Biological Parents, Rational Animals, and More
Radio Q&A: Sunday, 1 July 2012
I answered questions on knowing your biological parents, second-hand smoke, changing core beliefs with age, man the rational animal, and more on Philosophy in Action Radio on Sunday, 1 July 2012. 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.
My News of the Week: Since returning from Los Angeles, I've been totally occupied buying a truck and horse trailer, in case we need to evacuate due to wildfire.
- Duration: 1:08:42
You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:
By using these links or the search box, you help support Philosophy in Action at no extra cost to yourself. You can also support Philosophy in Action with a direct contribution to the tip jar.
Segments: 1 July 2012
Question: Do adopted people have a right to know who their biological parents are? Some adopted people want to know their biological parents, and knowing one's family medical history could be important to a person. So does a person have a right to know his biological parents? If so, does that apply to children conceived with sperm or egg donors? Do parents giving children up for adoption or donating reproductive tissue have a right to privacy?
Answer, In Brief: An adopted person does not have a right to know his biological parents against their wishes. The terms of the adoption should only be altered by mutual consent.
Question 2: Second-hand Smoke (17:16)
Question: It is wrong to inflict second-hand smoke on other people? Although smoking is detrimental to a person's health, whether or not someone smokes is (or should be) a matter of his personal choice. However, what is the proper moral and legal status of "second-hand smoke"? If second-hand smoke contributes to the development of respiratory diseases or if others simply find it noxious, shouldn't people refrain from smoking in public or smoking around people who haven't consented to it? In a free society, would and should most workplaces ban smoking? Could second-hand smoke be considered a tort, such that the state should forbid smoking around people who object to it?
Answer, In Brief: Although cigarette smoke is often annoying and unpleasant to bystanders, it's not a violation of their rights. The rights of property owners to allow smoking or not should be respected, smokers should be polite and considerate, and people sensitive to smoke should avoid areas where that's permitted.
Question: Why are older people less likely to change their core beliefs? Recently, I had a conversation with a long-time committed leftist who changed his views when confronted with the fact that collectivism always fails, and it fails because the underlying theory is wrong in principle. Many people, particularly older people, are unwilling to reconsider their core views, however. As to the reason why, my hypothesis is that older people have significant sunk costs in their philosophy, such that they could not psychologically survive the realization that they were so wrong for so many decades. Is that right? If so, what can be done to help them change for the better, if anything?
Answer, In Brief: A person's fundamental philosophy, if entrenched, cannot be easily changed due its influence over a person's whole life. However, change is possible, and that can be supported in a friendly and low-key way.
Question: What does it mean to say that "man is a rational animal"? The fact that man is a rational animal distinguishes him from all other living entities and makes the whole of philosophy possible and necessary. But, taking a step back, what does it mean to say that man is a (or the) rational animal? What is rationality, not as a virtue, but as the essential characteristic of man?
Answer, In Brief: That "man is the rational animal" means that reason is the essential characteristic of human beings.
Rapid Fire Questions (51:21)
- Why is Colorado on fire this year? What should be done to prevent it?
- How do we respond to the Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare? Do we need to support Romney now?
- Is there a moral difference between just voting for a libertarian candidate and working/supporting an explicit libertarian organization (such as Institute for Justice, Cato, or the like)?
- Should former porn stars be hired as teachers?
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 email@example.com.