Webcast Q&A: Sunday, 12 June 2011
In the live broadcast of Philosophy in Action Radio on Sunday, 12 June 2011, I answered questions on proper reliance on experts, the evil of immanuel kant, responding to expressions of hatred for work, the morality of exploiting flaws in government lotteries, appropriating insulting terms, dismissing arguments with pejorative language, and more. Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers was my co-host.
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 producing every episode, but each requires requires our time, effort, and money – week in and week out. 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: I've working on upgrades to the webcast, getting my health in order, and reading the wonderfully absorbing dystopia The Hunger Games.
Listen Now 
- Duration: 1:00:11
Download the Episode
- Download: Enhanced M4A File (28.9 MB)
- Download: Standard MP3 File (28.1 MB)
To automatically download new podcast episodes to your computer, subscribe to the podcast feed of Philosophy in Action:
- Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader
- Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader
Share This Episode
Segments: 12 June 2011
Question 1: Proper Reliance on Experts (5:09)
Question: What role should experts play in our decision-making? Specifically, should a person defer to experts in fields where he's not well-informed? What if he's only partially knowledgeable? Should experts expect such deference? Does it matter whether the field is philosophy, plumbing, diet, or something else?
Answer, In Brief: We can and ought to make use of experts when our own knowledge is lacking. However, we shouldn't ever defer to them but rather keep an active mind, acting as traders in knowledge.
Tags: Epistemology, Expertise, Independence
Listen or Download 
Comments
Question 2: The Evil of Immanuel Kant (23:14)
Question: Was Immanuel Kant evil rather than just wrong – and if so, why and how? I understand that Kant's ideas are very wrong, even evil. But couldn't he have been honestly mistaken, perhaps not taking his own work seriously? Given that he never advocated or did anything even remotely comparable to Hitler's genocide, why should he be regarded as evil, if at all?
Answer, In Brief: Kant's philosophy cannot be the result of honest errors, and he did know, or ought to have known, of its destructive power. Hence, he should be regarded as evil, not merely mistaken.
Tags: Ethics, Judgment, Justice, Kant, Metaphysics, Philosophy
Listen or Download
Relevant Links
Comments
Question 3: Responding to Expressions of Hatred for Work (38:02)
Question: How should I respond when people disparage their work? Often, people make comments about the great burden that work is – not in the sense that they're unhappy with some problem in their current job, but that they resent the need to work at all. These are the kinds of people who live for weekends and vacations. I don't feel that way about my work, and I think these people are missing so much in life. How can I respond to such casual remarks in a way that might make the person re-think their attitude?
Answer, In Brief: People often adopt such an attitude toward their work without thinking, and often just stating your own disagreement can shock people into rethinking what work might and ought to be.
Tags: Communication, Emotions, Ethics, Moral Wrongs, Productiveness, Work
Listen or Download
Watch Now
Comments
Question 4: The Morality of Exploiting Flaws in Government Lotteries (41:56)
Question: Is it moral to exploit a design flaw in a government or private lottery? An article in Wired describes how a statistician noticed a design flaw in the Ontario government lottery "scratchers" game which would allow people to consistently win money. He was described as being "ethical" because he alerted the authorities rather than taking advantage of it for personal gain, and they fixed the problem. Would it be moral to exploit a mathematical flaw in a government lottery without alerting anyone? Would it make a difference if the game was the work of a private casino rather than the government (e.g., exploiting a bias in a casino's roulette wheel)?
Answer, In Brief: So long as you're playing by the rules, you're not cheating. However, you don't want to adopt the mindset of a cheater, nor harm yourself in some other way by exploiting this weakness.
Tags: Arbitrage, Ethics, Honesty, Integrity, Responsibility
Listen or Download
Comments
Question 5: Appropriating Insulting Terms (52:19)
Question: What do you think of people using pejorative terms for themselves, such as gays referring to themselves as "faggots" or Objectivists calling themselves "Randroids"? The term "Randroid" is supposed to imply that Objectivists are unthinking, mindless drones. However, I happily use this term to describe myself – after first calling myself an Objectivist, of course – because I think it squashes a lot of the negativity behind the pejorative when I adopt it willingly. Do you think it's for good Objectivists to adopt this term – and more generally, for people to use insults as badges of honor?
Answer, In Brief: To use insults ironically among people who understand the joke is unproblematic, but to simply describe oneself in insulting terms does not combat the insult but sanctions it – or demands a double standard.
Tags: Communication, Culture, Epistemology, GLBT, Justice, Language, Race
Listen or Download
Comments
Question 6: Dismissing Arguments with Pejorative Language (56:35)
Question: Is pejorative rhetoric useful? When should you or when may you describe someone's argument or analysis in pejorative terms, because you don't consider them intellectually honest or educable, and you just want to make it clear to the wider audience that you don't accept them as a worthwhile opponent? Is it acceptable to just vent in such cases?
Answer, In Brief: A person should never just vent, and if you do, you're likely to look like the dishonest jerk unworthy of civilized discussion.
Tags: Communication, Epistemology, Ethics, Language
Listen or Download
Comments
Conclusion (1:00:11)
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
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 producing every episode, but each requires requires our time, effort, and money – week in and week out. 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.
Thank you, if you've contributed 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 Radio
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 dissertation defended moral responsibility and moral judgment against the doubts raised by Thomas Nagel's "problem of moral luck."
My radio show, Philosophy in Action Radio, broadcasts live over the internet on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. On Sunday mornings, I answer four meaty 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 practical importance.
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 show archives, where episodes and questions are sorted by date and by topic.
For regular updates, commentary, and humor, read my blog NoodleFood and subscribe to its Blog RSS Feed. Be sure to sign up for our newsletter and connect on social media too.
I can be reached via e-mail to [email protected].
Copyright Diana Hsieh | Web | Email | Twitter | Facebook