themselves “Randroids”? The term “Randroid” is supposed to imply that Objectivists are unthinking, mindless drones. However, I happily use this term to describe myself – after first calling myself an Objectivist, of course – because I think it squashes a lot of the negativity behind the pejorative when I adopt it willingly. Do you think it’s good Objectivists to adopt this term – and more generally, for people to use insults as badges of honor?

  • Question 6: From Objectivist Answers: Dismissing Arguments with Pejorative Language: Is pejorative rhetoric useful? When should you or may you describe someone’s argument or analysis in pejorative terms, because you don’t consider them intellectually honest or educable, and you just want to make it clear to the wider audience that you don’t accept them as a worthwhile interlocutor? Is it acceptable to just vent in such cases?

Again, you can join the live webcast on Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at www.RationallySelfish.com.

You can listen to these webcasts later as audio-only podcasts by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS feed:

However, I hope that you’ll join the live webcast, because that’s more exciting and lively than the podcast. People chat merrily amongst themselves while watching the webcast. And I love the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

Also, please submit your questions, as well as vote on your favorite questions from the ongoing queue! And be sure to “like” the Rationally Selfish Page on Facebook.

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

12

As usual, I answered six questions on practical ethics and the principles of living well in my Rationally Selfish Webcast on Sunday morning on proper reliance on experts, the evil of Immanuel Kant, responding to expressions of hatred for work, the morality of exploiting flaws in government lotteries, appropriating insulting terms, and dismissing arguments with pejorative language. An audio recording of the webcast is now available as an audio-only podcast here: NoodleCast #81: Live Rationally Selfish Webcast.

Here are the questions that I answered:

Question 1: Proper Reliance on Experts (5:09)

What role should experts play in our decision-making? Specifically, should a person defer to experts in fields where he’s not well-informed? What if he’s only partially knowledgeable? Should experts expect such deference? Does it matter whether the field is philosophy, plumbing, diet, or something else?

My Answer, In Brief: We can and ought to make use of experts when our own knowledge is lacking. However, we shouldn’t ever defer to them but rather keep an active mind, acting as traders in knowledge.

Question 2: The Evil of Immanuel Kant (23:14)

Was Immanuel Kant evil rather than just wrong – and if so, why and how? I understand that Kant’s ideas are very wrong, even evil. But couldn’t he have been honestly mistaken, perhaps not taking his own work seriously? Given that he never advocated or did anything even remotely comparable to Hitler’s genocide, why should he be regarded as evil, if at all?

My Answer, In Brief: Kant’s philosophy cannot be the result of honest errors, and he did know, or ought to have known, of its destructive power. Hence, he should be regarded as evil, not merely mistaken.

Question 3: Responding to Expressions of Hatred for Work (38:02)

How should I respond when people disparage their work? Often, people make comments about the great burden that work is – not in the sense that they’re unhappy with some problem in their current job, but that they resent the need to work at all. These are the kinds of people who live for weekends and vacations. I don’t feel that way about my work, and I think these people are missing so much in life. How can I respond to such casual remarks in a way that might make the person re-think their attitude?

My Answer, In Brief: People often adopt such an attitude toward their work without thinking, and often just stating your own disagreement can shock people into rethinking what work might and ought to be.

Question 4: The Morality of Exploiting Flaws in Government Lotteries (41:56)

Is it moral to exploit a design flaw in a government or private lottery? An article in Wired describes how a statistician noticed a design flaw in the Ontario government lottery “scratchers” game which would allow people to consistently win money. He was described as being “ethical” because he alerted the authorities rather than taking advantage of it for personal gain, and they fixed the problem. Would it be moral to exploit a mathematical flaw in a government lottery without alerting anyone? Would it make a difference if the game was the work of a private casino rather than the government (e.g., exploiting a bias in a casino’s roulette wheel)?

My Answer, In Brief: So long as you’re playing by the rules, you’re not cheating. However, you don’t want to adopt the mindset of a cheater, nor harm yourself in some other way by exploiting this weakness.

Question 5: Appropriating Insulting Terms (52:19)

What do you think of people using pejorative terms for themselves, such as gays referring to themselves as “faggots” or Objectivists calling themselves “Randroids”? The term “Randroid” is supposed to imply that Objectivists are unthinking, mindless drones. However, I happily use this term to describe myself – after first calling myself an Objectivist, of course – because I think it squashes a lot of the negativity behind the pejorative when I adopt it willingly. Do you think it’s for good Objectivists to adopt this term – and more generally, for people to use insults as badges of honor?

My Answer, In Brief: To use insults ironically among people who understand the joke is unproblematic, but to simply describe oneself in insulting terms does not combat the insult but sanctions it – or demands a double standard.

Question 6: Objectivist Answers: Dismissing Arguments with Pejorative Language (56:35)

Is pejorative rhetoric useful? When should you or when may you describe someone’s argument or analysis in pejorative terms, because you don’t consider them intellectually honest or educable, and you just want to make it clear to the wider audience that you don’t accept them as a worthwhile opponent? Is it acceptable to just vent in such cases?

My Answer, In Brief: A person should never just vent, and if you do, you’re likely to look like the dishonest jerk unworthy of civilized discussion.

To catch all the Rationally Selfish Podcasts, subscribe to the podcast feeds in iTunes in enhanced M4A format (RSS) or standard MP3 format (RSS). Or better yet, join Greg Perkins and me for the live Rationally Selfish Webcast on Sundays at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET.

13

As usual, I’ll be answering questions on practical ethics and the principles of living well in my Rationally Selfish Webcast on Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. This week, I’ll answer questions on the virtue of pride, living together outside marriage, child support from unwilling fathers, profiting from the ignorance of others, deflating bragging looters, and political bipartisanship. Don’t miss out on this hour of thought-provoking discussion and lively fun!

To watch the live webcast and join in the text chat with other audience members, just go to www.RationallySelfish.com at the appointed hour.

Here are this week’s questions:

  • Question 1: The Virtue of Pride: What is the virtue of pride? To me, pride just seems like a feeling – a sense of satisfaction with oneself. So it seems bizarre to speak of pride as a virtue, as if it’s something that you do. So what does it mean to say that pride is a virtue – and how is that different from self-esteem?

  • Question 2: Living Together Outside Marriage: What do you think of a couple living together outside marriage? Do you think that a romantic couple living together without being married is moral and/or wise? Does the stage of the relationship matter, including whether they plan to marry or not? Does living together before marriage result in a happier or more enduring marriage?

  • Question 3: Child Support from Unwilling Fathers: Should a man unwilling to be a father have to pay child support? Suppose that a man and a woman have sex, and the woman becomes pregnant – even though the couple used contraception based on a shared and expressed desire not to have children. If the woman decides to raise the baby, should she be able to collect child support from the man? What if they’d never discussed the possibility of pregnancy? What if they didn’t use any form of birth control?

  • Question 4: Profiting from the Ignorance of Others: Is it moral to take advantage of another person’s ignorance? Suppose that I drop by a yard sale to see whatever is up for grabs. While rummaging through the junk for which the owners no longer see a reason to keep, I catch sight of an item which I know to be extremely rare and valuable. Would it be moral for me to pay the low asking price, then resell the item at auction for a much higher price, knowing that the owners are clueless about its value?

  • Question 5: Deflating Bragging Looters: What is the best way to handle “proud” looters? What is the safest and most effective way to deal with the people who ignorantly brag about the fact that they are free-loaders on others, including using government programs and “public” funds?

  • Question 6: From Objectivist Answers: Political Bipartisanship: What do you think of political bipartisanship? Is it a good think or just an idealogical vacuum?

Again, you can join the live webcast on Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at www.RationallySelfish.com.

You can listen to these webcasts later as audio-only podcasts by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS feed:

However, I hope that you’ll join the live webcast, because that’s more exciting and lively than the podcast. People chat merrily amongst themselves while watching the webcast. And I love the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

Also, please submit your questions, as well as vote on your favorite questions from the ongoing queue! And be sure to “like” the Rationally Selfish Page on Facebook.

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

14

As usual, I answered questions on practical ethics and the principles of living well in my Rationally Selfish Webcast on Sunday morning on the virtue of pride, living together outside marriage, child support from unwilling fathers, profiting from the ignorance of others, deflating bragging looters, and political bipartisanship. An audio recording of the webcast is now available as an audio-only podcast here: NoodleCast #82: Live Rationally Selfish Webcast.

Here are the questions that I answered:

Question 1: The Virtue of Pride (3:03)

What is the virtue of pride? To me, pride just seems like a feeling – a sense of satisfaction with oneself. So it seems bizarre to speak of pride as a virtue, as if it’s something that you do. So what does it mean to say that pride is a virtue – and how is that different from self-esteem?

My Answer, In Brief: The virtue of pride is related to idea of “taking pride in one’s work” – meaning consistently living up to the standard of excellence. In addition to cultivating moral character, pride is the basis for the indispensable value of self-esteem.

Question 2: Living Together Outside Marriage (12:25)

What do you think of a couple living together outside marriage? Do you think that a romantic couple living together without being married is moral and/or wise? Does the stage of the relationship matter, including whether they plan to marry or not? Does living together before marriage result in a happier or more enduring marriage?

My Answer, In Brief: While living together outside marriage can promote a romantic relationship, if done mostly for convenience or without a clear purpose, it can be damaging. In particular, it can prolong an unworthy relationship or delay marriage.

Question 3: Child Support from Unwilling Fathers (22:10)

Should a man unwilling to be a father have to pay child support? Suppose that a man and a woman have sex, and the woman becomes pregnant – even though the couple used contraception based on a shared and expressed desire not to have children. If the woman decides to raise the baby, should she be able to collect child support from the man? What if they’d never discussed the possibility of pregnancy? What if they didn’t use any form of birth control?

My Answer, In Brief: Men should become fathers by choice, just as women should become mothers by choice.

Question 4: Profiting from the Ignorance of Others (28:20)

Is it moral to take advantage of another person’s ignorance? Suppose that I drop by a yard sale to see whatever is up for grabs. While rummaging through the junk for which the owners no longer see a reason to keep, I catch sight of an item which I know to be extremely rare and valuable. Would it be moral for me to pay the low asking price, then resell the item at auction for a much higher price, knowing that the owners are clueless about its value?

My Answer, In Brief: It’s perfectly moral to profit in huge ways from voluntary and honest transactions: the seller is responsible for ensuring that his prices reflect market value.

Question 5: Deflating Bragging Looters (35:48)

What is the best way to handle “proud” looters? What is the safest and most effective way to deal with the people who ignorantly brag about the fact that they are free-loaders on others, including using government programs and “public” funds?

My Answer, In Brief: Instead of expressing anger at scammers, I recommend cold and pointed disapproval.

Question 6: Objectivist Answers: Political Bipartisanship (40:17)

What do you think of political bipartisanship? Is it a good think or just an idealogical vacuum?

My Answer, In Brief: Given that neither Democrats nor Republicans respect rights, political bipartisanship will likely only spawn some horrible plan to strip us of our rights. For our short-term survival, we need gridlock.

To catch all the Rationally Selfish Podcasts, subscribe to the podcast feeds in iTunes in enhanced M4A format (RSS) or standard MP3 format (RSS). Or better yet, join Greg Perkins and me for the live Rationally Selfish Webcast on Sundays at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET.

15

I’ll be answering questions on practical ethics and the principles of living well in my Rationally Selfish Webcast on Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. This week, I’ll answer questions on morality and living well, the risk of guns with kids, tact versus honesty, and staying in an abusive marriage for the kids. Don’t miss out on this hour of thought-provoking discussion and lively fun!

To watch the live webcast and join in the text chat with other audience members, just go to www.RationallySelfish.com at the appointed hour.

Normally, I answer six questions chosen in advance, but this week, I’ll be answering just the four questions below. Then, if we have more time, I’ll have Greg throw me some questions without any preparation on my part whatsoever. That should be exciting!

  • Question 1: Morality and Living Well: What makes some action or choice of ethical concern? In your description of this webcast, you say that you answer questions on “practical ethics and the principles of living well.” What’s the line between those categories? When does a person acting unwisely cross the line into immorality? When does a person deserve moral praise for acting wisely? I’d appreciate a few examples, such as career choices, family relationships, eating habits, interacting with strangers, etc.

  • Question 2: The Risk of Guns with Kids: Should people give up their guns when they have kids? Many people think that having guns in the house with kids is terribly risky, if not child endangerment, They say that the kids might get to the guns, even if locked away, and injure or even kill themselves in an accidental discharge. Is that right? If parents choose to keep their guns in the house, what should they do to minimize the risk of injury?

  • Question 3: Tact Versus Honesty: Is it dishonest to use tact when talking to someone? When I have something important to tell someone and I am concerned that the other person might be put on the defensive or have hurt feelings, I try to say what I need to say with tact. That is, I change what I say from brutal honesty to something a little more tactful. As long as the message is the same and I am being honest, is the use of tact in and of itself necessarily dishonest or wrong?

  • Question 4: Staying in an Abusive Marriage for the Kids: Is it moral to stay in an abusive marriage for the sake of the children? Is it moral for a woman to stay in a marriage – an abusive marriage – because she has kids with the man/abuser and wants her kids to have some sort of future? Does it matter if the man in question has some – or even all – the financial capability?

Again, you can join the live webcast on Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at www.RationallySelfish.com.

You can listen to these webcasts later as audio-only podcasts by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS feed:

However, I hope that you’ll join the live webcast, because that’s more exciting and lively than the podcast. People chat merrily amongst themselves while watching the webcast. And I love the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

Also, please submit your questions, as well as vote on your favorite questions from the ongoing queue! And be sure to “like” the Rationally Selfish Page on Facebook.

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

16

As usual, I’ll be answering questions on practical ethics and the principles of living well in my Rationally Selfish Webcast on Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. This week, I’ll answer questions on moral obligations of children to parents, the boundaries of proper self-defense, real life evil, the reasons to donate blood, and more. Don’t miss out on this hour of thought-provoking discussion and lively fun!

To watch the live webcast and join in the text chat with other audience members, just go to www.RationallySelfish.com at the appointed hour.

Here are this week’s questions:

  • Question 1: Moral Obligations of Children to Parents: Do kids have moral obligations to their parents? If so, what obligations and why?

  • Question 2: The Boundaries of Proper Self-Defense: Is it moral to not defend yourself if you will get into legal trouble for doing so? As I understand laws on self-defense, you must be “in immediate danger of death or grievously bodily harm” in order to use lethal force. How is this reconciled with the morality of “shooting before he shoots you” or “hitting before you get hit”? In other words, preemptive attack may be seen as assault, but there might also be a threat of force. Is it moral to not defend yourself to avoid assault charges? In the case of using a gun to defend yourself, this could mean the difference between you dying at the hands of your attacker or living, but going to jail for murder. What should you do?

  • Question 3: Real Life Evil: Are people in real life as evil as in Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged? In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand presents almost every bad person as very evil. I understand the purpose of that in the novel, but are their equivalents in real life (meaning the legislators passing similar laws nowadays) as evil as that – or are some of them just misguided or even stupid? In other words, do real-life people act on the death premise and hate the good for being the good? I just can’t imagine that. Am I being too optimistic?

  • Question 4: The Reasons to Donate Blood: What are the personal benefits of being a blood donor (or organ donor)? Is it worth doing under today’s laws, where donors cannot get paid? Should people be able to trade blood and organs in a free market?

After that, I’ll do a round of quick impromptu “Rapid Fire Questions,” like I did last week.

Again, you can join the live webcast on Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at www.RationallySelfish.com.

You can listen to these webcasts later as audio-only podcasts by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS feed:

However, I hope that you’ll join the live webcast, because that’s more exciting and lively than the podcast. People chat merrily amongst themselves while watching the webcast. And I love the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

Also, please submit your questions, as well as vote on your favorite questions from the ongoing queue! And be sure to “like” the Rationally Selfish Page on Facebook.

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

17

As usual, I answered questions on practical ethics and the principles of living well in my Rationally Selfish Webcast on Sunday morning on the moral obligations of children to parents, the boundaries of proper self-defense, real life evil, the reasons to donate blood, and more. An audio recording of the webcast is now available as an audio-only podcast here: NoodleCast #84: Live Rationally Selfish Webcast.

Here are the questions that I answered:

Question 1: Moral Obligations of Children to Parents (3:49)

Do kids have moral obligations to their parents? If so, what obligations and why?

My Answer, In Brief: Morality is self-motivating: a person should act virtuously in order to live and be happy. Hence, there are no unchosen, unconditional moral obligations (i.e. duties) to other people. Instead, moral obligations to others arise from our own choices, particularly from promises and agreements that we make with others – and that applies to children as well as adults.

Question 2: The Boundaries of Proper Self-Defense (18:37)

Is it moral to not defend yourself if you will get into legal trouble for doing so? As I understand laws on self-defense, you must be “in immediate danger of death or grievously bodily harm” in order to use lethal force. How is this reconciled with the morality of “shooting before he shoots you” or “hitting before you get hit”? In other words, preemptive attack may be seen as assault, but there might also be a threat of force. Is it moral to not defend yourself to avoid assault charges? In the case of using a gun to defend yourself, this could mean the difference between you dying at the hands of your attacker or living, but going to jail for murder. What should you do?

My Answer, In Brief: It is morally and legally proper to defend yourself, under certain conditions. As Boston T. Party explains, “Lethal force is valid only against a reasonably perceived immanent and grievous threat. The jury must agree that your assailant had the capability, opportunity, and obvious intent to immanently cause you at least grievous bodily harm.”

Question 3: Real Life Evil (34:57)

Are people in real life as evil as in Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged? In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand presents almost every bad person as very evil. I understand the purpose of that in the novel, but are their equivalents in real life (meaning the legislators passing similar laws nowadays) as evil as that – or are some of them just misguided or even stupid? In other words, do real-life people act on the death premise and hate the good for being the good? I just can’t imagine that. Am I being too optimistic?

My Answer, In Brief: Evil is real – and not on sidelines today. But you can fight it and protect yourself from it.

Question 4: Reasons to Donate Blood (45:02)

What are the personal benefits of being a blood donor (or organ donor)? Is it worth doing under today’s laws, where donors cannot get paid? Should people be able to trade blood and organs in a free market?

My Answer, In Brief: The primary reason to donate blood and organs is the value of other people to you and a desire for a well-stocked supply in case you or your loved ones are ever in need.

Question 5: Rapid Fire Questions (52:46)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. Here are the questions, albeit out of order.

* If there was free trade in organs, do you think medical science have even more of an incentive to be creating artificial organs?

* What if your blood donation goes to support the life of an evil dictator?

* Should a person be more cautious about organ donation given the increasing government controls in medicine?

* Should gays be forbidden from donating blood?

* Why do you think that tattoos should be easily concealed?

* In the wake of the financial crisis, is more financial reform required?

* Why should women exit elevators before men?

* Should we be able to ask the “unaskable” questions on job interviews (such as on religion)?

To catch all the Rationally Selfish Podcasts, subscribe to the podcast feeds in iTunes in enhanced M4A format (RSS) or standard MP3 format (RSS). Or better yet, join Greg Perkins and me for the live Rationally Selfish Webcast on Sundays at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET.

18

As usual, I’ll be answering questions on practical ethics and the principles of living well in my Rationally Selfish Webcast on Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. This week, I’ll answer questions on announcing life-changing new beliefs, the morality of strategic default, swearing before strangers, not helping friends, , and . Don’t miss out on this hour of thought-provoking discussion and lively fun!

To watch the live webcast and join in the text chat with other audience members, just go to www.RationallySelfish.com at the appointed hour.

Here are this week’s questions:

  • Question 1: Announcing Life-Changing New Beliefs: How should a person present new philosophic beliefs to his family and friends? When a person adopts a life-changing set of beliefs, how should he present that to family and friends? The point would not be to try to convince them to follow, but to say “look… this is what I believe, these are the principles by which I now live my life, please respect my choice to do so.”

  • Question 2: The Morality of Strategic Default: Is it moral to strategically default on your mortgage? Suppose that you could continue to pay your mortgage, but you’re under water: you owe more than the house is worth. You realize that you’d save tens of thousands of dollars by defaulting. Would it be morally wrong to default, assuming that you don’t engage in any fraud or other dishonesty in doing so? Would it make a difference if you do that in today highly regulated market versus in a fully free market?

  • Question 3: Swearing Before Strangers: Should you swear in front of strangers? Swearing is sometimes a great “exclamation point” when you’re telling a story or having an intense or extraordinary conversation. But, is it appropriate to swear in front of people who don’t know you very well? Is that poor manners? Would “being yourself” conflict with “putting your best foot forward” in this case?

  • Question 4: Not Helping Friends: Are there times when you shouldn’t help a friend? If you see a friend taking some action which may ultimately self-defeating, or self-destructive, but you are pretty sure they don’t have the knowledge or experience to understand the future consequences of their actions, should you allow them to learn on their own or stop them from making a mistake that you know will be disastrous?

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

Again, you can join the live webcast on Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at www.RationallySelfish.com.

You can listen to these webcasts later as audio-only podcasts by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS feed:

However, I hope that you’ll join the live webcast, because that’s more exciting and lively than the podcast. People chat merrily amongst themselves while watching the webcast. And I love the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

Also, please submit your questions, as well as vote on your favorite questions from the ongoing queue! And be sure to “like” the Rationally Selfish Page on Facebook.

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

19

As usual, I answered questions on practical ethics and the principles of living well in my Rationally Selfish Webcast on Sunday morning on announcing life-changing new beliefs, the morality of strategic default, swearing before strangers, letting friends fail, and more. An audio recording of the webcast is now available as an audio-only podcast here: NoodleCast #85: Live Rationally Selfish Webcast.

Here are the questions that I answered:

Question 1: Announcing Life-Changing New Beliefs (2:27)

When a person adopts a life-changing set of beliefs, how should he present that to family and friends? The point would not be to try to convince them to follow, but to say “look… this is what I believe, these are the principles by which I now live my life now, and please respect my choice to do so.”

My Answer, In Brief: You need to focus on what you can do – namely be clear, be firm, and be kind about your change in views and practices.

Question 2: The Morality of Strategic Default (11:39)

Is it moral to strategically default on your mortgage? Suppose that you could continue to pay your mortgage, but you’re underwater: you owe more than the house is worth. You realize that you’d save tens of thousands of dollars by defaulting. Would it be morally wrong to default, assuming that you don’t engage in any fraud or other dishonesty in doing so? Would it make a difference if you do that in today’s highly regulated market versus in a fully free market?

My Answer, In Brief: Strategic default is morally wrong: it’s dishonest and unjust. It’s your job in life to ensure that you borrow money sensibly and then repay those loans.

Question 3: Swearing Before Strangers (32:36)

Should you swear in front of strangers? Swearing is sometimes a great “exclamation point” when you’re telling a story or having an intense or extraordinary conversation. But, is it appropriate to swear in front of people who don’t know you very well? Is that poor manners? Would “being yourself” conflict with “putting your best foot forward” in this case?

My Answer, In Brief: Swearing is a minor point of style that a person should use or not depending on his circumstances.

Question 4: Letting Friends Fail (37:40)

Are there times when you shouldn’t help a friend? If you see a friend taking some action which may be ultimately self-defeating or self-destructive, but you are pretty sure they don’t have the knowledge or experience to understand the future consequences of their actions, should you allow them to learn on their own or stop them from making a mistake that you know will be disastrous?

My Answer, In Brief: When a friend seems to be making a mistake, don’t shoot first then ask questions later. Instead, ask questions first, then think about their answers, then give your advice if it’s wanted, and then see what happens.

Question 5: Rapid Fire Questions (47:30)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff.

* What do you think of interventions?

* What is bankruptcy? Should a person’s debt expire?

* What if you approached the bank with a speculative loan and were upfront about it (accepting a higher interest rate, etc.)? Is it OK to default if the property value crashes?

* Why are some words considered bad – and is that right?

* Does the fact that Tourettes sufferers involuntarily spew “bad” words indicate a low level psychological acceptance of social language norms?

* If a person just thinks destructive thoughts, does that make the person evil?

* Where’s the line between sharing new ideas and information with friends and family – and proselytizing to them?

* What is your opinion of the Suicide Girls?

* Do adult children have an obligation to maintain a relationship with their parents?

* Does the failure of an incorporated business - say an S corporation - impose moral obligations on the owners to pay those debts from other income?

* Should pediatricians ask their patients about guns in the house?

To catch all the Rationally Selfish Podcasts, subscribe to the podcast feeds in iTunes in enhanced M4A format (RSS) or standard MP3 format (RSS). Or better yet, join Greg Perkins and me for the live Rationally Selfish Webcast on Sundays at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET.

20

In Sunday’s Rationally Selfish Webcast, I answered questions on calls for moderation, spying on children, family members spreading urban legends, racism in dating, and more. An audio recording of the webcast is now available as a podcast here:

NoodleCast #87: Live Rationally Selfish Webcast

As always, the full archive of past episodes are available as podcasts. You can review them and subscribe to the feed at http://www.NoodleCast.com/

Watch the Rationally Selfish Webcast live and join its text chat every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. Each week, I answer questions on practical ethics and the principles of living well, drawn from a queue of questions submitted by listeners. Just go to http://www.RationallySelfish.com at the appointed hour!