Q&A Webcast Episode: 6 February 2011
In this 6 February 2011 episode of Q&A Webcast, Dr. Diana Hsieh answered six questions on relying on gut feelings, friendship versus emotional affairs, desires and infidelity, the morality of pirating music, the supererogatory, the morality of eating bread, and more in an hour-long broadcast. Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers was the audio co-host.
Remember, while Philosophy in Action's broadcasts are available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing them, but they're not free to produce: they require our time, effort, and money – week in and week out. So if you enjoy them, please contribute to our tip jar. We suggest $5 per episode or $20 per month, but any amount is appreciated. You can contribute by PayPal to diana@philosophyinaction.com. If you prefer to send a check, please write "P/A" in the memo field and send it to "Diana Hsieh; P.O. Box 851; Sedalia, CO 80135."
Listen Now 
- Duration: 1:01:15
Download the Episode 
Subscribe to the Feed
Share This Episode
Segments: 6 February 2011
Question 1: Relying on Gut Feelings (4:05)
In this segment, Dr. Diana Hsieh answered a question on relying on gut feelings.
Is it ever rational to rely on a "gut" feeling? More than once I have dismissed feelings that a person is not trustworthy, if I couldn't find a rational basis for them. Every time my initial instinct was proven to be accurate. Is it possible that I'm picking up on something that I can't consciously identify?
My Answer, In Brief: Gut feelings can be accurate, but that doesn't mean that they should be trusted. So you should pay attention to your emotions, seek to understand them, then always act on your best rational judgment.
Tags: Emotions, Epistemology, Introspection, Psycho-Epistemology, Rationality
Listen or Download 
Comments
Question 2: Friendship Versus Emotional Affairs (16:38)
In this segment, Dr. Diana Hsieh answered a question on friendship versus emotional affairs.
What's the difference between a close friendship and an "emotional affair"? Where do you draw the line between them? What's the essential wrong of emotional affairs, if any?
My Answer, In Brief: Friendships are a compliment to romantic relationships, whereas an emotional affair acts as a replacement for the psychological intimacy of a romantic relationship.
Tags: Ethics, Friendship, Infidelity, Marriage, Relationships, Romance
Listen or Download
Comments
Question 3: Desires and Infidelity (23:12)
In this segment, Dr. Diana Hsieh answered a question on desires and infidelity.
Is there a fundamental/substantial difference between seriously wanting to have sex with someone other than your significant other and actually doing it? Should a person not act on such desires solely in order to be monogamous? Isn't that still like cheating? (Read the full question.)
My Answer, In Brief: A person is morally responsible for his actions, as well as for his cultivated desires and thoughts, but not for uncultivated or unbidden thoughts and desires. Moreover, monogamy is not a duty or intrinsic value, but a means to greater focus and intimacy. If it's value isn't apparent, then experiment with an open relationship – but only with the consent of all parties.
Tags: Emotions, Ethics, Infidelity, Relationships, Romance
Listen or Download
Comments
Question 4: The Morality of Pirating Music (34:37)
In this segment, Dr. Diana Hsieh answered a question on the morality of pirating music.
Is pirating music immoral? Why or why not? In one way I think it must be immoral because it involves gaining the unearned, but there have been (granted I know little of the music industry) many claims that illegal file sharing has actually been good for the music industry in a number of ways. There have also been arguments that it is not technically theft because it involves copying information instead of physically taking it from the owner i.e. the original owner (and creator) has not lost the music even after you have copied it, but this argument seems shoddy by its concrete bound concept of theft and ownership. Simply put, to me, it feels immoral, but I have trouble conceptualizing exactly why.
My Answer, In Brief: As Adam Mossoff persuasively argues, all property is fundamentally intellectual property. So, contrary to the spurious arguments found in the question, the reason to respect intellectual property is the same as the reason to respect tangible property, namely that the mind is the source of all value.
Tags: Ethics, Intellectual Property, Law, Music
Listen or Download
Relevant Links
Comments
Question 5: The Supererogatory (44:20)
In this segment, Dr. Diana Hsieh answered a question on the supererogatory.
Does the moral concept of 'supererogatory' have any place in an egoistic ethics? Recently, I stumbled on the concept of 'supererogatory' moral actions – i.e. actions that are morally praiseworthy but which, if one did not perform them, one would not be morally blameworthy. Any validity to this concept from the perspective of the Objectivist ethics?
My Answer, In Brief: The concept of "supererogatory" is derived from a duty-based ethics. It's an example of why we should be cautious in our use of concepts, as often they come with baggage.
Tags: Ethics, Philosophy
Listen or Download
Comments
Question 6: The Morality of Eating Bread (50:24)
In this segment, Dr. Diana Hsieh answered a question on the morality of eating bread.
Since eating wheat is purported to be unhealthy due to gluten (and other stuff), is it immoral to eat bread? (Analogous to smoking being purportedly bad for you.) Since one has to eat something, it would be better to ask, "Is eating bread immoral when other food sources are available?"
My Answer, In Brief: Health is not an optional value, but a person's diet cannot be a moral issue absent some evasion.
Tags: Ethics, Health, Nutrition, Paleo
Listen or Download
Comments
Conclusion (1:00:00)
Thank you for joining us for this episode! If you enjoyed this episode, please don't forget to contribute to contribute to our tip jar. Also, please don't forget to submit and vote on questions for upcoming broadcasts in in the question queue.
About Philosophy in Action Q&A Webcast
Every Sunday morning, philosopher Dr. Diana Hsieh answers four meaty questions applying rational principles to the challenges of real life in her live hour-long internet radio show, Philosophy in Action Advice Radio. Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers co-hosts the show. The audience can ask follow-up questions and make comments in the text-based chat.
You can listen to Philosophy in Action broadcasts as podcasts by subscribing to the Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feeds. Be sure to sign up for the Newsletter and connect on social media.
You can also peruse the show archives, listening to whole episodes or just selected segments. The show archives are sorted by date and by topic.
For regular updates, commentary, and humor from Dr. Diana Hsieh, visit her blog NoodleFood, and subscribe to its rss feed.
Dr. Diana Hsieh is a philosopher specializing in practical ethics. She received her Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Colorado at Boulder in 2009. Her dissertation argued that Thomas Nagel's "problem of moral luck" can be resolved by an Aristotelian theory of moral responsibility. She began podcasting in 2009, then webcasting in 2010.
Support Philosophy in Action
Philosophy in Action's broadcasts are available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing them, but they're not free for us to produce: they require our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value our work, please contribute to our tip jar!
If you'd like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.
Thank you, if you've contributed to our tip jar! You make our work possible, and we're so grateful for that! Also, whether you're able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about Philosophy in Action to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming episodes.