Compromise, Libertarian Party, Stolen Property, and More
Webcast Q&A: Sunday, 13 February 2011
I answered questions on compromise in relationships, the Libertarian Party, long-ago stolen property, abandonment of property, gossip, moral advice, and more on Philosophy in Action Radio on Sunday, 13 February 2011. Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers was my co-host. You can listen to or download the podcast below.Remember, Philosophy in Action Radio is available to anyone, free of charge. That's because our goal is to spread rational principles for real life far and wide, as we do every week to thousands of listeners. We love doing that, but each episode requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value our work, please contribute to our tip jar. We suggest $5 per episode or $20 per month, but any amount is appreciated. You can send your contribution via Dwolla, PayPal, or US Mail.
- Duration: 1:00:28
You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:
Audible.com is the best source of audiobooks on the planet, hands down.
I've subscribed to Audible since 2005. With my "Platinum Annual Membership," I enjoy 24 books per year for just under $10 per book. I read far more books than I would otherwise, thanks to Audible. I listen to them while in my car, as well as while cooking, cleaning, gardening, and more. I enjoy books more too, particularly classic fiction: a good reader adds a rich layer of color to the text.
If you want to try the delights of listening to books, be sure to take advantage of our special offer of free 30-day trial subscription to Audible. You'll get a great deal, and you'll support Philosophy in Action in the process. It's a win-win! You can also support Philosophy in Action with a direct contribution to the tip jar.
Segments: 13 February 2011
Question: At what point is a compromise in a relationship irrational? Couples can reach a point where one of them wants something that is mutually exclusive from what the other wants (To move, to have children, to do something sexually), and it becomes a make-or-break moment: either the curtains go, or I do. So to speak. But when is a spouse's refusal to accept a change irrational? At what point is it no longer something one must learn to deal with, but instead must break up with the other person over? And if it hasn't yet crossed over into the break-up point, how can one reach a suitable compromise, when the choices are, or seem, mutually exclusive?
Answer, In Brief: Compromise on principles is never rational, but compromise on particulars can be, provided that both parties are better off as a result. Sometimes that's possible in a relationship, and sometimes it's not. If not, and the issue is significant, then that might necessitate the end of the relationship.
Question: Why do Objectivists single out the Libertarian Party as particularly bad? I understand the objections to the Libertarian Party, but how are the Republican and Democratic Parties any better? Also, how do you propose we affect change in our society? Should people work to change the Republican party from within? Or focus solely on intellectual activism?
Answer, In Brief: The Libertarian Party deserves to be shunned due to its false advertising as the party of principle and the party of liberty. The Democratic and Republican Parties are more honest in their statism, but working within them is likely to be useless and frustrating. Political and intellectual activism, however, need not concern political parties, but you ought to work on projects that you're passionate about.
Question: I have an object in my possession that I stole almost 20 years ago. Finding the rightful owner and returning it is impossible. What should I do? I once lived in a large, very old apartment building, with a bike room in the basement, where residents were supposed to keep their bicycles. The room was virtually unused, as residents tended to keep theirs in their apartments. There were many dusty old unused bikes in there. I cut the lock off one, got new tires for it (the old ones were flat and brittle) and used it frequently while I lived there. I rationalized that a) it was probably abandoned (although I didn't know that, really) and b) the owner was always free to call security, have my lock cut off, and reclaim his bike. When I moved away, a couple years later, I kept the bike. Clearly I shouldn't have done so, and I would never do such a thing today. Should I just donate the bike to charity and move on? This is really bothering me.
Answer, In Brief: Even though it's likely that the bike was abandoned, you should have asked the building management and/or other tenants before claiming the bike as your own. At this point, you ought to donate the bike to charity – not because you want to rid yourself of this source of guilt but because you should not benefit from your past wrongdoing.
Question: What constitutes abandonment of property? Can you forfeit your property by not using it for a certain period of time? Suppose your father cultivated a certain stretch of land and left it to you after his death. After some time, you stop cultivating it and move away. Many years pass. Would someone else be justified to claim the land as his if he starts cultivating it again? Would you have abandoned and forfeited your property rights to it? If so, would it make a difference if you did not move away but continued living in the vicinity, but without using the property at all, not even for a walk?
Answer, In Brief: That's an issue for a specialist in property law, not a philosopher. However, as a general matter, some legal process by which abandoned property can be homesteaded is necessary in property law.
Question 5: Gossip (36:22)
Question: What is a proper view of gossip? Should a rationally egoistic person listen to and/or tell gossip about other people? Why or why not?
Answer, In Brief: Gossip is "casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true." It's fine – even good – to share information about others within one's own community. It's malicious and destructive, however, to tell stories about others with little concern for the truth, that makes the person look bad unfairly, or that concerns private information.
Question 6: Moral Advice (49:06)
Question: Why do so many Objectivists persist in asking for concrete moral advice? I'm not knocking anybody for asking questions about moral choices, but after listening to Peikoff's and Diana's podcast, and browsing the questions on this forum, I'm struck by how often people ask "is it moral [insert action or life choice]?" I might be wrong, but it seems that the frequency these questions arise, and the eagerness to answer them feeds into the "cultish" accusers source of ammunition since, it smacks of someone seeking a religious authority's proscriptions, instead of using an individual's reason and principles applied in context?
Answer, In Brief: The application of abstract ethical principles to everyday life is just as difficult as the application of abstract medical principles to a particular disease. In both cases, the advice of experts is often helpful.
Thank you for joining us for this episode of Philosophy in Action Radio! If you enjoyed this episode, please contribute to contribute to our tip jar.
Support Philosophy in Action
Remember, Philosophy in Action Radio is available to anyone, free of charge. That's because our goal is to spread rational principles for real life far and wide, as we do every week to thousands of listeners. We love doing that, but each episode requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value our work, please contribute to our tip jar. We suggest $5 per episode or $20 per month, but any amount is appreciated. You can send your contribution via Dwolla, PayPal, or US Mail.
Thank you, if you've contributed to Philosophy in Action! You make our work possible every week, and we're so grateful for that!
If you enjoy Philosophy in Action, please help us spread the word about it! Tell your friends about upcoming broadcasts by forwarding our newsletter. Link to episodes or segments from our topics archive. Share our blog posts, podcasts, and events on Facebook and Twitter. Rate and review the podcast in iTunes (M4A and MP3). We appreciate any and all of that!
About Philosophy in Action Radio
I'm Dr. Diana Hsieh. I'm a philosopher specializing the application of rational principles to the challenges of real life. I received my Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Colorado at Boulder in 2009. My first book, Responsibility & Luck: A Defense of Praise and Blame, is available for purchase in paperback, as well as for Kindle and Nook. The book defends the justice of moral praise and blame of persons using an Aristotelian theory of moral responsibility, thereby refuting Thomas Nagel's "problem of moral luck."
My radio show, Philosophy in Action Radio, broadcasts live over the internet on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. On Sunday mornings, I answer four meaty questions applying rational principles to the challenges of real life in a live hour-long show. Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers co-hosts the show. On Wednesday evenings, I interview an expert guest about a topic of practical importance.
If you join us for the live broadcasts, you can ask follow-up questions and make comments in the text-based chat. Otherwise, you can listen to the podcast by subscribing to our Podcast RSS Feed. You can also peruse the show archives, where episodes and questions are sorted by date and by topic.
I can be reached via e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org.