I broadcast a new episode of Philosophy in Action Radio on Sunday, 16 December 2012, answering questions on right to work laws, deception in a crisis, philosophy versus psychology, the value of gift exchanges, and more. Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers was the episode’s co-host.

If you missed the live broadcast, you can listen to the audio podcast (or segments thereof) any time. You’ll find the podcast on the episode’s archive page, as well as below.

To automatically download every new episode, just subscribe to the Philosophy in Action Podcast RSS Feed in your music player:

The Whole Episode: 16 December 2012

My News of the Week: I’ve made good progress on preparing my dissertation for publication, including getting a proper headshot done. Of course, I’m still dealing with the multiple leaks, mold, and rotting wood Chez Hsieh.

Listen or Download:

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

Question 1: Right to Work Laws (4:15)

In this segment, I answered a question on right to work laws.

Do “right to work” laws violate or protect rights? Some states are attempting to pass “right to work” laws, despite massive union opposition. Under such laws, employers cannot require employees to be a member of a union – as often happens due to federal law. These laws aim to empower employees against unwelcome unions. Are these laws legitimate – perhaps as defense against unjust federal law or a step toward freedom of contract? Or are they indefensible because they violate the rights of employers to dictate the terms of employment?

My Answer, In Brief: Right to Work Laws sound like an excellent way to combat the coercive powers granted to unions by federal law. Yet in fact, one rights violation cannot be fixed by another rights violation. Even worse, such laws will help entrench the dangerous principle that employment terms can be overridden by freedom of conscience.

Listen or Download:

Tags: Activism, Business, Contracts, Ethics, Free Society, Government, History, Law, Rights, Unions, Work

Relevant Links:

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

Question 2: Deception in a Crisis (30:05)

In this segment, I answered a question on deception in a crisis.

Is it moral to deceive to someone to help him through a crisis? Imagine that a man is about to break up with his girlfriend (or divorce his wife), but then he discovers that she has a serious disease or she suffers a serious accident. Is it moral for him to help her through the crisis under the false pretense of a stable, loving relationship? (What if that would take months of deception?) Or should the man be frank with the woman as soon as possible about parting ways, perhaps only offering help as a friend, if that? Would that be cruel?

My Answer, In Brief: A person might reasonably delay a break-up for a week or two during a crisis, but to pretend to be the devoted boyfriend is destructive to him and her.

Listen or Download:

Tags: Character, Communication, Emergencies, Ethics, Honesty, Relationships, Romance

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

Question 3: Philosophy Versus Psychology (39:45)

In this segment, I answered a question on philosophy versus psychology.

What’s the proper distinction between philosophy and psychology? Given that psychology concerns the mind, I don’t see how to clearly distinguish it from philosophy. For example, when would emotions be a philosophic concern versus a psychological concern? In other words, where is the dividing line between philosophy and psychology? Can they be separated?

My Answer, In Brief: Philosophy differs from psychology in that philosophy is primarily concerned with the mind’s conscious mental processes, while psychology is more focused on subconscious processes and their effect on conscious processes.

Listen or Download:

Tags: Emotions, Mind, Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Subconscious

Relevant Links:

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

Question 4: The Value of Gift Exchanges (53:42)

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

What is the purpose of exchanging gifts during the holidays? To me, gift exchanges seem meaningless: they’re a waste of time and money. What am I missing?

My Answer, In Brief: The practicing of gift exchange can be deeply meaningful, as a way of revealing your knowledge and affection for another person, as well as integrating your lives. If instead you’re feeling burdened and unseen, then it’s time to change your practices.

Listen or Download:

Tags: Communication, Family, Gifts, Holidays, Honesty, Psychological Visibility, Relationships

Relevant Links:

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

Rapid Fire Questions (1:05:10)

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

  • What do you think about the debates about gun control spawned by Friday’s shooting about the Connecticut elementary school?
  • What do you think about Elf on the Shelf?
Listen or Download:

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

Conclusion (1:09:14)

Thank you for joining us for this episode! Support
Our Work
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. 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 welcome. You can send your contribution via Dwolla, PayPal, or US Mail.

Philosophy in Action

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. Be sure to follow Philosopy in Action via our blog, RSS feeds, and Facebook too.

Philosophy in Action's NewsletterPhilosophy in Action's Facebook PagePhilosophy in Action's Twitter StreamPhilosophy in Action's RSS FeedPhilosophy in Action's YouTube Channel

  • JP

    I keep wondering what people are talking about when they say this about RTW laws. In Florida, for example, our state constitution, Article 1 Section 6, reads:

    “Right to work.β€”The right of persons to work shall not be denied or abridged on account of membership or non-membership in any labor union or labor organization. The right of employees, by and through a labor organization, to bargain collectively shall not be denied or abridged. Public employees shall not have the right to strike.”

    The only plausible rights-abrogating clause I see here is the last one; but I actually don’t agree with the notion that public-sector employees have the right to strike. That’s not why you pick government work. Nothing stops them from quitting, of course, if they are unhappy, but they shouldn’t be able to go on strike so long as their wages are paid by taxes as far as I’m concerned.

    I haven’t listened to this podcast yet, so maybe you answer this in it. And maybe you are referring to RTW laws in other states, not specifically Florida. But I really don’t see why this isn’t at least a good stopgap measure against closed-shop states, which are a far worse violation of rights (to the extent that RTW is a violation at all).

    • http://www.philosophyinaction.com/ Diana Hsieh

      That provision does violate rights — because employers should be able to demand union membership (or anything else) as a condition of employment. I explain more in the podcast, so have a listen!

   
Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha