Free Speech for Corporations, Psychological Egoism, Socialist Professors, and More

Q&A Radio: 6 October 2013

I answered questions on free speech for corporations, psychological egoism, objecting to a professor's views, deduction from axioms, and more on 6 October 2013. Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers was my co-host. Listen to or download this episode of Philosophy in Action Radio below.

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.

My News of the Week: I've been in Atlanta, conducting a small, informal, and awesome personality theory workshop with friends.

Listen or Download

You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

Share This Episode

Segments: 6 October 2013

Question 1: Free Speech for Corporations

Question: Do corporations have free speech rights? Many leftists (including left-libertarians) are vehemently opposed to the "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision, which recognized that corporations have the right to speak in elections. Do corporations have rights? What would it mean for corporations not to have rights? Should corporations be considered "persons" under the law?

Answer, In Brief: Corporations are just groups of people organized in a corporate form — and they retain all the rights of those people, including the right to free speech.

Tags: Business, Corporations, Law, Politics

Listen or Download

Relevant Links


Question 2: Psychological Egoism

Question: Isn't every action selfish, ultimately? Unless coerced, people act however they deem best at that moment. Even if that action is harmful to themselves, aren't they acting selfishly, so as to satisfy their own desires? Even paragons of altruism act because they want to help people, please God, or save the environment: that's what makes them happy. So isn't true, deep-down altruism impossible?

Answer, In Brief: Psychological egoism is false: actions are motivated, but not always self-interested. Psychological egoism completely incompatible with ethical egoism – and false. (Note: I was wrong to claim that psychological egoism is deterministic.)

Tags: Altruism, Egoism, Ethics, Psychological Egoism, Self-Interest

Listen or Download

Relevant Links


Question 3: Objecting to a Professor's Views

Question: How strongly should a student object to a professor's objectionable views? I am a senior undergraduate in a liberal arts major at a public university. I'm currently taking a class with the bleak subject matter of genocide. My blatantly socialist teacher presents her views in discussions of the Armenian genocide, the "genocide" in Soviet Russia, and the Holocaust. Often, she ignores the role of religion and flawed socialist policies. Also, she blames greed and capitalism to an unreasonable degree for the woes of the aforementioned countries. How should I respond to these objectionable claims of hers? How much should I try to undermine her wrongheaded views?

Answer, In Brief: In all likelihood, you can approach this class such that you actually learn something – even if not about the topic, then perhaps about how to better understand and effectively argue against wrong views.

Tags: Academia, Education, Ethics, Respect

Listen or Download

Relevant Links


Question 4: Deduction from Axioms

Question: Is philosophy deduced from axioms? Often, I hear people claim that philosophy – particularly Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism – is deduced from axioms. Is that right? Personally, I don't see how that can be: How can anything be deduced from "existence exists"? But in that case, what's the purpose of the axioms?

Answer, In Brief: The axioms are not premises for deduction in philosophy. They are fundamental concepts, implicit in all awareness of existence.

Tags: Axioms, Epistemology, Ethics, Metaphysics, Politics, Proof, Religion

Listen or Download

Relevant Links


Rapid Fire Questions (58:08)

In this segment, I answered questions chosen at random by Greg Perkins impromptu. The questions were:
  • Did you correct the otherwise-good professor who mischaracterized the Objectivist ethics as psychological egoism?
  • Should children always be expected to address adults (such as teachers or friends of their parents) in a formal way--Mr., Mrs., etc.? When in doubt, should the default be formal over informal?
  • What is your opinion of punkin' chunkin'?

Listen or Download


Conclusion (1:12:58)

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

The vast majority of Philosophy in Action Radio – the live show and the podcast – is available to anyone, free of charge. That's because my mission is to spread rational principles for real life far and wide, as I do every week to thousands of listeners. I love producing the show, but each episode requires requires the investment of time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value my work, please contribute to the tip jar. I suggest $5 per episode or $20 per month, but any amount is appreciated. In return, regular contributors enjoy free access to my premium content.


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

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 Brickell. 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 and Kindle. 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 most Sunday mornings and some 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 discuss 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

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