Radio Q&A: Sunday, 18 November 2012
In the live broadcast of Philosophy in Action Radio on Sunday, 18 November 2012, I answered questions on adopting ideas by default, griping versus moral judgment, veganism as child abuse, sharing lecture notes, 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 been working on updates to NoodleFood, plus preparing my dissertation for publication!
Listen Now 
- Duration: 1:12:52
Download the Episode
- Download: Enhanced M4A File (17.7 MB)
- Download: Standard MP3 File (16.7 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: 18 November 2012
Question 1: Adopting Ideas by Default (2:45)
Question: Should a person allow his ideology to set his default positions? When people adopt a religion, philosophy, or politics as their own, they often don't think through every issue - or they've not done so yet. Does accepting the various positions of that ideology as a kind of default amount to accepting them on faith? What should a person do when he hasn't thought through the issue for himself?
Answer, In Brief: A person should not swallow any ideology whole. He should judge for himself on matters of importance, and he needs to differentiate what he knows first-hand from merely provisional and plausible claims.
Tags: Conservatism, Epistemology, Ethics, Honesty, Independence, Paleo, Philosophy, Psycho-Epistemology, Rationalism, Rationality
Listen or Download 
Relevant Links
Comments
Question 2: Griping Versus Moral Judgment (22:57)
Question: What's the difference between griping about people and morally judging them? I try to be careful in my moral judgments of others, and then act accordingly. However, most people don't seem to do that: they bitch about other people out of annoyance, but then do nothing to solve their problems. What's wrong with such bitching? How can I explain my objections to such bitching in a friendly way? How can I avoid being bitched-to or bitched-about?
Answer, In Brief: For a person to merely gripe about serious moral failings in others but then maintain the relationship as before is wrong. Yet it's far worse to bandy about serious but unwarranted moral accusations out of momentary annoyance or spite.
Tags: Communication, Ethics, Justice, Relationships
Listen or Download
Comments
Question 3: Veganism as Child Abuse (39:19)
Question: Should it be considered child abuse to feed a child a vegan diet? Most experts agree that children need some of the nutrients found in meat and dairy products to develop properly. I've read lots of stories about children whose development is impaired or stunted due to being fed a vegan diet. Should it be considered child abuse to feed a child a strict vegan diet? If so, at which point should the state intervene and take legal recourse against the parents?
Answer, In Brief: Child abuse requires that parents inflict serious and lasting harm on the child that impairs its capacity to develop into healthy, independent, autonomous adult. A vegan diet might do that – in which case the state should intervene. Or it might be perfectly fine – in which case the state should leave the parents and child alone.
Tags: Child Abuse, Children, Free Society, Health, Law, Nutrition, Parenting, Rights
Listen or Download
Relevant Links
Comments
Question 4: Sharing Lecture Notes (49:22)
Question: Is it wrong to refuse to share lecture notes with a lazy student? A classmate of mine is nice enough but a bit odd. She's always at least 30 minutes late for lecture, and she doesn't come to lab sometimes. In lecture, she does not take notes but instead usually draws the whole class period. Today, she asked to borrow some of my lecture notes. I told her that I noticed that she was always late and that she didn't take notes, and she denied that. Still, I told her that lending her my notes would be inconvenient, then I suggested that she ask someone else. Normally, I'd be happy to share my notes, but in this case, I didn't want to share the results of my efforts in attending this class on time, every day, and paying attention. Was that wrong?
Answer, In Brief: To offer notes to a fellow student is often generous and proper, if it's not too much trouble. However, in this case, the student was not merely lazy but also dishonest, so sharing your notes would have been wrong.
Tags: Communication, Culture, Education, Ethics, Free Society, Generosity, Honesty, Moral Wrongs, Responsibility
Listen or Download
Comments
Rapid Fire Questions (1:00:59)
- I have Bipolar Disorder. When is a good time in a new romantic relationship to inform the other person of that?
- What lesson did the Republicans learn from Romney's defeat?
- Should a sensitive person learn to take criticism well? Why and how?
Listen or Download
Comments
Conclusion (1:11:28)
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