Social Contract, Excusing Wrongs, President Obama, and More

Q&A Radio: 28 July 2013

I answered questions on social contract theory, romanticizing historical figures in art, mental illness as an excuse for wrongdoing, fervent hatred for President Obama, and more for Philosophy in Action Radio on 28 July 2013. 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.

My News of the Week: Kelly Elmore, Aaron, and Livy are here! I got Philosophy in Action's channel set up on Libsyn, the new podcast host. Also, the updated RSS feeds are now in play!

Listen Now

  • Duration: 1:07:51

Download the Episode

To save the file to your computer, right-click and save the link:
You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

Share This Episode


Segments: 28 July 2013


Question 1: Social Contract Theory (2:19)

Question: Is a "social contract" the proper basis for government? The idea of a "social contract" is often used to justify all kinds of government interventions for the so-called "greater good." What does it mean to say that society is founded on a social contract? What are the practical implications of that approach to politics? Was John Locke a proponent of this view?

Answer, In Brief: Social contract theory is an attempt to justify basic political principles and government based on (usually) a tacit or hypothetical agreement between all members of the society. It's thoroughly subjective, so it's simply a recipe for violations of rights.

Tags: Government, John Rawls, Law, Meta-Politics, Politics, Social Contract Theory, Thomas Hobbes

Listen or Download

Relevant Links

Comments


Question 2: Romanticizing Historical Figures in Art (16:03)

Question: Are there moral limits to romanticizing historical figures in art? For example, a writer might romanticize Robin Hood as the Ragnar Danneskjöld of the Middle Ages. If this is proper, is there an ethical limit as to what kinds of persons one may or may not romanticize, or as to how far one may stretch the historic truth? For example, does it matter if there are still contemporaries of that historic person alive who suffered unjustly because of him? Would it be wrong to ignore some unpleasant facts in order to present a fictionalized heroic character?

Answer, In Brief: The basic facts and moral nature of any historical figure should be respected, although rough edges might be smoothed away to create a more consistent character in literature. Inventions should not be represented as historical fact.

Tags: Art, Ethics, History, Honesty, Justice, Literature

Listen or Download

Relevant Links

Comments


Question 3: Mental Illness as an Excuse for Wrongdoing (30:09)

Question: Does mental illness excuse wrong behavior? Recently, a friend of mine apologized for making hurtful and unfair comments to me. (It's not the first time she's done that.) She said that she's been struggling with depression, and she's now on anti-depressants and in therapy. I'm not sure how to take that. I feel for her, yet I also feel like I'm being manipulated into overlooking her bad behavior because she's "sick." How should struggles with mental illness figure into explanations and apologies for wrong behavior – if at all?

Answer, In Brief: A person can struggle with mental dysfunctions in an honest and honorable way, without inflicting harm on others. That's to be commended, but keep your distance from people who use such as a crutch and an excuse.

Tags: Communication, Ethics, Friendship, Judgment, Manipulation, Mental Illness, Moral Wrongs, Relationships

Listen or Download

Relevant Links

Comments


Question 4: Fervent Hatred for President Obama (44:01)

Question: How should I respond to friends who fanatically hate President Obama? As a free-market advocate, I'm distressed about President Obama's policies. However, I'm increasingly worried about some of my friends in the free-market movement exhibiting an alarming level of hatred for President Obama. I have seen my friends latch on to every "juicy"-sounding accusation against the President, which they spread all over Facebook, such as spurious claims that the administration violently threatened Bob Woodward, or that the President conspires to grant himself a third term. I think a reasonable discourse on Obama's faults is necessary, but the conspiracy theories and outright hatred cloud people's judgments. I want to ask my pro-free-market, Obama-hating friends that they not bring up their dubious accusations in conversation, but I don't know how to do that without offending them. Is there a solution to this dilemma?

Answer, In Brief: Many people hate Obama in a very non-objective way, and that is discreditable to the cause of liberty and it can be socially awkward. The key is to ask such people to respect your boundaries – and add distance between yourself and them if they refuse.

Tags: Activism, Barack Obama, Emotions, Objectivity, Politics

Listen or Download

Relevant Links

Comments


Rapid Fire Questions (59:04)

In this segment, I answered questions chosen at random by Greg Perkins impromptu. The questions were:
  • Many commonly used positive adjectives (e.g. fabulous, fantastic, miraculous) have mystical undertones; should rational people avoid using such words?
  • Is there something wrong with the Turing Test? What made me think of it is knowing several people who I think wouldn't be able to pass it.
  • You've stated before that you're a GTD fan. What does your GTD implementation look like? How do you execute GTD?
  • Has Aristotle been marginalized? When I was in high school the only things I came across about him were the silly parts of his cosmology.

Listen or Download

Comments


Conclusion (1:05:48)

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.

Name:
Email:
Tip Amount:
Payment Method:
Payment recurrence:
Comments/Questions:
I'd love to hear what work of mine inspired your generosity in these comments. I want to know what my fans enjoy most, so that I can do that more!
 

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 diana@philosophyinaction.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 in 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 Thursday 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 Thursday evenings, I interview an expert guest or chat 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.

For regular commentary, announcement, and humor, read my blog NoodleFood and subscribe to its Blog RSS Feed. Be sure to sign up for my newsletter and connect on social media too.

I can be reached via e-mail to diana@philosophyinaction.com.

Philosophy in Action's NewsletterPhilosophy in Action's Facebook PagePhilosophy in Action's Twitter StreamPhilosophy in Action's RSS FeedsPhilosophy in Action's Calendar