As you know, on Sunday morning’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I answer four questions chosen in advance from the Question Queue. Here are the most recent additions to that queue. Please vote for the ones that you’re most interested in hearing me answer! You can also review and vote on all pending questions sorted by date or sorted by popularity.

Also, I’m perfectly willing to be bribed to answer a question of particular interest to you pronto. So if you’re a regular contributor to Philosophy in Action’s Tip Jar, I can answer your desired question as soon as possible. The question must already be in the queue, so if you’ve not done so already, please submit it. Then just e-mail me at diana@philosophyinaction.com to make your request.

Now, without further ado, the most recent questions added to The Queue:

When is a relationship broken beyond repair?

Relationships can be severely strained, fraught with anger and frustration, and perhaps put on ice for weeks or months or years. Yet in the end, the two people can often reconcile in some way, so that they can enjoy a genuine (even if not deep) relationship again. In some cases, however, that’s not possible. Why not? In such cases, must the problem be that one person (or both people) continue to behave badly? Or might reconciliation be impossible between two good people? If so, why?

Is philosophy deduced from axioms?

Often, I hear people claim that philosophy – particularly Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism – is deduced from axioms. Is that right? Personally, I don’t see how that can be: How can anything be deduced from “existence exists”? But if that’s right, then what’s the purpose of the axioms?

Are spouses entitled to privacy with each other?

My wife thinks that she should have access to all my online accounts, including my email. I don’t have any secrets from her, and my email doesn’t contain anything scandalous. Still, I don’t want her prying into my conversations, and I don’t see that she has any reason to do so. I’ve never given her any reason to distrust me. Aren’t I entitled to some privacy online?

How would the poor obtain medical care in a free society?

In your May 12th, 2013 show, you discussed how EMTALA – the law that obliges emergency rooms and doctors to treat patients, regardless of ability to pay – violates the rights of doctors and results in worse care for the poor. But what is the alternative? How would the poor and indigent get medical care – if at all – in a society without government welfare programs? What if charity wasn’t sufficient?

What is the individualist response to claims about “white privilege”?

You recently published a blog entry entitled, “Personal Motives for Benevolence” where you introduced the idea that prejudice is often formed by favoritism and not overt bigotry. Clearly, favoritism can extend to race too, in the same way it extended to your example of “professor” vs “quilter.” So what is the proper response to advocates of “white privilege awareness” such as David Wise and David Sirota? David Sirota recently wrote a Salon.com article entitled “Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American” where he argued that culturally,”white terrorists” are treated as lone wolves, whereas Islamists are treated as existential threats. Semi-noted Objectivist hater David Wise wrote an article called “Terrorism and Privilege: Understanding the Power of Whiteness” where he claims “White privilege is knowing that even if the Boston Marathon bomber turns out to be white, his or her identity will not result in white folks generally being singled out for suspicion by law enforcement, or the TSA, or the FBI.” What is the individualist answer to this collectivist viewpoint?

How should a young adult manage persistent differences with his family?

As I grew up, I turned out radically different from my family expected. They think college is necessary for success in life. I didn’t, and I dropped out. They eat the Standard American Diet and hate fat. I eat Paleo, and I glorify fat. And so on. Basically, we diverge on many points. I’ve never committed the mistake of attempting to preach to my family in order to persuade them, but many of them grew unduly concerned with these differences between us. They would argue with me on the subject for months, if not years, no matter what good results I had to show them. Assuming that the relationship is otherwise worth maintaining, how should an older child or young adult handle such contentious differences with his family? How can he best communicate his point of view to them — for example, on the question of college, after they’ve saved for two decades for his college education?

What is the proper relationship between ownership and control over property?

Today, politicians seem to want to reduce a person’s control over his property, such that it’s ever-closer to ownership in name only – such as by limiting the capacity of landowners to develop property. Also, selling plots of land on Mars would seem to be silly, given that no one controls that land. So what is the proper connection between a person’s ownership over his property and his control over that property? How does that principle affect proper principles for dealing with temporarily or permanently abandoned property?

Should individuals try to avoid online surveillance by the government?

In a recent comment thread on NoodleFood, there was a debate over the extent to which a person’s use of Internet tools such as cloud storage, password managers, wifi, smartphones, etc. exposes him to surveillance by the federal government. It seems to me that any serious effort to avoid using these tools would require forgoing many of the conveniences that make the Internet such a value – and there is still no guarantee that such avoidance would stop the government from spying on you. Since our government does have many improper powers, but it is nowhere close to being a dictatorship, is there any value in curtailing one’s everyday Internet activities to avoid surveillance?

Should DDoS attacks be illegal?

Should distributed denial of service computer attacks be illegal, like they are in the United Kingdom? Are they analogous to convincing people to send many letters to an organization or to calling on the phone repeatedly, thereby crippling its infrastructure? Or are they more like trespassing on property?

Is killing a baby born after an abortion murder?

Kermit Gosnell is currently on trial for murder, due to accusations that he killed infants who were delivered in abortions at his clinic. If the facts are as reported, should he be convicted of murder? What should be done when a baby is born alive during an abortion? What are the likely cultural implications of this trial?See: http://abcnews.go.com/US/abortion-doctor-kermit-gosnell-condemned-pro-abortion-rights/story?id=18958384

Should marital infidelity be illegal?

Many states, including Colorado, have laws against marital infidelity on the books. These laws are rarely if ever enforced. Politicians often attempt to repeal them, but those attempts are often unsuccessful. Many people think that the government ought to “take a moral stand” even if the law isn’t enforced. Does that view have any merit? Should these laws be repealed? Why or why not?

Do unfit parents have a right to procreate?

Courts today seem to hold the view that people have a right to procreate. As a result, wholly unfit parents can produce child after child. Even if the court removes the latest child from the home when very young, some abuse or neglect must have already occurred. In fact, the child might have health problems at birth due to drug abuse, alcohol consumption, or lack of proper medical care by the mother during pregnancy. Does the current system respect the rights of unfit parents at the expense of their kids? Instead, should unfit parents be required to adopt out any new children they bear? Should serial abusers be forced to take birth control or even sterilized?

Can the consistent practice of wrong ideas lead to mental illness?

Often, the most consistent practitioners of an ideology – such as Naziism or Islam – seem to become increasingly unhinged over time. Does being fully consistent in a completely fantasy-based ideology require a person to become loony? Are such people then not responsible for what they say or do?

Is a moral career in law enforcement possible today?

Today, anyone involved in law enforcement would likely be required to enforce immoral laws, such as those against drug use, prostitution, and failure to pay taxes. Given that, can a career in law enforcement be moral?

When should a person declare his love for another?

What is an appropriate amount of time to wait before saying “I love you” in a new relationship? New relationships often start out strong, but then the feelings of eros dissipate after a few months. When you meet someone who you share the same values and ideals (and you are super-attracted to him or her) when should you say those three little words?

To submit a question, use this form. I prefer questions focused on some concrete real-life problem, as opposed to merely theoretical or political questions. I review and edit all questions before they’re posted. (Alas, IdeaInformer doesn’t display any kind of confirmation page when you submit a question.)

Share This Post

As you know, on Sunday morning’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I answer four questions chosen in advance from the Question Queue. Here are the most recent additions to that queue. Please vote for the ones that you’re most interested in hearing me answer! You can also review and vote on all pending questions sorted by date or sorted by popularity.

Also, I’m perfectly willing to be bribed to answer a question of particular interest to you pronto. So if you’re a regular contributor to Philosophy in Action’s Tip Jar, I can answer your desired question as soon as possible. The question must already be in the queue, so if you’ve not done so already, please submit it. Then just e-mail me at diana@philosophyinaction.com to make your request.

Now, without further ado, the most recent questions added to The Queue:

Should marital infidelity be illegal?

Many states, including Colorado, have laws against marital infidelity on the books. These laws are rarely if ever enforced. Politicians often attempt to repeal them, but those attempts are often unsuccessful. Many people think that the government ought to “take a moral stand” even if the law isn’t enforced. Does that view have any merit? Should these laws be repealed? Why or why not?

Do unfit parents have a right to procreate?

Courts today seem to hold the view that people have a right to procreate. As a result, wholly unfit parents can produce child after child. Even if the court removes the latest child from the home when very young, some abuse or neglect must have already occurred. In fact, the child might have health problems at birth due to drug abuse, alcohol consumption, or lack of proper medical care by the mother during pregnancy. Does the current system respect the rights of unfit parents at the expense of their kids? Instead, should unfit parents be required to adopt any new children produced? Should serial abusers be forced to take birth control or even sterilized?

Can the consistent practice of wrong ideas lead to mental illness?

Often, the most consistent practitioners of an ideology – such as Nazism or Islam – seem to become increasingly unhinged over time. Does being fully consistent in a completely fantasy-based ideology require a person to become loony? Are such people then not responsible for what they say or do?

Is a moral career in law enforcement possible today?

Today, anyone involved in law enforcement would likely be required to enforce immoral laws, such as those against drug use, prostitution, and failure to pay taxes. Given that, can a career in law enforcement be moral?

When should a person declare his love for another?

What is an appropriate amount of time to wait before saying “I love you” in a new relationship? New relationships often start out strong, but then the feelings of eros dissipate after a few months. When you meet someone who you share the same values and ideals (and you are super-attracted to him or her) when should you say those three little words?

When should exceptions to established rules be granted?

People often oppose some proposed exception to the rules on the grounds that doing so would set a dangerous precedent and engender abuse. For example, suppose that an honest and diligent student is in the hospital, and he wants to keep up with his school work as much as possible. His parents propose that he take his math exam from the hospital, and they’ll monitor him during the exam. The school refuses on the grounds that if all students were allowed to do that, then cheating would be rampant because not all parents would be honest or diligent monitors. Is that a valid reason for refusing this proposed exception to the rules? When should exceptions be granted to established rules?

Is it wrong to invest in crony businesses?

Crony companies – similar to Orren Boyle’s Associated Steel in “Atlas Shrugged” – seek government favors, such as subsidies for themselves and controls on competitors. Yet their stock may perform well in the short to medium term. Is it immoral to invest in such companies?

How should I respond to friends who fanatically hate President Obama?

As a free-market advocate, I’m distressed about President Obama’s policies. However, I’m increasingly worried about some of my friends in the free-market movement exhibiting an alarming level of hatred for President Obama. I have seen my friends latch on to every “juicy”-sounding accusation against the President, which they spread all over Facebook, such as spurious claims that the administration violently threatened Bob Woodward, or that the President conspires to grant himself a third term. I think a reasonable discourse on Obama’s faults is necessary, but the conspiracy theories and outright hatred cloud people’s judgments. I want to ask my pro-free-market, Obama-hating friends that they not bring up their dubious accusations in conversation, but I don’t know how to do that without offending them. Is there a solution to this dilemma?

Should a person who does not wish to live be forcibly prevented from committing suicide?

John doesn’t like living. He finds no joy in life, and only lives because it would upset other people if he ended his life. He has tried counseling and medication, but he simply has no desire to continue to live. He makes no real contribution to society, nor does he wish to be a part of society. If John wants to die, he can, but the state will attempt to stop him at every turn, even to the point of incarceration. Is there a point when the law (and other people) should simply respect his wishes and allow him to end his life – or perhaps even assist him in doing so?

Am I obliged to help a friend in trouble due to her own poor choices?

I have a friend who is emotionally draining to me, and she is especially “down on her luck” this month. However, her situation is a direct result of especially poor personal choices over the last year, and there is no good path to get her out of the hole of poverty and depression. We don’t have much in common other than similar-aged kids, and active participation in a local moms’ group, but because I have come to her aid in the past, I feel an unspoken obligation to continue. (Maybe it’s guilt or pity, or empathy?) What are my obligations in a friendship that has recently become more taxing than beneficial? I don’t dislike her, and we have many mutual friends, but I just don’t think I can muster the time, financial resources, or energy this time to help bail her out of the latest fiasco. Is it morally acceptable to refuse to help? Should I talk to her about why now – or wait until she’s less vulnerable?

What’s the difference between consistency and extremism?

I’m often called an “extremist” for my views – in my view, because I’m very consistent and refuse to compromise. Religious people are often called extremists too, yet that’s really only consistency with their scripture. So how does “extremism” differ from consistency, if at all?

Is it wrong to walk away from a person who suffers from repeated medical emergencies due to their own irresponsibility?

Over a year ago, I was the tenant of a type-1 diabetic who refused to eat properly. As a result, I regularly had to call the ambulance for her, as she would allow her blood-sugar to drop to dangerous levels, such that she couldn’t think or move for herself. She never learned anything from these experiences. She never put emergency food within reach, for example. So a few days or weeks later, I would have to call the ambulance again. I believe that I was being forced – literally – to take care of her. I feared that I’d face manslaughter or other criminal charges if I left her alone in that state. Would it have been morally proper for me to leave her in that state without any advance warning? Should that be legally permissible?

Should I use a pen name for a novel to conceal my sex?

I’m an unrecognized author of a soon-to-be self-published young adult novella – my first. This novella will be published under my real name. In order to keep my interest in writing fresh, plus practice writing strong female characters, I’ve begun brainstorming a new project in the category of, shall we say, ‘women’s fiction.’ The problem is that I am male. Within the genre of women’s fiction and it’s sub-genres, the overwhelming majority of writers names are female. Therefore, if I were to publish something within this genre, my initial preference is to go with a pseudonym. On the one hand, giving a name other than my own seems dishonest – and possibly even impractical, given that my identity wouldn’t be a state secret. On the other hand, using my own name would surely impact my sales for the worse. To see a man’s name on the cover would turn off some potential buyers immediately. In these circumstances, is the use of a pen name right or wrong?

Is mere survival the standard of moral value?

In “The Objectivist Ethics,” Ayn Rand says that man’s life is the standard of value. What does that mean? Is it mere physical survival? Is it mere quantity of years – or does the quality of those years matter too? Basically, what is the difference between living and not dying?

Should disabled kids be kept out of the public eye?

Recently, a waiter at a restaurant refused to serve one party after hearing them make fun of a child with Down’s Syndrome sitting with his family in a nearby booth. Both parties were regulars to the restaurant. Some people have praised the waiter’s actions because he took offense at overhearing the first party say “special needs kids should be kept in special places.” He called them on their rudeness and refused to serve them. Others think he was wrong: his catering to the party with the disabled kid is indicative of a culture that embraces mediocrity and disability. What is the proper assessment of the remark made and the waiter’s response? Should people with disabilities be kept from public view?See: http://rt.com/usa/waiter-garcia-family-syndrome-681/

To submit a question, use this form. I prefer questions focused on some concrete real-life problem, as opposed to merely theoretical or political questions. I review and edit all questions before they’re posted. (Alas, IdeaInformer doesn’t display any kind of confirmation page when you submit a question.)

Share This Post

As you know, on Sunday morning’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I answer four questions chosen in advance from the Question Queue. Here are the most recent additions to that queue. Please vote for the ones that you’re most interested in hearing me answer! You can also review and vote on all pending questions sorted by date or sorted by popularity.

Also, I’m perfectly willing to be bribed to answer a question of particular interest to you pronto. So if you’re a regular contributor to Philosophy in Action’s Tip Jar, I can answer your desired question as soon as possible. The question must already be in the queue, so if you’ve not done so already, please submit it. Then just e-mail me at diana@philosophyinaction.com to make your request.

Now, without further ado, the most recent questions added to The Queue:

Should I use a pen name for a novel to conceal my sex?

I’m an unrecognized author of a soon-to-be self-published young adult novella – my first. This novella will be published under my real name. In order to keep my interest in writing fresh, plus practice writing strong female characters, I’ve begun brainstorming a new project in the category of, shall we say, ‘women’s fiction.’ The problem is that I am male. Within the genre of women’s fiction and it’s sub-genres, the overwhelming majority of writers names are female. Therefore, if I were to publish something within this genre, my initial preference is to go with a pseudonym. On the one hand, giving a name other than my own seems dishonest – and possibly even impractical, given that my identity wouldn’t be a state secret. On the other hand, using my own name would surely impact my sales for the worse. To see a man’s name on the cover would turn off some potential buyers immediately. In these circumstances, is the use of a pen name right or wrong?

Is mere survival the standard of moral value?

In “The Objectivist Ethics,” Ayn Rand says that man’s life is the standard of value. What does that mean? Is it mere physical survival? Is it mere quantity of years – or does the quality of those years matter too? Basically, what is the difference between living and not dying?

Should disabled kids be kept out of the public eye?

Recently, a waiter at a restaurant refused to serve one party after hearing them make fun of a child with Down’s Syndrome sitting with his family in a nearby booth. Both parties were regulars to the restaurant. Some people have praised the waiter’s actions because he took offense at overhearing the first party say “special needs kids should be kept in special places.” He called them on their rudeness and refused to serve them. Others think he was wrong: his catering to the party with the disabled kid is indicative of a culture that embraces mediocrity and disability. What is the proper assessment of the remark made and the waiter’s response? Should people with disabilities be kept from public view?See: http://rt.com/usa/waiter-garcia-family-syndrome-681/

What are the most significant values destroyed by statism?

In other words, what values would be available to us — or more available — in a laissez-faire, rational society that are limited or unavailable to us today? What are some of the major (and perhaps under-appreciated) values destroyed or precluded by government overreach? To put the question another way: How would a proper government improve our lives?

What are my obligations to a friend in trouble due to her own poor choices?

I have a friend who is emotionally draining to me, and she is especially “down on her luck” this month. However, her situation is a direct result of especially poor personal choices over the last year, and there is no good path to get her out of the hole of poverty and depression. We don’t have much in common other than similar-aged kids, and active participation in a local moms’ group, but because I have come to her aid in the past, I feel an unspoken obligation to continue. (Maybe it’s guilt or pity, or empathy?) What are my obligations in a friendship that has recently become more taxing than beneficial? I don’t dislike her, and we have many mutual friends, but I just don’t think I can muster the time, financial resources, or energy this time to help bail her out of the latest fiasco. Is it morally acceptable to refuse to help? Should I talk to her about why now – or wait until she’s less vulnerable?

Would the government of a free society employ scientists?

In a fully free society, would there be any scientists employed full time by the government for police, legislative, or judicial services? If not, how would judges obtain the necessary scientific knowledge to make proper rulings in the court cases that would replace today’s environmental and other regulations? Might scientists be hired by the government of a free society for the military or other purposes?

Is it right or wrong to condemn people for being obese?

Obviously, obese and morbidly obese people have made mistakes in their lives. Are they morally culpable for those mistakes? How should other people judge their characters? If I see an obese person on the street, should I infer that he is lazy and unmotivated? Should I refuse to hire an obese person because I suspect he won’t work as hard as a non-obese person? Is obesity a moral failing – or are there other considerations?

How can abortion rights be more effectively defended?

Although the biblical case against abortion is weak, the religious right has gained much traction against abortion rights in the last decade or two. The “personhood” movement is growing every year, and incremental restrictions on abortion have mushroomed. Even more alarming, the demographics seem to be against abortion rights: young people are increasingly opposed to abortion. What can be done to more effectively defend abortion rights? Can any lessons be drawn from the success of the campaign for gay marriage?

What can the success of the gay marriage teach us about effective advocacy for economic liberty?

In your March 31st, 2013 broadcast, you discussed the reasons why the campaign for gay marriage has been so successful. You hinted at some lessons, particularly the need to give people concrete experiences from which to draw their own conclusions. But what could be the equivalent of “coming out” with economic liberty?

What’s the rationale for declaring some physically mature people too young to have children?

Given that nature has dictated that both male and female humans can procreate in their early teens and given that morality is deduced from reality, why would sex and procreation at that young age be immoral? Isn’t that what nature intended? More generally, is there a a rational basis for moral judgments about the proper age of procreation? Or is it purely subjective?

Is it wrong to treat opposition to Israel’s policy as antisemitic?

At times, I’ve noticed a seeming package-deal in the media, whereby any criticism of Israel’s policies is dismissed as a form of antisemitism. Yet I’ve met people over the years who don’t support Israel’ s political positions, but they claim to not be antisemitic and have nothing against Jews. In contrast, a person against America’s policies is not assumed to be anti-American. So is criticism of Israel antisemitic? Or is equating them a dangerous package deal?

Should a person quit or wait to be fired from an increasingly intolerable job?

I have been employed with a large company for 26 years, and it has been a mildly satisfying career until recently. Since a new CEO took the helm, working conditions have degraded exponentially. Some changes were necessary. Others are arbitrary and designed to intimidate employees to the point of resignation. For example, I recently phoned to report in sick, and I had to argue for an hour and a half before they would show me unavailable. The actuarial value of my pension at this point is about $400,000. If I stay for six more years, that amount will double. I believe that the shareholders have a right to fire me if I don’t toe the line. But I believe that management is violating my rights by blatantly circumventing my contract. (For example, time off depends on manpower available, but they’ve laid off 20% of the workforce.) So should I quit now – or should I hang on and wait to be fired?

What’s the best approach for a first date?

What are some good activities for a first date? Dinner, then coffee, perhaps? Should I ask the woman, or just plan it out myself? Should I joke – and if so, what sort of humor should I use? Should I refrain from talking about myself or saying “I”? (I know a guy who answers every one of his dates’ questions with “I would” or “I think.”)

How should the feminist movement be judged?

Does the feminist movement today promote individual rights, or is it a force which often seeks special powers or favors for women at the expense of men? If it’s mixed, how should the movement be judged, overall? Should better feminists eschew the movement due to its flaws? Do those better feminists share any blame for allying themselves with the feminists who advocate for the violation of rights?

Was Francisco’s lack of jealousy in “Atlas Shrugged” rational or realistic?

In Part 3, Chapter 5 of Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged,” Francisco tells Dagny, “…No matter what you feel for [John Galt], it will not change what you feel for me, and it won’t be treason to either, because it comes from the same root, it’s the same payment in answer to the same values…” Is that a rational and realistic response? Given his love for Dagny, shouldn’t Francisco (and Hank) have been more disappointed in their loss of Dagny, and perhaps even jealous of John Galt? Is a person wrong to feel bitter disappointment or jealousy over a lost love?

To submit a question, use this form. I prefer questions focused on some concrete real-life problem, as opposed to merely theoretical or political questions. I review and edit all questions before they’re posted. (Alas, IdeaInformer doesn’t display any kind of confirmation page when you submit a question.)

Share This Post

As you know, on Sunday morning’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I answer four questions chosen in advance from the Question Queue. Here are the most recent additions to that queue. Please vote for the ones that you’re most interested in hearing me answer! You can also review and vote on all pending questions sorted by date or sorted by popularity.

Also, I’m perfectly willing to be bribed to answer a question of particular interest to you pronto. So if you’re a regular contributor to Philosophy in Action’s Tip Jar, I can answer your desired question as soon as possible. The question must already be in the queue, so if you’ve not done so already, please submit it. Then just e-mail me at diana@philosophyinaction.com to make your request.

Now, without further ado, the most recent questions added to The Queue:

Is Aristotle’s argument for flourishing as the final end valid?

In the “Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle argues that flourishing (or happiness) is the proper final end. What is that argument? Does it have merit? How does it differ from Ayn Rand’s argument for life as the standard of value?

What’s the difference between the standard and the purpose in ethics?

In “The Objectivist Ethics,” Ayn Rand claims that life is the proper standard of value, but each person’s own life and happiness is his own proper purpose. I find this distinction baffling. Why isn’t the standard the same as the purpose? Does distinguishing between the standard and the purpose of ethics provide any real-life practical benefit?

Should a person respect signs prohibiting guns in certain areas?

Some businesses and government offices announce that firearms are prohibited in the building, yet no screening is conducted to ensure that firearms are excluded. In such “pretend gun-free zones,” law-abiding people will disarm, while criminals and other dangerous or careless people will not. Is this a violation of a person’s right to self-defense? Should people refuse disarm in face of such signs?

What should prospective parents do to ensure they won’t regret having children?

In your 10 March 2013 show, you discussed what parents should do if they regret having children. But what can potential parents do to ensure that won’t happen? How can a person know what being a parent is like – for better or worse – before actually becoming a parent? Is a rational decision on this issue possible?

How might social conservatives be convinced to support gay marriage?

Rob Portman, a Republican Senator from Ohio, recently decided to openly support gay marriage after his son came out to him and his wife. What can be done to help other conservatives see gay marriage in a new light – as a matter of liberty and individual identity? (See this article.)

Should juries be present at trials?

In fictional portrayals of trials, the jury is often told to disregard certain statements. Also, interruptions in the form of objections are common. Wouldn’t it be easier for the jury to be absent from the trial itself, then presented with all and only the admissible evidence and testimony afterward? In fact, the jury need not see the parties in question, nor even know their names. Wouldn’t that eliminate the possibility of racial discrimination and other irrelevant judgments?

What are the rights involved in surrogacy of a deformed fetus?

Recently, a married couple contracted with a surrogate to carry a child to term. In the middle of the pregnancy, the fetus was diagnosed with serious developmental deformities. The parents attempted to invoke the abortion clause in their surrogacy contract, and they offered the surrogate an extra $10,000 to abort. However, the surrogate fled to another state so that she would be considered the child’s mother at birth, and she arranged to have the baby adopted. In this case, there seems to be a conflict between a woman’s right to control her own body, the right of the parents’ to control what happens to their baby, and the contractual rights in the surrogacy agreement. So what are the rights of the parents and the surrogate in this kind of case? What would have been the morally right course of action for the surrogate and for the parents?

Is multigenerational space travel immoral?

According to a panel at SETICon 2012, the designs for multi-generational space ships are already in the works. However are there ethical problems with people bearing children who will never see Earth, and likely never set foot on a planet? Would they be robbed of any ability to determine their own fate? Or is it a moot point since had the circumstances been different, they might not have ever been born at all?

How can a person deal with overzealous ideologues?

Suppose that an overzealous follower of a particular belief system constantly monitors and polices the behavior of other followers. When he sees what he believes to be a failure by someone to live up to their ideals, he attacks that person publicly, trying to shame him into proper behavior. What is the proper response if I am attacked by this overzealous follower in public? What if the attacks are private? Should I respond if my friends and acquaintances are attacked?

How can I minimize interruptions at work?

I’m a programmer, and I need long stretches of quiet time in order to be productive. Unfortunately, my work has an open floor plan, and people tend to pop by my desk if they have a question. I hate those interruptions, but I don’t know how to discourage them without being snippy or unfriendly. Plus, sometimes my co-workers have good reason to interrupt me with a question or news. So how can I eliminate the unimportant interruptions?

Should I limit my time away from family in deference to their cultural expectations?

My family comes from a conservative Turkish background. They see the amount of independence granted me as a 19 year old as more than enough. I see it as unsatisfactory. In fact, they feel pushed to their limit by the amount of time I ask to spend away from family on a daily basis. They believe I should not ask for any more independence, as they are already trying their hardest to accept me having even a small amount. However, what I’m allowed is very little compared to most people my age. It affects what I can do or not with my life, not just in the short term but in the long term too. Should I respect my family’s wishes on this point, given that they are already trying their hardest within the context of their own cultural values? Or should I ask for more independence, even if that violates their beliefs?

Is it wrong to write essays I don’t believe to win contest money?

I am a current university student with severe financial limitations. I’ve found that one of my best assets is my knack for writing a solid, persuasive essay. Recently, I’ve come across a trove of very generous scholarship essay contests. I feel confident that I could write a solid essay for most of them. The problem is that the majority are funded by organizations whose values I don’t support. Specifically, the essays I’d have to write argue in favor of social and political policies with which I disagree. Would it be moral for me to enter these writing competitions? If I did, would I just be demonstrating my writing ability – or misleading the sponsor into thinking that I agree with what I’ve written?

Isn’t reproduction – not life – the standard of value?

In “The Objectivist Ethics,” Ayn Rand claims that “an organism’s life is its standard of value,” meaning that “that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil.” She claims that on the grounds that the physical functions of a living organism are “actions generated by the organism itself and directed to a single goal: the maintenance of the organism’s life.” In fact, however, evolutionary theory teaches us that reproduction, not life, is the ultimate end of every living organism. Is that true? If so, does that have implications for ethics?

Is “common sense” a form of rationality?

Wikipedia defines “common sense” as “sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.” Is that a form of rationality? What’s the value of “common sense”? Should a rational person rely on common sense in moral decision-making?

How can people improve the quality of politicians in office?

Although it’s easy to condemn all politicians, some are better than others. How can we get more of the better politicians into office? Should people committed to rights run for office? Or should those people work to elect better (but still mixed) politicians? Or should they try to convince established politicians to embrace rights? What’s the best strategy for effective political change?

To submit a question, use this form. I prefer questions focused on some concrete real-life problem, as opposed to merely theoretical or political questions. I review and edit all questions before they’re posted. (Alas, IdeaInformer doesn’t display any kind of confirmation page when you submit a question.)

Share This Post

As you know, on Sunday morning’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I answer four questions chosen in advance from the Question Queue. Here are the most recent additions to that queue. Please vote for the ones that you’re most interested in hearing me answer! You can also review and vote on all pending questions sorted by date or sorted by popularity.

Also, I’m perfectly willing to be bribed to answer a question of particular interest to you pronto. So if you’re a regular contributor to Philosophy in Action’s Tip Jar, I can answer your desired question as soon as possible. The question must already be in the queue, so if you’ve not done so already, please submit it. Then just e-mail me at diana@philosophyinaction.com to make your request.

Now, without further ado, the most recent questions added to The Queue:

Are egoism and altruism mutually exclusive?

Most people have a common-sense view of ethics. They think that a person should spend lots of time pursuing his own goals and happiness. They also think that a person should sometimes set aside such pursuits to help others. Basically, on this view, a person can be an egoist and an altruist. Yet I’ve heard that egoism and altruism are two wholly incompatible moral theories too. So what’s right or wrong about the common sense view?

Shouldn’t egoism be limited to protect others from harm?

You advocate an egoistic ethics, according to which people should always act in their self-interest. However, isn’t such egoism dangerous if unchecked? Wouldn’t the egoist cheat, manipulate, and even murder others in order to get what he wants? Doesn’t egoism need to be restrained by concern for other people and their rights?

How can a person be an effective activist?

Many people want to engage in activism for good ideas – particularly in politics. Yet many of those people burn out or lose interest over time. Many others don’t seem to have much impact. What can people do to be effective long-term activists?

Should I refuse to be the beneficiary of racism or sexism?

When reviewing my job position file, I realized that my job could only be filled by a white female. I’d already planned to leave that job, but imagine that I’d planned to stay. In that case, what should I have done? Should I have left the job or protested in some fashion? (I was working outside the United States, in a country without any anti-discrimination laws.) Morally speaking, is the racism worse than the sexism?

If evolution is true, how can homosexuality be genetic?

According to evolutionary theory, shouldn’t we be seeing a sharp decrease in homosexuality if such is genetic? Reproduction of any “gay genes” is only possible if gays act against their natures, which fewer gays seem to be doing these days. Plus, homosexuality would seem to be a biological defect by the standard of “the survival of the fittest.” Yet instead of any decrease in homosexuality, we’re seeing a sharp increase in it. Does this mean that scientists must choose between evolutionary theory and the view that homosexuality is genetic?

What are “spiritual” values?

In your 27 January 2013 discussion of “Materialism in Marriage,” you talked about the importance of “spiritual values.” However, I found that confusing, since I’ve always associated “spirituality” with religion (often of the woozy variety). So what are spiritual values? How are they different from material values? Why are they important?

Should spouses always share activities?

A friend of mine is loathe to pursue any hobbies or interests that her husband doesn’t share. He’s not controlling: he’s the same way. Although I know that they want to spend time together, that seems really limiting to me. Is that a reasonable policy in a marriage – or does it lead to self-sacrifice and mutual resentment?

Does the idea of innate personality violate the principle of “tabula rasa”?

In past shows, you’ve indicated that you think that some aspects of personality are innate, rather than acquired by experience. If that’s right, isn’t that a form of determinism? Moreover, wouldn’t it violate the principle that every person is born a “blank slate”?

Should dueling and other consensual fights be legal?

In your September 5th, 2012 interview with Dr. Eric Daniels, you discussed some of America’s violent past traditions, including the practice of dueling. While I have no intention of challenging my rivals to mortal combat, I cannot see why this practice should be illegal. The same might be said of less lethal modern variants such as bar fights, schoolyard fights, and other situations where violence is entered into with the mutual consent of both parties. Should such consensual violence be forbidden by law in a free society, not just for children but perhaps for adults too? If so, what justifies allowing more ritualized forms of combat, such as mixed-martial arts fighting, boxing, or even football?

What is the solution to the is-ought problem?

David Hume famously claimed that statements about what ought to be cannot be derived from statements about what is the case. Does that mean that ethics is impossible? Can the gap be bridged, and if so, how?

How can an atheist teenager maintain his integrity in a religious school?

A few years ago, I read Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged” for the first time. After a year of struggling between faith and reason, I chose reason. Unfortunately, I am a teenager, and I am forced to attend church and a religious school. For a time, I was fine coexisting with religious people. However, in the next academic year, I will have to take a class entitled “Christian Apologetics” in which I will have to pretend to be a Christian theologian. Now my integrity is at stake. How should I confront my religious family about my atheism? How can I persuade them to enroll me a different school?

Are reparations for once-oppressed ethnic groups ever proper?

Periodically, we hear calls for reparations by the government to be paid to certain ethnic groups due to past racism, oppression, or slavery. Are such reparations ever ethical or necessary? If so, who should receive them and who should pay for them? When has too much time passed for such reparations? Are reparations based purely on group membership racist? Do they risk promoting racism in the broader culture, particularly among members of ethnic groups not party to the oppression?

Should parents be licensed?

Given the cost to society of parents shirking their obligations to their children, to entrust children to just anyone able to bear that child seems negligent. The state does, after all, forbid chronic drunk drivers from getting behind the wheel again. On the other hand, to give discretionary power to the state over such a personal matter seems very dangerous. Is there any middle ground that would better protect kids from abusive or neglectful parents and protect society from the growing scourge of poor parenting?

Should high-capacity firearms clips be banned?

Many advocates of gun control seek to limit the capacity of semi-automatic handgun clips to ten or even six rounds. Is that reasonable? Are such clips only useful for mass shootings – or might they be necessary for self-defense, such as when faced with home invasion?

To submit a question, use this form. I prefer questions focused on some concrete real-life problem, as opposed to merely theoretical or political questions. I review and edit all questions before they’re posted. (Alas, IdeaInformer doesn’t display any kind of confirmation page when you submit a question.)

Share This Post