Webcast Q&A: Sunday, 26 February 2012
In the live broadcast of Philosophy in Action Radio on Sunday, 26 February 2012, I answered questions on consent in sex, terminating online versus in-person acquaintances, compensating the victims of your negligence, the meaning of faith, 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: This week, Trey was visiting, but mostly I've ben sick. I'm also working on moving NoodleFood to Philosophy in Action – and from Blogger to WordPress.
Listen Now 
- Duration: 1:15:06
Download the Episode
- Download: Enhanced M4A File (18.2 MB)
- Download: Standard MP3 File (17.2 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: 26 February 2012
Question 1: Consent in Sex (3:39)
Question: What constitutes consent in sex? Can a person give tacit consent by his or her actions? Is explicit consent required for some sex acts? Once consent has been given, when and how can a person withdraw that consent? Does the legal perspective on these questions differ from the moral perspective?
Answer, In Brief: To consent to sex requires communicating a willingness engaging in the act, whether by word or deed. Consent can be withdrawn at any point, and for the other person to ignore that constitutes sexual assault.
Tags: Consent, Crime, Dating, Ethics, Law, Relationships, Rights, Romance, Sex
Listen or Download 
Watch Now
Relevant Links
Comments
Question 2: Terminating Online Versus In-Person Acquaintances (45:34)
Question: What's the proper threshold for cutting off a digital versus in-person acquaintance? Morally, when it is wrong to end your friendly interactions with an in-person acquaintance? And when is it wrong not to do so? Does the answer differ for a digital acquaintance – meaning, for example, someone that you know only via Facebook?
Answer, In Brief: No hard and fast rules can apply here, simply because the nature of online and in-person relationships varies so much. However, every person ought to make sure that his relationships, whether primarily online, in-person, or a mixture of both, serve his purposes well.
Tags: Conflict, Friendship, Internet, Relationships
Listen or Download
Relevant Links
Comments
Question 3: Compensating the Victims of Your Negligence (51:48)
Question: What should you do for a person that you injured in a car accident that was your fault? Does a person have moral obligations – over and above any legal obligations – to the victim, since the accident was due to your own carelessness or mistake?
Answer, In Brief: If you've harmed someone by your negligence, your moral and legal obligation is to make them whole by compensating them for the harm you've caused.
Tags: Ethics, Law, Negligence
Listen or Download
Comments
Question 4: The Meaning of Faith (54:44)
Question: Is it wrong to use "faith" to mean "trust and confidence in a person"? Some people talk about having "faith" in their friends or in themselves – and by that, they mean that they trust and have confidence in those people. Is it wrong to use "faith" in that way? In other words, blind faith is wrong, but is all faith blind faith?
Answer, In Brief: The term "faith," when used to refer to trust or confidence in a person, suggests that such is not justified or warranted based on facts. That's why I avoid the term, and I suggest that others do the same. However, a person is not corrupt for using it.
Tags: Atheism, Epistemology, Faith, Language, Religion
Listen or Download
Watch Now
Comments
Rapid Fire Questions (1:07:59)
- Is a person rationally considered "male" or "female" based upon: (a) their genitals or other anatomical parts of their body which are involved in sexual reproduction, or (b) or their emotional and psychological wishes to be a man or a woman?Should states have referendums on gay marriage?
- Has social media or technology changed how people engage each other for sex?
- Has social media or technology changed how people engage each other for sex?
- Should states have referendums on gay marriage?
Listen or Download
Comments
Conclusion (1:13:59)
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