Adoption, Sex-Selective Abortion, Frustration, and More
Radio Q&A: Sunday, 19 August 2012
I answered questions on the role of government in adoption, sex-selective abortions, expressing frustration, hatred for a friend's husband, and more on Philosophy in Action Radio on Sunday, 19 August 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: I've been busy with New Kitty Merlin. My Monday talk at Liberty on the Rocks - Flatirons on How to Be Principled about Election Politics went really well. Thanks to everyone who came!
- Duration: 1:07:44
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: 19 August 2012
Question: What is the proper role of government in adoption, if any? Many religious people recoil at the notion of gay marriage due to its implications for adoption. They fear that the government will then allow gay couples to adopt on a broader scale. I suspect that the government is taking too great a role in adoption, and that's what causes this particular controversy. So what role should the government play in adoption? Should it screen parents and forbid some people from adopting? More broadly, what would adoption look like in a free society?
Answer, In Brief: The government should stop meddling with adoption, instead recognizing adoption as a private contract. Private individuals and groups are entitled to discriminate however they see fit, but the government and its agents cannot.
Question: Are sex-selective abortions wrong? In Canada, some hospitals refuse to tell prospective parents the sex of their fetus when discovered in a second-trimester ultrasound, because the members of many immigrant groups will selectively abort girls. Apparently, such sex-selective abortions are common enough that the birth demographics in some areas are clearly skewed. Are such abortions wrong? Should doctors withhold information about the sex of a fetus in an effort to stop the practice? Could a doctor legitimately choose to perform abortions for any reason at 8 weeks, but refuse to do so at 21 weeks simply because the parents don't want a girl? If so, what's the moral difference between those two situations?
Answer, In Brief: The problem with sex-selective abortions is not the abortion per se, but rather with the deep sexism of cultures that don't value girls and women.
Question: When and how should I express my frustration to another person? I've always found it difficult to determine whether I should express a frustration to another person, whether in a personal or professional context. When and how should I tell someone that they've disrespected, offended, or insulted me? Does the nature of the relationship – purely financial or deeply emotional, for example – matter?
Answer, In Brief: While expressing frustration often feels satisfying, it's often destructive to your goals and relationships. Only do it when it serves your goals, rather than merely indulges your emotions.
Question: Should I spend time with a friend and her husband if I can't stand him? A friend of mine is married to a man with the same views of love and marriage as Jim Taggart. He is of no value to me, and I hate being in his presence. My friend invites me to spend time with the two of them and other friends of hers. Should I decline the invitations so that I do not grant her husband any undeserved attention or friendliness? Or should I accept so that I can see my friend? To do the latter feels like insulting my friend and betraying my own values.
Answer, In Brief: As much as you might dislike him, your friend has chosen to marry and stay with this man – and that reveals much about her values. Socialize with her separately, but don't attempt to drive a wedge between them.
Rapid Fire Questions (55:46)
- If a person plans to vote for the lesser of two evils, how should he weigh the different evils? What principles or policies are significantly worse than others?
- Shouldn't "animal cruelty" be called "animal brutality"? Isn't there a difference between inflicting pain for its own sake versus for some legitimate goal (such as medical research)?
- Is evolutionary theory compatible with Objectivism?
- Are parents who are, for example, Christian Scientists and won't treat their children's disease negligent? Does the government have a role to intervene?
- Is there any relation or difference between humanism and Objectivism?
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.