NoodleCast #324: Paul Hsieh on Radiology in Practice

 Posted by on 19 December 2014 at 8:00 am  NoodleCast
Dec 192014
 

On Thursday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I interviewed Dr. Paul Hsieh about “Radiology in Practice.” The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading. You’ll find it on the episode’s archive page, as well as below.

Remember, you can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:

Podcast: Paul Hsieh on Radiology in Practice

Most people have seen cool medical imaging devices such as CT and MRI scanners on TV shows. But what do those machines really do? Advanced medical imaging has revolutionized patient care in the past 25 years, allowing doctors to make diagnoses more accurately, quickly, and safely than ever before. Radiologist Dr. Paul Hsieh discussed the basics of modern radiology (x-rays, MRI, ultrasound, and nuclear medicine), how these different tests work, what they show about the human body, and how they help doctors take better care of patients.

Dr. Paul Hsieh is a radiologist in practice in South Denver. He received his MD from the University of Michigan, then completed a residency in diagnostic radiology at Washington University in St. Louis, and an MRI fellowship at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. Prior to entering private practice, he was an Assistant Professor of Radiology at Washington University School of Medicine. He is the co-founder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM). He has written scores of columns, mostly on health care policy, as well as articles for The Objective Standard. He blogs offbeat tech news at GeekPress.

Listen or Download:

Topics:

  • About radiology
  • The different imaging modalities
  • X-rays
  • CAT Scans
  • MRI Scans
  • Ultrasound
  • Nuclear Medicine
  • PET Scans
  • Interventional Radiology
  • Radiation dangers
  • Medical education
  • Access to the radiologist
  • Specialization in radiology
  • Paul’s work
  • Paul’s choice of radiology

Links:

Tags:


About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Thursday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

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.

Philosophy in Action's NewsletterPhilosophy in Action's Facebook PagePhilosophy in Action's Twitter StreamPhilosophy in Action's RSS FeedsPhilosophy in Action's Calendar

 

On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered questions on managing differences with family, forbidding the sale of dangerous goods to minors, worthy charities, and more with Greg Perkins. The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading. You’ll find it on the episode’s archive page, as well as below.

Remember, you can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:

Podcast: Differences with Family, Sales to Minors, Worthy Charities, and More

Listen or Download:

Remember, with every episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, we show how rational philosophy can help you find joy in your work, model virtue for your kids, pursue your goals effectively, communicate with respect, and advocate for a free society. We can’t do that without your support, so please remember to tip your philosopher!

You can download or listen to my answers to individual questions from this episode below.

Introduction (0:00)

My News of the Week: I’ve been busy celebrating my birthday! Earlier this week, I resumed my podcast series on Philosophy of Religion.

Question 1: Managing Differences with Family (3:51)

In this segment, I answered a question on managing differences with family.

How should a young adult manage persistent differences with his family? As I grew up, I turned out radically different from what 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?

My Answer, In Brief: Persistent differences with your family are to-be-expected for a thinking, independent adult. Discuss them in a rational way to air your differences, then make your own choice. If the other family members won’t let it go, kindly but firmly refuse to discuss the matter with them any further.

Listen or Download:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Question 2: Forbidding the Sale of Dangerous Goods to Minors (27:44)

In this segment, I answered a question on forbidding the sale of dangerous goods to minors.

Should minors be forbidden from buying dangerous goods? Under current law, minors are often restricted from buying goods regarded as dangerous, such as cigarettes, alcohol, fireworks, or firearms. In a free society, should those restrictions be abolished or upheld? Should parents be allowed to permit their children to buy such goods?

My Answer, In Brief: The default for adults should be that they’re competent to buy dangerous goods, but that can be overridden. Minors should be assumed incompetent, although that can be overridden too, most obviously by parental consent.

Listen or Download:

Links:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Question 3: Worthy Charities (48:39)

In this segment, I answered a question on worthy charities.

What kinds of charities are worthy of support? Many people laud donating to charities, but they don’t seem particularly concerned with which charities they support. However, I’d like my charitable dollars to do some good in the world – and do me good in return. So when is it proper to donate to charity? What kinds of charities are worthy of support or not? How can I judge the effectiveness of a charity? Are local charities better than national or international charities?

My Answer, In Brief: The worthiness of charities can and should be judged by the worthiness of their cause, their effectiveness at achieving their goals, and their efficiency in the use of money.

Listen or Download:

Links:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Listen or Download:

To comment on these questions or my answers, visit its comment thread.

Conclusion (1:06:45)

Be sure to check out the topics scheduled for upcoming episodes! Don’t forget to submit and vote on questions for future episodes too!


About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Thursday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Remember, with every episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, we show how rational philosophy can help you find joy in your work, model virtue for your kids, pursue your goals effectively, communicate with respect, and advocate for a free society. We can’t do that without your support, so please remember to tip your philosopher!

Philosophy in Action's NewsletterPhilosophy in Action's Facebook PagePhilosophy in Action's Twitter StreamPhilosophy in Action's RSS FeedsPhilosophy in Action's Calendar

 

On Thursday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I chatted about “Philosophy of Religion: Design Arguments for the Existence of God, Part 4″ with listeners. The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading. You’ll find it on the episode’s archive page, as well as below.

Remember, you can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:

Podcast: Chat on Philosophy of Religion: Design Arguments for the Existence of God, Part 4

I discuss various Design Arguments for the existence of God, particularly objections to William Paley’s Analogical Argument for Design.

Listen or Download:

Topics:

  • About the podcast series
  • Review of Design Arguments
  • Philosophical objections to Objections to Paley’s Analogical Argument for Design
  • The alternative of Darwinian evolution
  • Evolution and chance
  • Evolution versus design
  • Objections to evolutionary theory
  • Questions

Links:

Tags:


About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Thursday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

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.

Philosophy in Action's NewsletterPhilosophy in Action's Facebook PagePhilosophy in Action's Twitter StreamPhilosophy in Action's RSS FeedsPhilosophy in Action's Calendar

 

On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered questions on the reality of karma, responsibility for pets, meaningless gift exchanges, and more with Greg Perkins. The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading. You’ll find it on the episode’s archive page, as well as below.

Remember, you can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:

Podcast: Karma, Responsibility for Pets, Gift Exchanges, and More

Listen or Download:

Remember, with every episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, we show how rational philosophy can help you find joy in your work, model virtue for your kids, pursue your goals effectively, communicate with respect, and advocate for a free society. We can’t do that without your support, so please remember to tip your philosopher!

You can download or listen to my answers to individual questions from this episode below.

Introduction (0:00)

My News of the Week: I resumed the chapter-by-chapter discussions of my book, Responsibility & Luck: A Defense of Praise and Blame, this week! Today, I’m testing out broadcasting on the way to foxhunting, where I have much faster internet.

Question 1: The Reality of Karma (2:55)

In this segment, I answered a question on the reality of karma.

Is karma real? Although the concept of “karma” has religious roots, it seems to contain a grain of truth, namely that people will, in the end, get what they deserve. So if a father is mean to his children, he will find them unwilling to help him when he suffers a health crisis in his old age. In contrast, children raised with love and kindness will be eager to help their ailing father. Is this understanding of karma true? Is this a concept that rational people might or should use in their moral thinking?

My Answer, In Brief: Because the concept of “karma” lumps together moral causality and matters of luck, it’s mysticism cannot ever be fully shed. Use it colloquially or tongue-in-cheek, but not for serious thinking about ethics.

Listen or Download:

Links:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Question 2: Responsibility for Pets (14:00)

In this segment, I answered a question on responsibility for pets.

Should I put my cat down rather than leave him in a shelter? After listening to the podcast question about the person who lived in Philadelphia and wanted to get out of the ghetto, I got the motivation to land a great new job in Seattle. I am moving to a new city in a few weeks and will be traveling quite a bit. I will not be able to take care of my cat with all of the traveling. I don’t have the money to hire people to watch my pet while I am gone. I have put the cat up on billboards and ebay classifieds with no responses. The cat isn’t friendly to anyone but me, so I doubt a prospective adopter would choose to take him after meeting him. As my move date grows closer, I am wondering if it would be better to have my cat put down than to leave him with a shelter. What should I do?

My Answer, In Brief: You have an obligation to this cat, and please explore some more options before you put him down. There are ways that you could find him a new home or enable him to stay with you.

Listen or Download:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Question 3: Meaningless Gift Exchanges (22:41)

In this segment, I answered a question on meaningless gift exchanges.

How can I stop exchanging meaningless holiday presents with my siblings? My siblings and I are friendly but not close, but we still exchange Christmas presents. Mostly, that means that we buy each other stuff that we really don’t want. That seems like a waste of time and money. I’d like to stop exchanging gifts with them, but how can I do so without hurting their feelings?

My Answer, In Brief: You have lots of options besides the traditional models of gift-giving. Broach the topic with your family in a spirit of benevolence and goodwill about how to improve the holidays for everyone.

Listen or Download:

Links:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Rapid Fire Questions (33:51)

In this segment, I answered questions impromptu. The questions were:

  • Does the typical usage of Karma have an altruistic implication – that your good standing in the world is based on doing good for others?
  • What do people mean when they tell you you’re being ‘harsh’? Is it the same as being unjust?
  • What do you think of Interstellar?
  • What modern fiction writer would you recommend?
  • How can a person be objective in evaluating the people that he dates?
  • What’s wrong with the nihilistic argument that life is meaningless because death is inevitable?
  • I’ve begun reading Dr. Leonard Peikoff’s new book, “The DIM Hypothesis.” If you’ve read it I’d be very interested to hear what you think of it. Might it represent a “new” philosophy or “turning point”?
  • Why have Objectivists (including Ayn Rand) tended to use deontic language (“right” and “wrong”) to describe actions rather than virtue ethics language (“good and “bad”)?
  • Should the independent creator of a technology be barred from using or producing it due to an existing patent? Should it matter if the independent inventor lives in a different state or country?
  • Is it moral to allow a young child extremely fascinated with the human body to watch simple surgery videos to learn what doctors do, provided the parent prescreens the video for gruesomeness?

Listen or Download:

To comment on these questions or my answers, visit its comment thread.

Conclusion (1:00:23)

Be sure to check out the topics scheduled for upcoming episodes! Don’t forget to submit and vote on questions for future episodes too!


About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Thursday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Remember, with every episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, we show how rational philosophy can help you find joy in your work, model virtue for your kids, pursue your goals effectively, communicate with respect, and advocate for a free society. We can’t do that without your support, so please remember to tip your philosopher!

Philosophy in Action's NewsletterPhilosophy in Action's Facebook PagePhilosophy in Action's Twitter StreamPhilosophy in Action's RSS FeedsPhilosophy in Action's Calendar

 

On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered questions on the objectivity of manners, fighting words, obsessing over past conversations, and more with Greg Perkins. The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading. You’ll find it on the episode’s archive page, as well as below.

Remember, you can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:

Podcast: Objectivity of Manners, Fighting Words, Past Conversations, and More

Listen or Download:

Remember, with every episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, we show how rational philosophy can help you find joy in your work, model virtue for your kids, pursue your goals effectively, communicate with respect, and advocate for a free society. We can’t do that without your support, so please remember to tip your philosopher!

You can download or listen to my answers to individual questions from this episode below.

Introduction (0:00)

My News of the Week: I’ve been busy catching up on work.

Question 1: The Objectivity of Manners (1:56)

In this segment, I answered a question on the objectivity of manners.

Are manners objective? In a recent Rapid Fire Question, I think you rather too quickly dismissed the idea that manners or etiquette can be objective. You fairly quickly threw the whole lot of them over into the socially-subjective category. However, I think there’s a lot that’s not at all subjective, nor even optional, about manners. I happen to live in a country, China, which is much-renowned for its lack of basic human decency, and I would argue that this is a fair claim. For example, it’s quite regular for a parent to pull his child’s pants down and facilitate his or her urinating or defecating all over a vehicle of transportation, up to and including an international flight. It’s also quite normal to hawk in such a way as to clear every cavity in one’s upper torso, admire a particular piece of ground, and splat the results of one’s personal nasal expiration for all to admire and tread upon. After a home-cooked meal, a guest is expected to belch massively. A small belch is a sign of dissatisfaction. To me, the latter seems quite a matter of optional cultural choice. What you said before about manners applies quite nicely to that issue: it’s fairly arbitrary whether you should or you should not belch after your meal. At my in-laws’ place, please do. At my mom’s place, please don’t. However, when I think about other ways in which Chinese people are “rude” to an American, I can think of a thousand examples where it’s not just subjective. Pissing or shitting on a public bus is not just arbitrarily unacceptable to us silly overwrought Westerners. It’s objectively rude. For another example, today when I was trying to get onto a bus, hale and hearty Chinese twenty-somethings were pushing in front of me in a giant triangle of evil. Nobody cared if I was there before them, nobody cared if the signs all said to line up respectfully, they just elbowed each other out of the way in order to get on the bus. So are manners objective, at least in part?

My Answer, In Brief: Manners are objective: good principles of manners are well-grounded in facts. Many are an application of proper moral principles to social interactions, and others are matters of efficiency. However, etiquette is often a matter of optional convention.

Listen or Download:

Links:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Question 2: Fighting Words (24:16)

In this segment, I answered a question on fighting words.

Do verbal insults sometimes justify a response of physical violence? In a recent discussion of bullying, most people agreed that the child in question should not have hit the kids bullying him, given that those bullies were merely making awful remarks, as opposed to being violent or threatening. However, one person suggested that a physically violent response might be justified if all other avenues were exhausted – meaning that the bully was told to stop, efforts to enlist the help of the authorities failed, and a warning was given. Is that right? Is it ever right to respond to purely verbal insults with physical violence?

My Answer, In Brief: Unless the words are implicitly threatening or inviting a fight, a person can and should walk away from merely verbal harassment. That applies to kids as much to adults, but in the case of kids, parents and teachers have a responsibility to protect kids from situations in which verbal bullying can only be stopped by physical violence.

Listen or Download:

Links:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Question 3: Obsessing over Past Conversations (39:36)

In this segment, I answered a question on obsessing over past conversations.

How can I stop obsessing over past conversations? After having a conversation with someone, I often obsess about what I said to them and the way that I said it. I think about they ways they could have misinterpreted what I meant, and I worry that they thought I was being rude or disrespectful. Most of the time, of course, whatever nuances I thought would offend them were either non-existent or just went straight over their head. How can I overcome this obsessiveness, while still maintaining a healthy level of concern for how what I say may be interpreted?

My Answer, In Brief: It’s not healthy to obsess over past conversations, and you can help your brain overcome that tendency by noticing when you do it, seeking out objective feedback, and more. If you can’t do it alone, seek therapy.

Listen or Download:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Rapid Fire Questions (52:30)

In this segment, I answered questions impromptu. The questions were:

  • Could you ever be friends with an IRS agent?
  • Should ‘cleanliness’ be classed as a virtue? If so, is it minor or major?
  • Ayn Rand called the military-industrial complex ‘a myth or worse’. Was she right? What is the military industrial complex? What would it look like in a free society?
  • What role do you think insurance plays in the ever-increasing regulatory environment in our culture?

Listen or Download:

To comment on these questions or my answers, visit its comment thread.

Conclusion (1:05:02)

Be sure to check out the topics scheduled for upcoming episodes! Don’t forget to submit and vote on questions for future episodes too!


About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Thursday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Remember, with every episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, we show how rational philosophy can help you find joy in your work, model virtue for your kids, pursue your goals effectively, communicate with respect, and advocate for a free society. We can’t do that without your support, so please remember to tip your philosopher!

Philosophy in Action's NewsletterPhilosophy in Action's Facebook PagePhilosophy in Action's Twitter StreamPhilosophy in Action's RSS FeedsPhilosophy in Action's Calendar

 

On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered questions on the moral arguments for veganism and vegetarianism, courage as a struggle against fear, ungrateful people, and more with Greg Perkins. The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading. You’ll find it on the episode’s archive page, as well as below.

Remember, you can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:

Podcast: Veganism and Vegetarianism, Courage, Ungrateful People, and More

Listen or Download:

Remember, with every episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, we show how rational philosophy can help you find joy in your work, model virtue for your kids, pursue your goals effectively, communicate with respect, and advocate for a free society. We can’t do that without your support, so please remember to tip your philosopher!

You can download or listen to my answers to individual questions from this episode below.

Introduction (0:00)

My News of the Week: I posted two new podcasts as compensation for Sunday broadcasts that I missed: The Cultivation of Character and Ayn Rand’s Philosophy: Myth Versus Reality.

Question 1: The Moral Arguments for Veganism and Vegetarianism (3:14)

In this segment, I answered a question on the moral arguments for veganism and vegetarianism.

Are the moral arguments for veganism (and vegetarianism) rational? People often argue for vegetarianism on the grounds that a person can (and perhaps should) regard the lives of animals to be a higher value than the advantages to eating meat such as taste or nutrition. Is this a rational moral outlook, consistent with rational egoism?

My Answer, In Brief: If concerned about your health, the environment, and cruelty to animals, don’t eat vegan or vegetarian. Don’t eat the Standard American Diet either. Instead, be a conscious carnivore: buy humanely-treated and pastured-raised meat and dairy, preferably direct from farmers.

Listen or Download:

Links:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Question 2: Courage as a Struggle Against Fear (32:17)

In this segment, I answered a question on courage as a struggle against fear.

Does the virtue of courage require struggling against the temptation to succumb to fear? In your 16 September 2012 show, you argued that “it is far better for a person to cultivate a virtuous moral character so that right actions are easy for him, rather than constantly struggling against temptation.” How does this apply to the virtue of courage? The common understanding of courage is that it requires acting rightly in spite of fear. So the courageous person struggles to do the right thing in face of the temptation to retreat in fear. Is this a correct formulation? If so, wouldn’t that mean that a courageous person must constantly struggle against fear, not overcome it? If this view of courage is wrong, how would you define the virtue and its relation to fear?

My Answer, In Brief: The virtue of courage is not about struggling against fear, but rather about overcoming fear to act in your own best interests. By doing that, you gain the requisite skills and confidence to move on to new (and often harder) challenges.

Listen or Download:

Links:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Question 3: Ungrateful People (49:26)

In this segment, I answered a question on ungrateful people.

Why aren’t people grateful for what others do for them? I volunteer a lot, and I try to be very generous with my time and efforts in the groups that I’m involved with. Mostly, I just want people to express thanks and gratitude for what I’ve done for them. Mostly though, they don’t thank me – or their thanks just seem perfunctory. Why is that? Am I wrong to want a little gratitude? Right now, I feel taken advantage of, and I want to tell everyone to go to hell. Is that wrong?

My Answer, In Brief: When you’re volunteering or helping others, you must have self-interested motives – whether learning something new, developing your skills, or accomplishing something meaningful to yourself. Thanks and gratitude from others can only be a bonus. If it’s a primary motivation, you’ll always feel taken advantage of. If that happens, find something more personally meaningful to do with your time!

Listen or Download:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Rapid Fire Questions (59:30)

In this segment, I answered questions impromptu. The questions were:

  • Is foxhunting cruel to the fox? How can you justify doing it given your overall views about how humans should treat animals?
  • What should art-like things that are not, strictly speaking, art (according to Ayn Rand’s definition) be called?

Listen or Download:

To comment on these questions or my answers, visit its comment thread.

Conclusion (1:10:49)

Be sure to check out the topics scheduled for upcoming episodes! Don’t forget to submit and vote on questions for future episodes too!


About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Thursday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Remember, with every episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, we show how rational philosophy can help you find joy in your work, model virtue for your kids, pursue your goals effectively, communicate with respect, and advocate for a free society. We can’t do that without your support, so please remember to tip your philosopher!

Philosophy in Action's NewsletterPhilosophy in Action's Facebook PagePhilosophy in Action's Twitter StreamPhilosophy in Action's RSS FeedsPhilosophy in Action's Calendar

 

On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered questions on anarchism’s case against government, the value of sportsmanship, sleeping around, and more with Greg Perkins. The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading. You’ll find it on the episode’s archive page, as well as below.

Remember, you can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:

Podcast: Anarchism’s Case Against Government, Sportsmanship, Sleeping Around, and More

Listen or Download:

Remember, with every episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, we show how rational philosophy can help you find joy in your work, model virtue for your kids, pursue your goals effectively, communicate with respect, and advocate for a free society. We can’t do that without your support, so please remember to tip your philosopher!

You can download or listen to my answers to individual questions from this episode below.

Introduction (0:00)

My News of the Week: The “personhood” measures lost in North Dakota and Colorado!

Question 1: Anarchism’s Case Against Government (7:01)

In this segment, I answered a question on anarchism’s case against government.

Does the government monopoly on the use of force violate rights? Anarchist libertarians have long argued that a rights-respecting government is a contradiction in terms. A government, by its very nature, must have a monopoly on the use of force. That must be a coercive monopoly, since the government will not permit competition in the form of any competing defense agencies advocated by anarchists. Hence, government will always violate rights. What is wrong – if anything – with this argument? I’ve never gotten a good answer, despite often inquiring about it. Moreover, what assurances do we have that this government monopoly will not behave like other monopolies, such that it gets out of control, increases costs, and eventually fails?

My Answer, In Brief: The anarchist argument that government violates rights by outlawing competing defense agencies is deeply rationalistic, imagines an unrealistic market in force, and ignores the threat to rights posed by competing defense agencies.

Listen or Download:

Links:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Question 2: The Value of Sportsmanship (29:35)

In this segment, I answered a question on the value of sportsmanship.

What is the meaning and value of sportsmanship? Kids are often taught – or not taught – to be “good sports.” What does that mean? What’s the value in that? More broadly, what’s a healthy versus unhealthy attitude toward competition in life – not just in sports, but also work, hobbies, friendship, and so on?

My Answer, In Brief: The root of good sportmanship is a growth mindset. That’s what parents and coaches should encourage above all else.

Listen or Download:

Links:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Question 3: Sleeping Around (51:06)

In this segment, I answered a question on sleeping around.

Why would anyone even want to sleep around? Ayn Rand used Francisco D’Anconia to describe her view of sexuality in Atlas Shrugged, but while her explanation was easy enough to understand, there were some things she left out. Namely: why would someone, anyone, sleep around? I’ve met, and read articles by, women who describe their experiences in the “hookup” culture, and across the board they agree that most of the men they slept with were poor lovers who cared little for them once the act was finished. I know men like this in real life who seem surprised at how unfulfilling their sex lives (admittedly much more active than mine) really are. So I have to ask: why would someone choose to have sex with someone when they know, or at least have good reason to believe, that the person has no actual interest in them personally?

My Answer, In Brief: Casual sex might not be the best sex out there, but it can be of value, and it can be moral.

Listen or Download:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Rapid Fire Questions (57:09)

In this segment, I answered questions impromptu. The questions were:

  • Was Oskar Schindler an altruist?
  • Could you give a brief overview of Stoicism and its good versus bad points?

Listen or Download:

To comment on these questions or my answers, visit its comment thread.

Conclusion (1:05:47)

Be sure to check out the topics scheduled for upcoming episodes! Don’t forget to submit and vote on questions for future episodes too!


About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Thursday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Remember, with every episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, we show how rational philosophy can help you find joy in your work, model virtue for your kids, pursue your goals effectively, communicate with respect, and advocate for a free society. We can’t do that without your support, so please remember to tip your philosopher!

Philosophy in Action's NewsletterPhilosophy in Action's Facebook PagePhilosophy in Action's Twitter StreamPhilosophy in Action's RSS FeedsPhilosophy in Action's Calendar

 

On Thursday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered questions on improving candidates for office, increasing psychological visibility, and more with Greg Perkins. The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading. You’ll find it on the episode’s archive page, as well as below.

Remember, you can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:

Podcast: Improving Politicians, Psychological Visibility, and More

Listen or Download:

Remember, with every episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, we show how rational philosophy can help you find joy in your work, model virtue for your kids, pursue your goals effectively, communicate with respect, and advocate for a free society. We can’t do that without your support, so please remember to tip your philosopher!

You can download or listen to my answers to individual questions from this episode below.

Introduction (0:00)

My News of the Week: I’ve been catching up on work, as well as stocking my new “toterhome” (a.k.a. Helga).

Question 1: Improving Candidates for Office (3:01)

In this segment, I answered a question on improving candidates for office.

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?

My Answer, In Brief: Don’t try to change politicians, change the political climate by smart issue advocacy and politician will change with the tide.

Listen or Download:

Links:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Question 2: Increasing Psychological Visibility (22:33)

In this segment, I answered a question on increasing psychological visibility.

How can I achieve greater psychological visibility? Recently, I realized that many of my emotional difficulties in life – such as in maintaining motivation or keeping serene – may be exacerbated by feelings of psychological invisibility. In other words, I feel uncared for and unnoticed, and the deep dissatisfaction stemming from that could be potentially affecting a lot of areas in my life. For instance, I recently spoke to my manager as to my problems at work, and it made me feel so uniquely good that I was able to finish my shift in peace and on-track, in contrast to the bitter, near seething prior hours. That unique feeling indicates that I may have a deep unfulfilled emotional need in this area, hurting other realms of performance. Thus, what is psychological visibility? What does it add to my life? How can I satisfy it?

My Answer, In Brief: Psychological visibility is a crucial human need, and you can gain more of it by deliberately but carefully seeking it out.

Listen or Download:

Links:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Rapid Fire Questions (43:02)

In this segment, I answered questions impromptu. The questions were:

  • What do you think of the Ayn Rand Institute’s “End the Debt Draft” campaign?
  • Does the fetus exercise volition to pursue values? If not, doesn’t that rule out the possibility of rights for a fetus?
  • If both the woman and the fetus have the right to self defense, as Greg says, why does a woman’s right trump the right of the fetus if the woman’s life is at stake?

Listen or Download:

To comment on these questions or my answers, visit its comment thread.

Conclusion (1:10:49)

Be sure to check out the topics scheduled for upcoming episodes! Don’t forget to submit and vote on questions for future episodes too!


About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Thursday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Remember, with every episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, we show how rational philosophy can help you find joy in your work, model virtue for your kids, pursue your goals effectively, communicate with respect, and advocate for a free society. We can’t do that without your support, so please remember to tip your philosopher!

Philosophy in Action's NewsletterPhilosophy in Action's Facebook PagePhilosophy in Action's Twitter StreamPhilosophy in Action's RSS FeedsPhilosophy in Action's Calendar

NoodleCast #314: Debate on Rights in Pregnancy

 Posted by on 27 October 2014 at 8:00 am  NoodleCast
Oct 272014
 

On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I debated on abortion and rights in pregnancy. The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading. You’ll find it on the episode’s archive page, as well as below.

Remember, you can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:

Podcast: Debate on Rights in Pregnancy

Listen or Download:

Remember, with every episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, we show how rational philosophy can help you find joy in your work, model virtue for your kids, pursue your goals effectively, communicate with respect, and advocate for a free society. We can’t do that without your support, so please remember to tip your philosopher!

You can download or listen to my answers to individual questions from this episode below.

Introduction (0:00)

My News of the Week: I’ve been on vacation in Southern California visiting family, and I just drove my new “toterhome” from Ohio to Colorado in a day and a half.

Question 1: Abortion and Rights in Pregnancy (6:50)

In this segment, Greg and I answered a question on abortion and rights in pregnancy.

When do rights begin? You – Greg Perkins and Diana Hsieh – agree on the basics of abortion rights. However, you disagree on when the fetus becomes a person with rights. Diana argues that rights don’t apply until birth, when the fetus becomes a biologically separate infant. Greg argues that the fetus has rights during the later stages of pregnancy, when it becomes an “essentially formed human being.” Can you flesh out and defend these views?

My Answer, In Brief: Greg and I still disagree on the start of rights, but we explained our views and our objections to each other’s views well in this friendly debate.

Listen or Download:

Links:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Conclusion (1:35:42)

Be sure to check out the topics scheduled for upcoming episodes! Don’t forget to submit and vote on questions for future episodes too!


About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Thursday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Remember, with every episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, we show how rational philosophy can help you find joy in your work, model virtue for your kids, pursue your goals effectively, communicate with respect, and advocate for a free society. We can’t do that without your support, so please remember to tip your philosopher!

Philosophy in Action's NewsletterPhilosophy in Action's Facebook PagePhilosophy in Action's Twitter StreamPhilosophy in Action's RSS FeedsPhilosophy in Action's Calendar

 

On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered questions on voters’ responsibility for politicians, charity to strangers, quitting or waiting to be fired, and more with Greg Perkins. The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading. You’ll find it on the episode’s archive page, as well as below.

Remember, you can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:

Podcast: Responsibility of Voters, Charity to Strangers, Leaving a Bad Job, and More

Listen or Download:

Remember, with every episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, we show how rational philosophy can help you find joy in your work, model virtue for your kids, pursue your goals effectively, communicate with respect, and advocate for a free society. We can’t do that without your support, so please remember to tip your philosopher!

You can download or listen to my answers to individual questions from this episode below.

Introduction (0:00)

My News of the Week: I’ve been trying – without much success – to catch up with work after that crazy few weeks of updating and publishing the paper on abortion rights, CSG’s campaign finance trial, and more.

Question 1: Voters’ Responsibility for Politicians (3:04)

In this segment, I answered a question on voters’ responsibility for politicians.

To what extent are voters responsible for the actions of politicians? Suppose that a candidate announces his plans and actions for next term before the election. Are the people who vote for that candidate morally sanctioning and/or responsible for those actions, for better or worse? For example, you vote for a candidate who supports de-regulation and ending social welfare programs, even though he’s completely against abortion in all circumstances, even when that might result in the woman’s death. Since you, as a voter, knew his position when you voted for him, aren’t you partially responsible for any deaths of women caused by his anti-abortion policies?

My Answer, In Brief: As a voter, you are not responsible for the wrong programs of politicians, provided that you chose the better candidate (based on the principle of individual rights), didn’t whitewash the dangers, the perhaps even took active steps to mitigate them.

Listen or Download:

Links:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Question 2: Charity to Strangers (28:08)

In this segment, I answered a question on charity to strangers.

Is charity to strangers virtuous? In a recent podcast, you answered the following Rapid Fire Question: “Does providing voluntary, non-sacrificial help to innocent, unfortunate poor people qualify as virtuous? In a free society, would such charity be a moral obligation?” You said that it’s not a moral obligation, and I agree with that. You also said that you think it’s a “great thing to do.” But why? I’d evaluate it as such if the person you’re helping is a good friend or a close relative. In that case, the act would be an expression of integrity, or of loyalty to one’s personal values. But I don’t understand why it’s a “great thing” to provide charity to people you don’t know, even if you’re contextually certain that they didn’t bring their hardship upon themselves and you don’t view it as a moral duty. I’d think that such an act is morally neutral, or at best slightly positive. Can you explain your evaluation a bit more, please?

My Answer, In Brief: If you want to live in a benevolent, helpful culture – and you should – then you should cultivate that attitude toward others, including strangers. Helping others out in small ways when you’re able is of benefit to you!

Listen or Download:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Question 3: Quitting or Waiting to be Fired (44:40)

In this segment, I answered a question on quitting or waiting to be fired.

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?

My Answer, In Brief: Whatever the money that you might gain thereby, it’s not worth making yourself miserable for years in an awful job. So try to make the job work – and if that doesn’t work, leave!

Listen or Download:

Links:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

In this segment, I answered a question on [[Q4TopicLower]].

Listen or Download:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Rapid Fire Questions (55:51)

In this segment, I answered questions impromptu. The questions were:

  • Does the ebola crisis have an implication for public healthcare (i.e. how do we respond to people who say that the ebola epidemic proves the case for socialized medicine)?
  • How much interaction with your (and Paul’s) personal Facebook page is appropriate? I sometimes feel like I’m over doing it with the likes and I stop myself from commenting.

Listen or Download:

To comment on these questions or my answers, visit its comment thread.

Conclusion (1:05:15)

Be sure to check out the topics scheduled for upcoming episodes! Don’t forget to submit and vote on questions for future episodes too!


About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Thursday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Remember, with every episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, we show how rational philosophy can help you find joy in your work, model virtue for your kids, pursue your goals effectively, communicate with respect, and advocate for a free society. We can’t do that without your support, so please remember to tip your philosopher!

Philosophy in Action's NewsletterPhilosophy in Action's Facebook PagePhilosophy in Action's Twitter StreamPhilosophy in Action's RSS FeedsPhilosophy in Action's Calendar

Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha