Q&A Webcast Episode: 26 February 2012
In this 26 February 2012 episode of Q&A Webcast, Dr. Diana Hsieh answered four questions on consent in sex, terminating online versus in-person acquaintances, compensating the victims of your negligence, the meaning of faith, 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: This week, Trey was visiting, but mostly I've ben sick. I'm also working on moving NoodleFood to Philosophy in Action – and from Blogger to WordPress.
Listen Now 
- Duration: 1:15:06
Download the Episode 
Subscribe to the Feed
Share This Episode
Segments: 26 February 2012
Question 1: Consent in Sex (3:39)
In this segment, Dr. Diana Hsieh answered a question on consent in sex.
What constitutes consent in sex? Can a person give tacit consent by his or her actions? Is explicit consent required for some sex acts? Once consent has been given, when and how can a person withdraw that consent? Does the legal perspective on these questions differ from the moral perspective?
My Answer, In Brief: To consent to sex requires communicating a willingness engaging in the act, whether by word or deed. Consent can be withdrawn at any point, and for the other person to ignore that constitutes sexual assault.
Tags: Consent, Crime, Ethics, Law, Relationships, Rights, Romance, Sex
Listen or Download 
Watch Now
Relevant Links
Comments
Question 2: Terminating Online Versus In-Person Acquaintances (45:34)
In this segment, Dr. Diana Hsieh answered a question on terminating online versus in-person acquaintances.
What's the proper threshold for cutting off a digital versus in-person acquaintance? Morally, when it is wrong to end your friendly interactions with an in-person acquaintance? And when is it wrong not to do so? Does the answer differ for a digital acquaintance – meaning, for example, someone that you know only via Facebook?
My Answer, In Brief: No hard and fast rules can apply here, simply because the nature of online and in-person relationships varies so much. However, every person ought to make sure that his relationships, whether primarily online, in-person, or a mixture of both, serve his purposes well.
Tags: Friendship, Internet, Relationships
Listen or Download
Relevant Links
Comments
Question 3: Compensating the Victims of Your Negligence (51:48)
In this segment, Dr. Diana Hsieh answered a question on compensating the victims of your negligence.
What should you do for a person that you injured in a car accident that was your fault? Does a person have moral obligations – over and above any legal obligations – to the victim, since the accident was due to your own carelessness or mistake?
My Answer, In Brief: If you've harmed someone by your negligence, your moral and legal obligation is to make them whole by compensating them for the harm you've caused.
Tags: Ethics, Law, Negligence
Listen or Download
Comments
Question 4: The Meaning of Faith (54:44)
In this segment, Dr. Diana Hsieh answered a question on the meaning of faith.
Is it wrong to use "faith" to mean "trust and confidence in a person"? Some people talk about having "faith" in their friends or in themselves – and by that, they mean that they trust and have confidence in those people. Is it wrong to use "faith" in that way? In other words, blind faith is wrong, but is all faith blind faith?
My Answer, In Brief: The term "faith," when used to refer to trust or confidence in a person, suggests that such is not justified or warranted based on facts. That's why I avoid the term, and I suggest that others do the same. However, a person is not corrupt for using it.
Tags: Atheism, Epistemology, Faith, Language, Religion
Listen or Download
Watch Now
Comments
Rapid Fire Questions (1:07:59)
- Is a person rationally considered "male" or "female" based upon: (a) their genitals or other anatomical parts of their body which are involved in sexual reproduction, or (b) or their emotional and psychological wishes to be a man or a woman?Should states have referendums on gay marriage?
- Has social media or technology changed how people engage each other for sex?
- Has social media or technology changed how people engage each other for sex?
- Should states have referendums on gay marriage?
Listen or Download
Comments
Conclusion (1:13:59)
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.