Sep 282015
 

On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I answered questions on the future of the United States, the value of vulnerability, cheating to get a job back, 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 September 2015

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 September 2015

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

Introduction

My News of the Week: I’ve been getting my life in order and preparing for the closure of Philosophy in Action.

Question 1: The Future of the United States

Question: Is the United States finished as a free country? Lately, I have seen a lot of people in my circles claim that the United States as a free country is dead and done, that tyranny advances each day and it’s not isolated, it’s everywhere. These are mostly reactions to articles reporting seeming home invasions by police, the FBI’s forensic hair match scandal, and other government abuses. The common claim is that the United States now has an inherently corrupt justice system where policemen can end the lives of citizens with impunity and get away with it. My inner skeptic makes me feel that, while this is evidence of a lot of bad things that shouldn’t be tolerated, the reaction itself seems disproportionate. While there are systemic problems, I have the impression that it is not all-pervasive and not hopeless. Then again, that could be also my inner optimist trying to tell myself that things are not as bad as they first appear. What is your take on the current climate of the United States? Do you think it is as finished as others claim it is? What kind of tools could you recommend for someone to use in gauging the state of the country more accurately?

My Answer, In Brief: America is not going to hell in a handbasket, and people who predict that based on philosophy are blowing smoke. To combat this view in yourself, stop consuming negative news and seek out the positive.

Listen or Download:

Links:

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

Question 2: The Value of Vulnerability

Question: Is vulnerability of value? In a recent blog post, you stated “…I’m opting for a ‘vulnerability through strength’ and ‘strength through vulnerability’ route…” Could you please explain this idea? Why is vulnerability something that should be cultivated in the first place? It doesn’t seem compatible with rational egoism, given that “vulnerability” and “weakness” are often used interchangeably.

My Answer, In Brief: The capacity and willingness to be vulnerable is a moral amplifier, not a virtue. It’s extremely important to deep and meaningful relationships, and it’s not mere weakness.

Listen or Download:

Links:

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

Question 3: Cheating to Get a Job Back

Question: Should I cheat the system to get my job back? For my main source of income, I work as a virtual call center agent through a freelance company that hires people as independent contractors rather than employees. I don’t love the job, but the flexibility it provides is vital to my way of life and pursuit of my central purpose. The arrangement is totally impersonal; nobody at the company that provides the work knows any of the workers; one pretty much just signs up, submits to a background check, and starts working. I recently got fired from the job for violating a company policy that I thought was unimportant. One you get fired, you can’t work through them again. However, there are several ways I could do the job again. One is to create an account using my dad’s identity with his permission and have him pay me the wages. The other is to get a new social security number by faking the theft of my own identity, (which I would do without stealing any money from anyone). Once I get a new social security number, I could create a new account and continue undetected. I don’t want to be dishonest, but I don’t want to change my way of life either. What are the moral and practical implications of what I’m considering?

My Answer, In Brief: It would be morally wrong and practically dangerous to attempt to regain your job by “cheating the system.” Instead, accept that you screwed up and find a new job.

Listen or Download:

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

Rapid Fire Questions

Questions:

  • What key qualities should a job seeker search for in prospective employers?
  • Why are zombie apocalypse movies and television shows so popular? Does the trend have any philosophical significance?
  • Is a person morally responsible for the actions that he performs under duress?
  • Where do you see yourself in five years, Diana?

Listen or Download:

  • Start Time: 51:44
  • Duration: 15:41
  • 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: 1:07:25


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

 

On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on the future of the United States, the value of vulnerability, cheating to get a job back, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 27 September 2015, in our live studio. If you can’t listen live, you’ll find the podcast on the episode’s archive page.

Note: This will be the final episode of Philosophy in Action Radio for the foreseeable future. For details, see: The Closure of Philosophy in Action.

This week’s questions are:

  • Question 1: The Future of the United States: Is the United States finished as a free country? Lately, I have seen a lot of people in my circles claim that the United States as a free country is dead and done, that tyranny advances each day and it’s not isolated, it’s everywhere. These are mostly reactions to articles reporting seeming home invasions by police, the FBI’s forensic hair match scandal, and other government abuses. The common claim is that the United States now has an inherently corrupt justice system where policemen can end the lives of citizens with impunity and get away with it. My inner skeptic makes me feel that, while this is evidence of a lot of bad things that shouldn’t be tolerated, the reaction itself seems disproportionate. While there are systemic problems, I have the impression that it is not all-pervasive and not hopeless. Then again, that could be also my inner optimist trying to tell myself that things are not as bad as they first appear. What is your take on the current climate of the United States? Do you think it is as finished as others claim it is? What kind of tools could you recommend for someone to use in gauging the state of the country more accurately?
  • Question 2: The Value of Vulnerability: Is vulnerability of value? In a recent blog post, you stated “…I’m opting for a ‘vulnerability through strength’ and ‘strength through vulnerability’ route…” Could you please explain this idea? Why is vulnerability something that should be cultivated in the first place? It doesn’t seem compatible with rational egoism, given that “vulnerability” and “weakness” are often used interchangeably.
  • Question 3: Cheating to Get a Job Back: Should I cheat the system to get my job back? For my main source of income, I work as a virtual call center agent through a freelance company that hires people as independent contractors rather than employees. I don’t love the job, but the flexibility it provides is vital to my way of life and pursuit of my central purpose. The arrangement is totally impersonal; nobody at the company that provides the work knows any of the workers; one pretty much just signs up, submits to a background check, and starts working. I recently got fired from the job for violating a company policy that I thought was unimportant. One you get fired, you can’t work through them again. However, there are several ways I could do the job again. One is to create an account using my dad’s identity with his permission and have him pay me the wages. The other is to get a new social security number by faking the theft of my own identity, (which I would do without stealing any money from anyone). Once I get a new social security number, I could create a new account and continue undetected. I don’t want to be dishonest, but I don’t want to change my way of life either. What are the moral and practical implications of what I’m considering?

After that, we’ll tackle some impromptu “Rapid Fire Questions.”

To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action’s Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat.

The podcast of this episode will be available shortly after the live broadcast here: Radio Archive: Q&A: The Future of America, Vulnerability, Cheating, and More. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:

I hope you join us for the live show or enjoy the podcast later. Also, please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics!

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

The Closure of Philosophy in Action

 Posted by on 23 September 2015 at 4:00 pm  Announcements
Sep 232015
 

After much reflection and agonizing, I’ve decided that I need to stop work on Philosophy in Action, at least for the foreseeable future.

My life has changed tremendously this past year, and I’ve changed too. I want to pursue a new career path, and I can’t do that effectively while working on Philosophy in Action. Moreover, I need a private life, and I cannot have that as a public intellectual talking about moral philosophy and its application to daily life. That’s not the whole story, but it’ll have to suffice for now.

I’ve loved my work with Philosophy in Action. I’m proud of the ways in which I untangled complex ideas and helped people live more conscious, principled, and happy lives. I’m proud of the ways that I’ve grown as an intellectual and a person through it. I’m sad to be leaving that work behind, as much as I know that that’s the right decision.

I’m so grateful to the people who’ve supported my work financially over the years. Quite literally, I couldn’t have done it without you. Many thanks to the many people who contributed to Philosophy in Action in other ways, including appearing for interviews, submitting questions, sharing links, and offering feedback.

Moreover, the show wouldn’t have been possible without the week-in, week-out contributions of Greg and Tammy Perkins, who helped me craft and deliver almost every Sunday Q&A for nearly five years. Paul Hsieh deserves a special mention and huge thanks too, of course: he was my intellectual partner, enthusiastic supporter, and silent benefactor for every episode. I would thank Arthur Zey for being my backup co-host as needed, but I know he enjoyed it too much to need that.

The six-year archive of podcasts and radio shows — 362 episodes in total — will remain freely available, and premium content (like Explore Atlas Shrugged) will remain available for sale. The tip jar will remain open too, for anyone who finds that podcast archive of sufficient value. If you wish you’d had contributed (or contributed more) over the years, it’s not too late!

I’m still open to the possibility of podcast series or writing projects under the auspices of Philosophy in Action at some point in the future. However, I don’t have any definite plans for that. Right now, I need a complete break to move forward with my life.

Some of my fans are likely to be surprised and dismayed by this announcement. That’s understandable; it’s even gratifying. In response, I’d love to hear what you most valued in the show — not just in general, but about particular questions that helped you navigate life better. That would mean so much to me, more than I can properly express here.

The last radio show will be broadcast on Sunday, September 27th at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET. I hope that the many fans of Philosophy in Action will join Greg and me for that live broadcast. It would be a special pleasure to see a large audience in the chat.

After that, I plan to withdraw from the very public online life that I’ve lead for so many years. Please be assured that I’m doing well, and I look forward to seeing many of you in person at ATLOSCon and elsewhere.

Thanks again to my fans and best wishes,

Diana Brickell (Hsieh) Philosophy in Action

Sep 152015
 

For Monday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I posted a podcast on “How to Be Principled about Election Politics.” That podcast is now available for streaming or downloading.

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


Podcast: 14 September 2015

As the 2012 election approached, many politically-active people were busy stumping for their preferred party and its candidates. Alas, too many became wrapped up in “party politics,” attacking the opposition as entirely without merit and ignoring the defects on their own side. They lost sight of what really matters – the principle of individual rights. The result was – and is – ever-worse violations of our rights by politicians of all stripes. It’s time for advocates of liberty to reverse that trend. This talk was given to Liberty on the Rocks Flatirons on 13 August 2012.

Listen or Download:

Topics:

  • Partisan politics
  • The nature and importance of rights
  • The basis of rights
  • Practical advice on elections

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.


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

Sep 072015
 

On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Arthur Zey and I answered questions on workplace diversity, accusations of date rape, evaluating romantic prospects, 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: 6 September 2015

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: 6 September 2015

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

Introduction

My News of the Week: Next Sunday, I’ll be having an awful blast in the Tough Mudder, so there won’t be a live broadcast.

Question 1: Workplace Diversity

Question: Is the lack of racial and sexual diversity in the workplace a problem? Lately, there have been a lot of discussions about the lack of diversity in the tech industry. I have been asked to fill out surveys indicating my gender and race, which I politely refuse to complete. I don’t see how my sex or the color of my skin impacts my work as an engineer. Some companies promote diversity statistics on their blog and claim that they’re working to improve workplace diversity. In late July, Pinterest posted a similar blog entry and went even further by explicitly setting goals to hire women and people of “underrepresented ethnic backgrounds.” Is this lack of diversity a problem in an industry? If so, what kinds of measures should be used to address it?

My Answer, In Brief: The standard approach to “diversity” in the workplace is wrong and destructive to companies and potential employees. The problem of implicit bias based on race and sex is real, but more subtle and honest measures than “diversity hiring” are required to overcome that.

Listen or Download:

Links:

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

Question 2: Accusations of Date Rape

Question: What’s the proper response to an accusation of date rape in the absence of hard evidence? When faced with this kind of serious accusation within a social group, what is the proper judgment and course of action? If the accuser seems believable, should the accused be shunned or banned from the group? Should private warnings be given to group members? Does refusing to engage in any public discussion of the matter constitute silent assent to the crime? Or should judgment and action be reserved until further evidence comes to light?

My Answer, In Brief: In cases of accusation of rape, you shouldn’t just believe the accuser or the accused, but gather as much information as you can, and see if you can come to a definitive or even tentative conclusion. Then, you can figure out who ought to warn.

Listen or Download:

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

Question 3: Evaluating Romantic Prospects

Question: How can I efficiently evaluate potential romantic prospects? When introduced to a person – or out on a first or second date – it’s often difficult to evaluate that person quickly and fairly as a potential romantic prospect. What should I look for? What questions should I ask? What kinds of qualities – moral and psychological – should I regard as particularly important, for better or worse?

My Answer, In Brief: By identifying what’s important to you – and seeking out that information – you can efficiently and effectively sort through romantic prospects to find the better ones.

Listen or Download:

Links:

To comment on this question or my answer, 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: 1:22:00


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

 

On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Arthur Zey and I will answer questions on workplace diversity, accusations of date rape, evaluating romantic prospects, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 6 September 2015, in our live studio. If you can’t listen live, you’ll find the podcast on the episode’s archive page.

This week’s questions are:

  • Question 1: Workplace Diversity: Is the lack of racial and sexual diversity in the workplace a problem? Lately, there have been a lot of discussions about the lack of diversity in the tech industry. I have been asked to fill out surveys indicating my gender and race, which I politely refuse to complete. I don’t see how my sex or the color of my skin impacts my work as an engineer. Some companies promote diversity statistics on their blog and claim that they’re working to improve workplace diversity. In late July, Pinterest posted a similar blog entry and went even further by explicitly setting goals to hire women and people of “underrepresented ethnic backgrounds.” Is this lack of diversity a problem in an industry? If so, what kinds of measures should be used to address it?
  • Question 2: Accusations of Date Rape: What’s the proper response to an accusation of date rape in the absence of hard evidence? When faced with this kind of serious accusation within a social group, what is the proper judgment and course of action? If the accuser seems believable, should the accused be shunned or banned from the group? Should private warnings be given to group members? Does refusing to engage in any public discussion of the matter constitute silent assent to the crime? Or should judgment and action be reserved until further evidence comes to light?
  • Question 3: Evaluating Romantic Prospects: How can I efficiently evaluate potential romantic prospects? When introduced to a person – or out on a first or second date – it’s often difficult to evaluate that person quickly and fairly as a potential romantic prospect. What should I look for? What questions should I ask? What kinds of qualities – moral and psychological – should I regard as particularly important, for better or worse?

After that, we’ll tackle some impromptu “Rapid Fire Questions.”

To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action’s Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat.

The podcast of this episode will be available shortly after the live broadcast here: Radio Archive: Q&A: Workplace Diversity, Date Rape, Dating Filters, and More. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:

I hope you join us for the live show or enjoy the podcast later. Also, please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics!

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

Sep 022015
 

This is belated notification of one of Forbes column from last month: “Free Speech 1, FDA 0“.

I discuss an update to my earlier Forbes piece on drug company Amarin’s fight to engage in free speech in the form of off-label marketing of one of its products.

Basically, Amarin wanted to give truthful medical information to doctors which would allow them to more effectively use one of their drugs in a way that was legal, but not FDA-approved. The FDA forbade Amarin from engaging in such speech, and Amarin sued the FDA.

Last week, Amarin won an important legal victory in federal court. Judge Paul Engelmayer came down firmly on the side of free speech.

For more details see the full text of, “Free Speech 1, FDA 0“.

(Earlier Forbes piece, “Drug Company Amarin Stands Up For Free Speech Against FDA“, 5/8/2015.)

 

My latest Forbes piece is now out: “The Positive Value of Negative Drug Trials“.

I discuss the unfortunate bias against publishing “negative” scientific results that show a drug doesn’t have much clinical benefit, and why it’s in the self-interest of drug companies to still report these.

In particular, I highlighted two interesting facts:

1) Most drug trial results are still not being reported to a central registry.

2) Negative results funded by private industry (e.g., pharmaceutical companies) are more likely to be reported than from government-funded research.

Fortunately, free market incentives are driving more drug companies towards full disclosure of both positive and negative study results — which will benefit patients.

For more details, read the full text of “The Positive Value of Negative Drug Trials“.

Aug 312015
 

On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I answered questions on impartialism in ethics, changing names with marriage, 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: 30 August 2015

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: 30 August 2015

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

Introduction

My News of the Week: Last weekend, I participated in really useful workshop on self-improvement in Atlanta. I got lots of ideas to bring to the show, and now there’s lots of reading that I want to do.

Question 1: Impartialism in Ethics

Question: Does ethics require impartiality? Critics of egoism, particularly utilitarians, accuse egoists of being biased in favor of oneself without justification. They assert that a scientific ethics must be neutral and impartial: it must take a third-person viewpoint where the self isn’t given any special consideration. Are the utilitarians wrong? If so, why should a scientific ethics bias the self over others?

My Answer, In Brief: Impartialism in ethics attempts to disconnect the good from the agent, and thereby oblige people to promote everyone’s good, not just their own. However, the arguments for that are weak, the results are appalling. Ethics should be partial – in the sense that ethics should promote the good of the agent – but they should be universal and benevolent too.

Listen or Download:

Links:

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

Question 2: Changing Names with Marriage

Question: Should I change my name when I marry? I’m a gay man who is engaged to be married. The question has come up about whether or not either of us would change our last name and historically we’ve said no. We have thought we would just maintain our given names. My fiance doesn’t want to change his name and we both think trying to hyphenate our last names would be unwieldy and fussy. But as we’ve talked about planning a family in the future, it’s occurred to me that I actually like the idea of sharing a name with my husband and my children. So, I’ve been considering changing my name. Somewhat ironically, however, changing my name means giving up a five-generation-old family name in order to take on the name of our new family. I don’t mind this irony very much since my decision would be about taking on a family I choose rather than one I didn’t. What do you think? What pros and cons do you see for changing your name at marriage? Do you see any additional pros or cons for gay men considering this question?

My Answer, In Brief: If you’re thinking of changing your name, be sure to do or not do it for good reasons!

Listen or Download:

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

Rapid Fire Questions

Questions:

  • On commissioning art, what about the morality of commissioning fanart of work not yet in public domain? Like a drawing of superman or a short story about Ragnar Danneskjold? (This would not be for publication, just for yourself.)
  • What is your opinion of the anthropic principle that “observations of the physical universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it”? Does it beg the question?
  • Are there any normative propositions that are axiomatic? – done?
  • What are oaths? Are they just romantic elements for fiction or real things that are useful some way?
  • Do you believe there are unconscious parts of the human mind? If so, what implications does this have for free will?
  • Are all people interdependent? What does that mean?
  • Benjamin Franklin wrote letters to his brother’s newspaper posing as a widow named Silence Dogood (the original “sock puppet account”). If you met Franklin in person, would you find him untrustworthy?

Listen or Download:

  • Start Time: 45:19
  • Duration: 17:05
  • 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: 1:02:24


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

 

On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on impartialism in ethics, changing names with marriage, accusations of date rape, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 30 August 2015, in our live studio. If you can’t listen live, you’ll find the podcast on the episode’s archive page.

This week’s questions are:

  • Question 1: Impartialism in Ethics: Does ethics require impartiality? Critics of egoism, particularly utilitarians, accuse egoists of being biased in favor of oneself without justification. They assert that a scientific ethics must be neutral and impartial: it must take a third-person viewpoint where the self isn’t given any special consideration. Are the utilitarians wrong? If so, why should a scientific ethics bias the self over others?
  • Question 2: Changing Names with Marriage: Should I change my name when I marry? I’m a gay man who is engaged to be married. The question has come up about whether or not either of us would change our last name and historically we’ve said no. We have just thought we would just maintain our given names. My fiance doesn’t want to change his name and we both think trying to hyphenate our last names would be unwieldy and fussy. But as we’ve talked about planning a family in the future, it’s occurred to me that I actually like the idea of sharing a name with my husband and my children. So, I’ve been considering changing my name. Somewhat ironically, however, changing my name means giving up a five-generation-old family name in order to take on the name of our new family. I don’t mind this irony very much since my decision would be about taking on a family I choose rather than one I don’t. What do you think? What pros and cons do you see for changing your name at marriage? Do you see any additional pros or cons for gay men considering this question?
  • Question 3: Accusations of Date Rape: What’s the proper response to an accusation of date rape in the absence of hard evidence? When faced with this kind of serious accusation within a social group, what is the proper judgment and course of action? If the victim seems believable, should the accused rapist be shunned or banned from the group? Should private warnings be given to group members? Does refusing to engage in any public discussion of the matter constitute silent assent to the crime? Or should judgment and action be reserved until further evidence comes to light?

After that, we’ll tackle some impromptu “Rapid Fire Questions.”

To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action’s Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat.

The podcast of this episode will be available shortly after the live broadcast here: Radio Archive: Q&A: Impartialist Ethics, Name Changes, Rape Accusations, and More. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:

I hope you join us for the live show or enjoy the podcast later. Also, please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics!

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