On Sunday, 16 October 2011, I hosted another episode of my live Rationally Selfish Webcast, where I answered questions from viewers on practical ethics and the principles of living well. The live webcasts are held every Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. The webcast consists of me broadcasting on video, Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers on audio, and the audience in a text chat.

As usual, an audio recording of Sunday’s live webcast is now available as a NoodleCast podcast. To get these podcasts automatically, you can subscribe to the feed in iTunes — just choose either the enhanced M4A format or the standard MP3 format. They’re the same content, but the M4A format breaks each question into its own “chapter.”

While the Rationally Selfish Webcast (and Podcast) is available to anyone free of charge, it’s not free for us to produce. It requires time, effort, and expense. So if you enjoy it, please contribute to our tip jar. We suggest $5 per episode or $20 per month, but any amount is appreciated.

If you prefer to send a check, please write “RS Webcast” in the memo field and send it to “Diana Hsieh; P.O. Box 851; Sedalia, CO 80135.”

Whether you contribute or not, please do submit and vote on questions on the widget on the page for the Rationally Selfish Webcast — or via Idea Informer.

The Video

The full video for the webcast is only available to live attendees. Now, you can listen and/or download the audio podcast. Unfortunately, the webcast didn’t record, so I won’t have any video segments to post to my YouTube channel.

The Podcast

Listen Now

Duration: 1:04:51

Download the Episode

• Download the Enhanced M4A File (30.6 MB)
• Download the Standard MP3 File (29.7 MB)

Subscribe to the Feed

• Subscribe to the Enhanced M4A Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader
• Subscribe to the Standard MP3 Feed in iTunes or in your RSS reader

In This Episode

The following segments are marked as chapters in the M4A version of the podcast. Thanks to Tammy Perkins for helping compile the show notes!

Introduction (0:00)

As usual, I’ve been tending to Dr. Gimpy. I’ve also been programming for new web site and implementing design by Tori Press of Red Queen Design Studio. It looks so awesome!

Question 1: Judging Young Adults (3:22)

How should I judge my college-age peers, given the upbringing they’ve had? I know that we are ultimately responsible for our actions and our character, yet character is also heavily influenced by our culture, education, and upbringing. I was raised roughly the same way as my peers were, and I went through the same standardized, state-school educational system. Yet I did not end up like them — largely due to the fact that I read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. I got to see an alternative to the ideas offered to me, unlike most of my peers. Without that, I could have ended up just like anyone else. Knowing that, I try to treat my peers gently — meaning not taking the bad ideas they hold seriously, showing a benevolent warmth to them, and not focusing too hard on negatively judging their characters. But am I doing right, or should I be harsher in my judgment and treatment of them?

My Answer, In Brief: Judging young people fairly requires taking account of their ignorance as they engage in the process of shaping their own souls. You can be kind and just — if you focus on all the relevant facts about the person’s context.

Question 2: Voting With Your Wallet (21:24)

Is it wrong to “vote with your wallet”? A liberal friend of mine recently said that he won’t vote for political candidates based on his own economic interests — for example, that Candidate A promises to raise taxes on his income bracket, while Candidate B promises to cut taxes for that bracket. He votes based on his agreement with the total political program, not its effects on his paycheck. What’s right or wrong with his approach?

My Answer, In Brief: To speak of “voting with your wallet” is a horrible package-deal that conflates violations of rights with the protection of rights. A person should vote for politicians based on their in-practice commitment to individual rights.

Question 3: The Evidence for Free Will (30:02)

Is there objective evidence for free will? After doing some research on free will and determinism, the existence of free will seems pretty unlikely to me — even though the thought of free will is comforting. An argument often used to refute determinism is that the determinist says that we should accept determinism, since on his view, he only advocates determinism because he’s determined. That seems unsatisfying, however, since that doesn’t prove the existence of free will. Also, even if each person can say of himself, “I have free will,” how do you determine whether others have free will? How would you know whether a toddler, a teenager, a person with a brain tumor, or a person with dementia has free will or not?

My Answer, In Brief: Free will is an inescapable fact about our experience, and claims of determinism are incoherent.

Links:

• Nathaniel Branden’s articles on free will, causality, and determinism in The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist
• Dr. Harry Binswanger’s paper Volition as Cognitive Self-Regulation

Question 4: The Morality of Armed Rebellion (48:11)

When is a person (or group) justified in taking up arms against the government? In other words, how despotic must a government be for violent revolution to be morally justified? Before that point, is a person just engaged in “terrorism”?

My Answer, In Brief: Armed rebellion would be immoral and impractical at present, given that peaceful political change is still possible.

Links:

• Collectivized Rights by Ayn Rand

Conclusion (1:03:45)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

• Diana Hsieh: NoodleFood: diana@dianahsieh.com
• Greg Perkins: Objectivist Answers: greg@eCosmos.com

If you enjoyed this episode, please don’t forget to contribute to our tip jar! Also, remember to submit and vote on questions in the the ongoing question queue!