Q&A Webcast Episode: 3 April 2011
In this 3 April 2011 episode of Q&A Webcast, Dr. Diana Hsieh answered six questions on animal rights, treating animals humanely, global warming, spousal consent for sterilization, criticisms of objectivism, indulging emotions, 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."
My News of the Week: My current projects include revisions to Explore Atlas Shrugged and my April 13th webcast of "Cultivating Moral Character" for the SnowCon 2011 Webcast.
Listen Now 
- Duration: 1:03:15
Download the Episode 
Subscribe to the Feed
Share This Episode
Segments: 3 April 2011
Question 1: Animal Rights (5:23)
In this segment, Dr. Diana Hsieh answered a question on animal rights.
Do animals have rights? If not, why not? Given that we don't need to eat animals to survive, shouldn't we be vegetarians or vegans? Also, if animals don't have rights, are people then entitled to do whatever they please with animals that they own?
My Answer, In Brief: The claims of animal rights are based on false understanding of the nature and basis of rights. While cruelty to or neglect of animals is deplorable, government should not become involved unless the rights of some person are violated.
Tags: Animals, Ethics, Law, Rights
Listen or Download 
Relevant Links
Comments
Question 2: Treating Animals Humanely (26:24)
In this segment, Dr. Diana Hsieh answered a question on treating animals humanely.
What does it mean to treat an animal humanely? The term "humanely" when applied to animals is confusing to me. More generally, what is the proper moral treatment of animals?
My Answer, In Brief: To treat an animal humanely means to act in a benevolent way toward it. A person ought to act toward animals in such a way that respects the nature of the animal and the context of the interaction, in pursuit of his own self-interest. Generally, particularly with domesticated animals, that means acting kindly but firmly. Brutality toward animals is often ineffective, dangerous, and reveals moral depravity.
Listen or Download
Relevant Links
Comments
Question 3: Global Warming (34:41)
In this segment, Dr. Diana Hsieh answered a question on global warming.
How should I deal with the idea of man-made global warming? What is the proper approach to the whole idea? I can't decide on my own whether it's true or false without educating myself in climatology. And how should I treat others who believe in it just because many university professors do?
My Answer, In Brief: Global warming is a scientific matter, and scientists would have to know far more than they do now before recommending any course of action to anyone. In any case, the solution is not more government controls, but rather more freedom for human invention and technology.
Tags: Business, Capitalism, Environmentalism, Government, Law, Rights, Science, Technology
Listen or Download
Relevant Links
Comments
Question 4: Spousal Consent for Sterilization (45:40)
In this segment, Dr. Diana Hsieh answered a question on spousal consent for sterilization.
Should spousal consent be required for sterilization procedures? A fairly well-known mommy blogger recently revealed that she was required to sign a consent form for her husband's vasectomy. Reading through some of the remarks on her blog, many of her commenters seem to support such a practice, believing that a person has a right to be involved in the reproductive decisions of his/her spouse. I think it's a violation of individual rights, and having had a sterilization procedure myself, I'd have been BEYOND upset if my spouse had been required to give his consent. He was in agreement with my decision, but I can't help but wonder what happens in situations where a person does not want his/her spouse to have a vasectomy, tubal ligation, etc. Any thoughts?
My Answer, In Brief: As a matter of law, spousal consent should not be required for any medical procedure. However, a doctor might want such consent to protect his own reputation, given that he knows that married couples are too often not honest with each other.
Tags: Business, Ethics, Law, Medicine, Parenting, Sex
Listen or Download
Comments
Question 5: Criticisms of Objectivism (52:46)
In this segment, Dr. Diana Hsieh answered a question on criticisms of objectivism.
What do you think about Objectivism and the Corruption of Rationality: A Critique of Ayn Rand's Epistemology by Scott Ryan? I came across the book on Amazon, and I was wondering if it's worth reading. Would it change my view about Objectivism?
My Answer, In Brief: While criticisms of a philosophy are often useful for ensuring that you've not overlooked some critical issue, the true test of a philosophy is the facts of reality. Also, Objectivism is too young of a philosophy to have attracted much well-aimed criticism.
Tags: Ayn Rand, Objectivism, Philosophy
Listen or Download
Comments
Question 6: Indulging Emotions (57:02)
In this segment, Dr. Diana Hsieh answered a question on indulging emotions.
How do you change from being an emotionalist to being rational? I have the tendency to reminisce on fantasies and memories of martyrdom. I do it because it gives me a emotional surge of ecstasy and heartache. For example, I fantasize about telling the people who mistreated me so badly in Army Basic Training about what that was like for me. This indulgence is costing me my mind. I want to be emotionally competent. Any advice on how to be level-headed lucid/rational thinker, and stop the habit of indulging my emotions?
My Answer, In Brief: Stop whining and make a serious commitment to change!
Tags: Emotions, Ethics, Introspection, Psycho-Epistemology, Rationality
Listen or Download
Relevant Links
Comments
Conclusion (1:02:25)
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.