On Sunday, 27 November 2011, I broadcast a new episode of my live Philosophy in Action Webcast, where I answer questions on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a virtuous, happy, and free life in a live, hour-long webcast. The webcast is broadcast live every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. In the webcast, I broadcast on video, Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers is on audio, and the audience is in a text chat.

As usual, if you can’t attend the live webcast, you can listen to it later as audio-only podcast by subscribing to the NoodleCast RSS Feed:

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

You can also peruse the archives, listening to whole episodes or just individual questions. The archives are sorted by date and by topic.

We hope that you’ll join the live webcast, because that’s more lively and engaging than the podcast. People talk merrily in the text chat while watching the webcast. Greg and I enjoy the immediate feedback of a live audience – the funny quips, serious comments, and follow-up questions. So please join the live webcast when you can!

The Podcast: Episode: 27 November 2011

Listen Now

Duration: 1:01:47

Download the Episode

• Download the Enhanced M4A File (29.1 MB)
• Download the Standard MP3 File (28.3 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

The Segments: Episode: 27 November 2011

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)

Happy Post-Thanksgiving Dieting! Unfortunately, my ancient horse Tara died unexpectedly on Tuesday. Ari Armstrong and I have been busy making the final edits on our paper on abortion rights for The Objective Standard.

Question 1: The Wisdom of Friends with Benefits (3:31)

Are “friends with benefits” relationships a mistake? It is moral and/or wise to pursue sexual relationships with friends, even though you’re not in a romantic relationship? What are some of the benefits and/or pitfalls? If it’s a mistake, what should a person do to avoid such entanglements?

My Answer, In Brief: Sex is not some kind of hobby that you can add to friendship. It’s an inherently intimate act; it’s not compatible with mere friendship; and it often results in dishonest with yourself and your friend. The better alternative for people uninterested in a serious relationship is to date unseriously.

Links:

• Friends With Benefits, and Stress Tooin the New York Times
• The downside of ‘friends with benefits’ on CNN Health

Question 2: Obligations to Help Others in Need (17:13)

Do we have an obligation to help others in need? Many people think that the need of others creates an obligation to help. Is that right or wrong? Why? When should a person help others?

My Answer, In Brief: All the arguments for moral obligations based on need fail. Every person’s life – and hence, every person’s needs – are his own responsibility. Moral obligations arise from a person’s choices, and ought to be based on shared values and interests, not mere need.

Links:

• Altruism: The Morality of Logical Fallacies and The Creed of Sacrifice vs. The Land of Liberty by Craig Biddle
• The Objectivist Ethics in The Virtue of Selfishness and “Causality Versus Duty” in Philosophy: Who Needs It by Ayn Rand
• Famine, Affluence, and Morality by Peter Singer
• Helping a Stranger in an Emergency on Philosophy in Action
• Should you help a man who’s dying in front of you? on Objectivist Answers

Question 3: Supporting Political Compromises (34:51)

When is it morally right or wrong to support political compromises? The marijuana legalization initiative for the 2012 Colorado ballot also specifies open-ended taxation that circumvents the protections of TABOR (the Taxpayer Bill of Rights). It specifies that the first $40 million raised goes to government schools. Both of these taxation items are compromises added to get voters to accept the marijuana legalization. Is it ethical to support more taxation to get more freedom from drug laws? Is it okay to circulate petitions to get this on the ballot so the voters can decide? More generally, when if ever should a person support political compromises that uphold some rights but violate others?

My Answer, In Brief: With mixed legislation, you need to examine the good and the bad, with particular emphasis on precedents set by the law. Sometimes, like with this measure, you should support it because the good hugely outweighs the bad, but that’s not always the case.

Links:

• The Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act of 2012 at End Marijuana Prohibition
• Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act targeted by Douglas Bruce… in Westword
• Driven By Drug War Incentives, Cops Target Pot Smokers, Brush Off Victims Of Violent Crime by Radley Balko

Question 4: Lying to a Dying Person (45:23)

Is it wrong to lie to a person on their deathbed? Is lying in such cases justified so that the dying person can “go in peace”? For instance, a man might tell his fellow soldier dying on the battlefield that his heroism helped win a critical victory, even if it actually made no difference. Or a nurse might tell a dying mother desperate to make peace with her long-estranged daughter that the daughter called to tell her she loves her, even if that didn’t happen. Is that wrong? If so, what’s the harm?

My Answer, In Brief: Honesty is a virtue, even in dealings with a person dying. To die in peace means to die in harmony with the facts, not in a state of blissful ignorance or blind evasion.

Rapid Fire Questions (55:19)

In this segment, I answered a variety of questions off-the-cuff. The questions were:

• What do you think of the argument that it in a modern society it is wrong to not feed everyone that is starving when we are capable of producing enough food to do so?
• What do you think of Terry Goodkind’s novels?
• What do you think of the term “anti-choice” to describe people who oppose abortion?
• Have you gleaned any moral lessons from caring for Dr. Gimpy these past few months?

Conclusion (1:00:42)

Comments or questions? Contact us!

• Diana Hsieh: Philosophy in Action: diana@philosophyinaction.com
• Greg Perkins: Objectivist Answers: greg@eCosmos.com

Support the Webcast

The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it’s not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value what we’re doing, please contribute to the webcast’s tip jar!

$5.00 USD – One Time $10.00 USD – One Time $20.00 USD – One Time $50.00 USD – One Time $100.00 USD – One Time Make A One-Time
Contribution

$10.00 USD – Monthly $20.00 USD – Monthly $30.00 USD – Monthly $50.00 USD – Monthly $100.00 USD – Monthly Create A Monthly
Contribution

If you’d like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.

Thank you, if you’ve contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we’re so grateful for that! Also, whether you’re able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.