Radio Q&A: Sunday, 26 August 2012
In the live broadcast of Philosophy in Action Radio on Sunday, 26 August 2012, I answered questions on voting for third-party candidates, self-interest in parenting, bigotry against religion, 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 moving content from DianaHsieh.com to PhilosophyInAction.com, preparing docs for campaign finance litigation, and radically revising OmniFocus after my interview with Andrew Miner.
Listen Now 
- Duration: 1:11:54
Download the Episode
- Download: Enhanced M4A File (17.4 MB)
- Download: Standard MP3 File (16.5 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 August 2012
Question 1: Voting for Third-Party Candidates (5:42)
Question: Is it moral or practical to vote for third-party candidates? The Founders created a two-party political system. With features like geographic representation, first-past-the-post voting for Congress, and the Electoral College for voting for President, the Founders clearly wanted parties consisting of large umbrella groups of wide geographic and ideological interests. As a result, the United States has always had two and only two dominant political parties. Corrupt election laws, passed by these parties, now guarantee that except in rare instances (such as Jesse Ventura, of all people) only members of these two parties can be elected to office. Given these facts, what is the purpose of voting for third party candidates? Unlike the two major umbrella parties, all third parties are composed of ideological kooks of many persuasions. Isn't a vote for a third party candidate thus immoral (for supporting kookdom) and impractical (since they can't win)? Wouldn't it be better to try to improve the two existing parties, or not vote at all?
Answer, In Brief: (1) The Founders did not create a two-party system by design. (2) Voting is the least significant political act you can do, albeit still worthwhile. (3) Fiscal conservatives need to be willing to refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils if they want better candidates. (4) A good candidate from a third party is often a worthwhile protest vote. (5) I don't yet know how I'll vote, although I'm most likely to vote for Gary Johnson. (6) Acrimony over voting is wrong, pointless, and destructive.
Tags: Elections, Politics, Rights, Voting
Listen or Download 
Relevant Links
Comments
Question 2: Self-Interest in Parenting (44:12)
Question: Are my interests as a parent always aligned with the interests of my child? I have a two-month-old daughter. She is of great value to me, so to protect and provide for her is in my self-interest. However, might our interests sometimes diverge? If so, should I give priority to her interests or mine?
Answer, In Brief: The objective interests of parents and children do not clash in the long run: neither parent nor child benefits from sacrifices. However, the difficulty lies in giving up unrealistic ideals to find reasonable win-win solutions.
Tags: Children, Egoism, Ethics, Parenting
Listen or Download
Comments
Question 3: Bigotry Against Religion (54:11)
Question: Is criticism of and opposition to religion a form of bigotry? In its entry on bigotry, Wikipedia claims that a "bigot" is "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who exhibits intolerance and animosity toward members of a group," and that "bigotry may be directed towards those of a differing sex or sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, nationality, region, language, religious or spiritual belief, political alignment, age, economic status or medical disability." I hear the charge of bigotry bandied about, often reflexively, particularly by theists when atheists criticize their faith-based beliefs as irrational. Is open criticism of and disrespect for religion a form of bigotry? Or is "bigotry" a loaded concept to be used by anyone whose belief system is critically challenged?
Answer, In Brief: Bigotry is not holding fast to an unpopular opinion, but rather unjustly attacking people solely due to being members of some group. Criticisms of religion – and of religious advocates and adherents – so long as they stick to the facts (including about people as individuals) are not bigotry.
Tags: Atheism, Racism, Religion
Listen or Download
Relevant Links
Comments
Rapid Fire Questions (1:05:31)
- What is the best way to ask someone to re-friend you after they've de-friended you?
- Is it immoral to attend a Christian University as an atheist if it has exceptional academic excellence in my field of interest?
Listen or Download
Comments
Conclusion (1:09:34)
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