Oct 282013
 

On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I answered questions on revealing a checkered past, racist names of sports teams, property owners prohibiting firearms, explaining Facebook unfriendings, and more. The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading.

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


Whole Podcast: 27 October 2013

Listen or Download:

Remember the Tip Jar!

The mission of Philosophy in Action is to spread rational principles for real life… far and wide. That’s why the vast majority of my work is available to anyone, free of charge. I love doing the radio show, but each episode requires an investment of time, effort, and money to produce. So if you enjoy and value that work of mine, please contribute to the tip jar. I suggest $5 per episode or $20 per month, but any amount is appreciated. In return, contributors can request that I answer questions from the queue pronto, and regular contributors enjoy free access to premium content and other goodies.


Podcast Segments: 27 October 2013

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

Introduction

My News of the Week: I’ve been busy promoting my new book Responsibility & Luck: A Defense of Praise and Blame. (It’s available in paperback, Kindle, Nook editions.) I’ve been busy working on posting old pre-radio podcasts, as well as lectures from the past few years.

Question 1: Revealing a Checkered Past

Question: How forthcoming should I be with new people I meet about my checkered past? My past is not a source of pride for me. Over four years ago, I read “Atlas Shrugged.” That book altered the radical change I was already bringing into my life for the better. I’ve recently begun meeting other fans of Ayn Rand in real life, and I dislike discussing my white-trash, moocher-esque history with these new acquaintances. (At the time, I was between 17 and 20 years old.) If I shared my past with these people, I think they might judge me harshly and cut ties with me, given that they don’t know me well. However, given my past, I have a clearer understanding of the irrational, twisted, cruel, and nasty nature of people who choose to live like leeches off of other human beings. I think that sharing these experiences with others can be a source of strength to them. (I don’t want others to stumble into these poor decisions when they could do better!) So how much of my past should I share with other people, and how should I share it?

My Answer, In Brief: A person should be proud of overcoming past mistakes, particularly the moral growing pains of late teens and early 20s, not ashamed. Share that history selectively and discreetly with other people. Good people will value you more for what you’ve made of yourself today.

Listen or Download:

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

Question 2: Racist Names of Sports Teams

Question: Should sports teams with racist names change them? Dan Snyder, the owner of the Washington Redskins has vowed never to the team’s name, insisting that it stands for bravery. I’ve read conflicting reports about polls of Native Americans. Some are offended, and some don’t care. It appears that D.C. area politicians and various academics looking to make names for themselves are leading the charge to change the name, and they seem to have much to gain thereby. Personally, I am not offended by the name, but I wouldn’t go onto a reservation and address the people there as “redskins.” While the name may be racist and offensive to some, is that a sufficient reason to change it?

My Answer, In Brief: The term “redskin” is a racial epithet, yet it’s not used in an offensive way by the Washington Redskins. Given that team’s use of the name doesn’t promote racism or bullying, the name shouldn’t be changed as any kind of moral imperative. However, that doesn’t mean that the name should be staunchly defended either. Moral fervor on this issue is seriously misplaced.

Listen or Download:

Links:

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

Question 3: Property Owners Prohibiting Firearms

Question: 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 to disarm in face of such signs?

My Answer, In Brief: A person’s right to self-defense is not violated when a property owner forbids guns on his property. The property owner is entitled to set the terms for his property, and if others don’t approve, they can stay away.

Listen or Download:

Links:

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

Question 4: Explaining Facebook Unfriendings

Question: Does a person owe others an explanation for unfriending them on Facebook? I’m “friends” with many people on Facebook who I can’t stand and with whom I would never willingly spend time in real life. I’ve purged many Facebook friends I didn’t really know and/or who’ve contributed nothing of value to my life, all for the better. Now I am considering whether to unfriend former lovers and one-time real life friends from my youth for a host of insurmountable reasons – for example, our politics don’t jive, I’m annoyed by seeing endless photos of their pets, and so on. Odds are I will never have any dealings with these people again, mostly because I don’t want to. Do I owe them an explanation for the unfriending?

My Answer, In Brief: It’s perfectly fine to unfriend people on Facebook when you’re not interested in keeping up with them, yet you need not and should not be mean about it.

Listen or Download:

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

Rapid Fire Questions

Questions:

  • Don’t Americans have the right and the obligation to limit immigration to protect our political values from corruption?
  • What’s wrong with the nihilistic argument that life is meaningless because death is inevitable?
  • Emotions are rooted in prior value judgments. So could the Myers-Briggs Thinking versus Feeling axis be analogous to compiled vs interpreted programing?
  • On an earlier show, you said that Daniel Dennett was evil and dishonest. Could you elaborate?
  • Skulls on clothes and accessories are fun motifs to wear. But isn’t wearing them stating that you value death instead of life? Why would I like them?

Listen or Download:

  • Start Time: 51:11
  • Duration: 15:07
  • Download: MP3 Segment

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

Conclusion

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

  • Start Time: 1:06:19


About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio focuses on the application of rational principles to the challenges of real life. It broadcasts live on most Sunday mornings and many Thursday evenings over the internet. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

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