Join philosopher Dr. Diana Hsieh for a lively hour-long broadcast in the next episode of Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio! She'll answer questions on warning others about dangerous people, explaining a firing, investment versus sacrifice, downloading music after hard drive failure, and more. The show will be broadcast live on Sunday, 20 May 2012, at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. (Due to her travel schedule, Diana won't be broadcasting on Wednesday, May 23rd.)

Q&A Webcast Episode: 13 February 2011

In this 13 February 2011 episode of Q&A Webcast, Dr. Diana Hsieh answered six questions on compromise in relationships, the libertarian party, long-ago stolen property, abandonment of property, gossip, moral advice, 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: 1:00:28

Download the Episode

Subscribe to the Feed

Share This Episode


Segments: 13 February 2011


Question 1: Compromise in Relationships (4:19)

In this segment, Dr. Diana Hsieh answered a question on compromise in relationships.

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?

My 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.

Tags: Compromise, Integrity, Relationships, Romance

Listen or Download

Comments


Question 2: The Libertarian Party (13:48)

In this segment, Dr. Diana Hsieh answered a question on the libertarian party.

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?

My 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.

Tags: Free Society, Libertarianism, Politics, Republican Party, Sanction

Listen or Download

Relevant Links

Comments


Question 3: Long-Ago Stolen Property (24:49)

In this segment, Dr. Diana Hsieh answered a question on long-ago stolen property.

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.

My 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.

Tags: Ethics, Justice, Law, Moral Wrongs, Property

Listen or Download

Comments


Question 4: Abandonment of Property (29:38)

In this segment, Dr. Diana Hsieh answered a question on abandonment of property.

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?

My 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.

Tags: Ethics, Law, Property

Listen or Download

Relevant Links

Comments


Question 5: Gossip (36:22)

In this segment, Dr. Diana Hsieh answered a question on gossip.

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?

My 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.

Tags: Communication, Epistemology, Ethics, Relationships

Listen or Download

Comments


Question 6: Moral Advice (49:06)

In this segment, Dr. Diana Hsieh answered a question on moral advice.

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?

My 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.

Tags: Ethics, Expertise, Independence, Life

Listen or Download

Comments


Conclusion (59:28)

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.

Philosophy in Action's Newsletter Philosophy in Action's Facebook Page Philosophy in Action's Twitter Stream Philosophy in Action's RSS Feed Philosophy in Action's YouTube Channel

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.