Gut Feelings, Emotional Affairs, Pirating Music, and More
Webcast Q&A: Sunday, 6 February 2011
I answered questions on relying on gut feelings, friendship versus emotional affairs, desires and infidelity, the morality of pirating music, the supererogatory, the morality of eating bread, and more for Philosophy in Action Radio on Sunday, 6 February 2011. Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers was my co-host. Listen to or download the podcast below.
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. We love doing that, but each episode requires our time, effort, and money. 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 appreciated. You can send your contribution via Dwolla, PayPal, or US Mail.
- Duration: 1:01:15
You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:
Segments: 6 February 2011
Question: Is it ever rational to rely on a "gut" feeling? More than once I have dismissed feelings that a person is not trustworthy, if I couldn't find a rational basis for them. Every time my initial instinct was proven to be accurate. Is it possible that I'm picking up on something that I can't consciously identify?
Answer, In Brief: Gut feelings can be accurate, but that doesn't mean that they should be trusted. So you should pay attention to your emotions, seek to understand them, then always act on your best rational judgment.
Question: What's the difference between a close friendship and an "emotional affair"? Where do you draw the line between them? What's the essential wrong of emotional affairs, if any?
Answer, In Brief: Friendships are a compliment to romantic relationships, whereas an emotional affair acts as a replacement for the psychological intimacy of a romantic relationship.
Question: Is there a fundamental/substantial difference between seriously wanting to have sex with someone other than your significant other and actually doing it? Should a person not act on such desires solely in order to be monogamous? Isn't that still like cheating? (Read the full question.)
Answer, In Brief: A person is morally responsible for his actions, as well as for his cultivated desires and thoughts, but not for uncultivated or unbidden thoughts and desires. Moreover, monogamy is not a duty or intrinsic value, but a means to greater focus and intimacy. If it's value isn't apparent, then experiment with an open relationship – but only with the consent of all parties.
Question: Is pirating music immoral? Why or why not? In one way I think it must be immoral because it involves gaining the unearned, but there have been (granted I know little of the music industry) many claims that illegal file sharing has actually been good for the music industry in a number of ways. There have also been arguments that it is not technically theft because it involves copying information instead of physically taking it from the owner i.e. the original owner (and creator) has not lost the music even after you have copied it, but this argument seems shoddy by its concrete bound concept of theft and ownership. Simply put, to me, it feels immoral, but I have trouble conceptualizing exactly why.
Answer, In Brief: As Adam Mossoff persuasively argues, all property is fundamentally intellectual property. So, contrary to the spurious arguments found in the question, the reason to respect intellectual property is the same as the reason to respect tangible property, namely that the mind is the source of all value.
Question 5: The Supererogatory (44:20)
Question: Does the moral concept of 'supererogatory' have any place in an egoistic ethics? Recently, I stumbled on the concept of 'supererogatory' moral actions – i.e. actions that are morally praiseworthy but which, if one did not perform them, one would not be morally blameworthy. Any validity to this concept from the perspective of the Objectivist ethics?
Answer, In Brief: The concept of "supererogatory" is derived from a duty-based ethics. It's an example of why we should be cautious in our use of concepts, as often they come with baggage.
Question: Since eating wheat is purported to be unhealthy due to gluten (and other stuff), is it immoral to eat bread? (Analogous to smoking being purportedly bad for you.) Since one has to eat something, it would be better to ask, "Is eating bread immoral when other food sources are available?"
Answer, In Brief: Health is not an optional value, but a person's diet cannot be a moral issue absent some evasion.
Thank you for joining us for this episode of Philosophy in Action Radio! If you enjoyed this episode, please contribute to contribute to our tip jar.
Support Philosophy in Action
Philosophy in Action Radio – the live show and the podcast – 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. We love producing every episode, but each requires requires the investment of our time, effort, and money. 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 appreciated.
You can contribute online via Dwolla or PayPal. Or you can send a check or money order via the US Mail, including with your bank's bill pay service. You can easily create recurring contributions with any of those methods of payment. If you want to pay by some other method, choose "Other" below and explain in the comments. I recommend using Dwolla: it's a payment system with lower fees, stronger security, and better interface design than PayPal. A Dwolla account is free and easy to create.
Once you submit this form, you'll be automatically redirected to a page for payment. If you have any questions or further comments, please email me at email@example.com.
Thank you for contributing to Philosophy in Action! You make our work possible every week, and we're so grateful for that!
If you enjoy Philosophy in Action, please help us spread the word about it! Tell your friends about upcoming broadcasts by forwarding our newsletter. Link to episodes or segments from our topics archive. Share our blog posts, podcasts, and events on Facebook and Twitter. Rate and review the podcast in iTunes (M4A and MP3). We appreciate any and all of that!
About Philosophy in Action
I'm Dr. Diana Hsieh. I'm a philosopher specializing the application of rational principles to the challenges of real life. I received my Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Colorado at Boulder in 2009. My book, Responsibility & Luck: A Defense of Praise and Blame, is available for purchase in paperback, as well as for Kindle and Nook. The book defends the justice of moral praise and blame of persons using an Aristotelian theory of moral responsibility, thereby refuting Thomas Nagel's "problem of moral luck."
My radio show, Philosophy in Action Radio, broadcasts live over the internet on Sunday mornings and most Wednesday evenings. On Sunday mornings, I answer questions applying rational principles to the challenges of real life in a live hour-long show. Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers co-hosts the show. On Wednesday evenings, I interview an expert guest about a topic of interest.
If you join us for the live broadcasts, you can ask follow-up questions and make comments in the text-based chat. Otherwise, you can listen to the podcast by subscribing to our Podcast RSS Feed. You can also peruse the podcast archive, where episodes and questions are sorted by date and by topic.
I can be reached via e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org.