As you know, on Sunday morning’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I answer four questions chosen in advance from the Question Queue. Here are the most recent additions to that queue. Please vote for the ones that you’re most interested in hearing me answer! You can also review and vote on all pending questions sorted by date or sorted by popularity.

Also, I’m perfectly willing to be bribed to answer a question of particular interest to you pronto. So if you’re a regular contributor to Philosophy in Action’s Tip Jar, I can answer your desired question as soon as possible. The question must already be in the queue, so if you’ve not done so already, please submit it. Then just e-mail me at [email protected] to make your request.

Now, without further ado, the most recent questions added to The Queue:

Are egoism and altruism mutually exclusive?

Most people have a common-sense view of ethics. They think that a person should spend lots of time pursuing his own goals and happiness. They also think that a person should sometimes set aside such pursuits to help others. Basically, on this view, a person can be an egoist and an altruist. Yet I’ve heard that egoism and altruism are two wholly incompatible moral theories too. So what’s right or wrong about the common sense view?

Shouldn’t egoism be limited to protect others from harm?

You advocate an egoistic ethics, according to which people should always act in their self-interest. However, isn’t such egoism dangerous if unchecked? Wouldn’t the egoist cheat, manipulate, and even murder others in order to get what he wants? Doesn’t egoism need to be restrained by concern for other people and their rights?

How can a person be an effective activist?

Many people want to engage in activism for good ideas – particularly in politics. Yet many of those people burn out or lose interest over time. Many others don’t seem to have much impact. What can people do to be effective long-term activists?

Should I refuse to be the beneficiary of racism or sexism?

When reviewing my job position file, I realized that my job could only be filled by a white female. I’d already planned to leave that job, but imagine that I’d planned to stay. In that case, what should I have done? Should I have left the job or protested in some fashion? (I was working outside the United States, in a country without any anti-discrimination laws.) Morally speaking, is the racism worse than the sexism?

If evolution is true, how can homosexuality be genetic?

According to evolutionary theory, shouldn’t we be seeing a sharp decrease in homosexuality if such is genetic? Reproduction of any “gay genes” is only possible if gays act against their natures, which fewer gays seem to be doing these days. Plus, homosexuality would seem to be a biological defect by the standard of “the survival of the fittest.” Yet instead of any decrease in homosexuality, we’re seeing a sharp increase in it. Does this mean that scientists must choose between evolutionary theory and the view that homosexuality is genetic?

What are “spiritual” values?

In your 27 January 2013 discussion of “Materialism in Marriage,” you talked about the importance of “spiritual values.” However, I found that confusing, since I’ve always associated “spirituality” with religion (often of the woozy variety). So what are spiritual values? How are they different from material values? Why are they important?

Should spouses always share activities?

A friend of mine is loathe to pursue any hobbies or interests that her husband doesn’t share. He’s not controlling: he’s the same way. Although I know that they want to spend time together, that seems really limiting to me. Is that a reasonable policy in a marriage – or does it lead to self-sacrifice and mutual resentment?

Does the idea of innate personality violate the principle of “tabula rasa”?

In past shows, you’ve indicated that you think that some aspects of personality are innate, rather than acquired by experience. If that’s right, isn’t that a form of determinism? Moreover, wouldn’t it violate the principle that every person is born a “blank slate”?

Should dueling and other consensual fights be legal?

In your September 5th, 2012 interview with Dr. Eric Daniels, you discussed some of America’s violent past traditions, including the practice of dueling. While I have no intention of challenging my rivals to mortal combat, I cannot see why this practice should be illegal. The same might be said of less lethal modern variants such as bar fights, schoolyard fights, and other situations where violence is entered into with the mutual consent of both parties. Should such consensual violence be forbidden by law in a free society, not just for children but perhaps for adults too? If so, what justifies allowing more ritualized forms of combat, such as mixed-martial arts fighting, boxing, or even football?

What is the solution to the is-ought problem?

David Hume famously claimed that statements about what ought to be cannot be derived from statements about what is the case. Does that mean that ethics is impossible? Can the gap be bridged, and if so, how?

How can an atheist teenager maintain his integrity in a religious school?

A few years ago, I read Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged” for the first time. After a year of struggling between faith and reason, I chose reason. Unfortunately, I am a teenager, and I am forced to attend church and a religious school. For a time, I was fine coexisting with religious people. However, in the next academic year, I will have to take a class entitled “Christian Apologetics” in which I will have to pretend to be a Christian theologian. Now my integrity is at stake. How should I confront my religious family about my atheism? How can I persuade them to enroll me a different school?

Are reparations for once-oppressed ethnic groups ever proper?

Periodically, we hear calls for reparations by the government to be paid to certain ethnic groups due to past racism, oppression, or slavery. Are such reparations ever ethical or necessary? If so, who should receive them and who should pay for them? When has too much time passed for such reparations? Are reparations based purely on group membership racist? Do they risk promoting racism in the broader culture, particularly among members of ethnic groups not party to the oppression?

Should parents be licensed?

Given the cost to society of parents shirking their obligations to their children, to entrust children to just anyone able to bear that child seems negligent. The state does, after all, forbid chronic drunk drivers from getting behind the wheel again. On the other hand, to give discretionary power to the state over such a personal matter seems very dangerous. Is there any middle ground that would better protect kids from abusive or neglectful parents and protect society from the growing scourge of poor parenting?

Should high-capacity firearms clips be banned?

Many advocates of gun control seek to limit the capacity of semi-automatic handgun clips to ten or even six rounds. Is that reasonable? Are such clips only useful for mass shootings – or might they be necessary for self-defense, such as when faced with home invasion?

To submit a question, use this form. I prefer questions focused on some concrete real-life problem, as opposed to merely theoretical or political questions. I review and edit all questions before they’re posted. (Alas, IdeaInformer doesn’t display any kind of confirmation page when you submit a question.)

As you know, on Sunday morning’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I answer four questions chosen in advance from the Question Queue. Here are the most recent additions to that queue. Please vote for the ones that you’re most interested in hearing me answer! You can also review and vote on all pending questions sorted by date or sorted by popularity.

Also, I’m perfectly willing to be bribed to answer a question of particular interest to you pronto. So if you’re a regular contributor to Philosophy in Action’s Tip Jar, I can answer your desired question as soon as possible. The question must already be in the queue, so if you’ve not done so already, please submit it. Then just e-mail me at [email protected] to make your request.

Now, without further ado, the most recent questions added to The Queue:

Are semi-automatic handguns more dangerous than revolvers?

In the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting, many of my friends claim that semi-automatic firearms should be banned. They think that people should only be permitted to own revolvers. What are the differences between these two kinds of handguns? Do those differences matter to public policy debates about gun rights and gun control?

Can a person like other people but not want to be around them due to too much empathy?

I enjoy people when I am around them, but at the same time I don’t want to be around them. I prefer to be alone because around people I feel overly empathetic. As long as the experience with them is happy, I’m good. But anything bad for them feels bad to me too. So I avoid interaction. I’m not mad at anyone. I love everyone to the point it actually hurts me emotionally and sometimes monetarily. Should I do something other than avoid people?

Are the police putting ordinary people at risk by militaristic tactics?

Recently, a man was shot and killed when a tactical unit of the Memphis police served a warrant for animal cruelty after dark. (The man was suspected of being an animal hoarder.) Was that approach necessary? Are the police endangering people’s lives by using such militaristic tactics on people not likely to be violent?Relevant Links:http://www.wmctv.com/story/20568356/mpd-officerhttp://www.wmctv.com/story/20573176/28-animals-rescued-from-animal-hoarderhttp://yesbiscuit.wordpress.com/2013/01/12/memphis-pound-requests-special-ops-unit-to-serve-cruelty-warrant/

Should a person injured by a stolen gun be permitted to sue the original owner thereof for damages?

Imagine that a person’s firearm is stolen, then used in a crime to injure an innocent person. Can the crime victim sue the owner of the gun for damages? Would it matter if the gun was left in plain sight or not locked away? Would it matter if the gun was stolen months or years before the crime? Also, what if the gun owner lent his gun to another person who he reasonably thought was honest and law-abiding?

To submit a question, use this form. I prefer questions focused on some concrete real-life problem, as opposed to merely theoretical or political questions. I review and edit all questions before they’re posted. (Alas, IdeaInformer doesn’t display any kind of confirmation page when you submit a question.)

As you know, on Sunday morning’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I answer four questions chosen in advance from the Question Queue. Here are the most recent additions to that queue. Please vote for the ones that you’re most interested in hearing me answer! You can also review and vote on all pending questions sorted by date or sorted by popularity.

Also, I’m perfectly willing to be bribed to answer a question of particular interest to you pronto. So if you’re a regular contributor to Philosophy in Action’s Tip Jar, I can answer your desired question as soon as possible. (The question must already be in the queue, so if you’ve not done so already, submit it. Just e-mail me at [email protected] to make arrangements.

Now, without further ado, the most recent questions added to The Queue:

If a married couple wouldn’t marry again, should they split?

Many married couples seem to stay together due to inertia, not because they truly value each other. My view is that if a couple wouldn’t marry again, they should get divorced. Is that too high a bar in marriage?

Can people with divergent political views enjoy a good romantic relationship?

Some of my liberal friends won’t date conservatives, and some of my conservative friends are horrified at the thought of dating a liberal. Is that reasonable? Since I’m in favor of free markets, should I only date other advocates of free markets? Can people with very different political views enjoy a good romantic relationship?

Should a person try to “win friends and influence people”?

In the classic book “How to Win Friends and Influence People,” Dale Carnegie offers a wide range of advice on how to get what you want from other people. Some of this seems manipulative or second-handed, but is that right? Is the advice in the book of genuine value to a rational egoist seeking honest trade with others?

Is “The Golden Rule” a valid and useful principle of ethics?

In past podcasts, you’ve mentioned that you consider “The Golden Rule” – meaning, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” – as flawed. What are some of the problems with this rule? Does it have any value?

Can marriage be self-interested?

How is marriage possible in a life of uncompromising self-interest? Most people describe marriage as requiring compromise, sacrifice, and concession. Is that right? How can a person approach marriage differently in order to live a fulfilling and self-interested married life?

Can the debates over gay marriage be solved by new terminology?

I’d like to propose that the acrimonious arguments over gay marriage be solved by the following compromise. In our laws, we could replace the term “marriage” with “uniage”, such that we would have three subcategories of uniage: marriage between one man and one woman, “andriage” between two men, and “fembriage” between two women. This way, people could know and understand exactly which combination of genders we are talking about in any covenant union, and the people who defend what’s been the traditional definition of marriage still get to keep it, while the government would begin to have equal laws based on two people being united in any of these covenants, not just in the opposite-sex combination. Is this worth a try?

Should politicians refrain from making religious appeals and claims?

The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom says that ” … all men shall be free to profess, and … to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, … their civil capacities.” Is that right? As a corollary, should politicians be free to express and act on their religious views, so long as others are free to do the same? I ask because many secularists seem to wish to banish religion from politics entirely, to the point of wanting to deny some religious people freedom of speech and the right to vote.

Is the beginning of “personhood” a subjective opinion?

In my view, the age at which we feel a human being should be granted the status of “personhood” is not a simple matter of religion, but of individual conscience. Scientifically, there are infinite graduated stages of development during and after pregnancy. Just as there is no exact age for determining the beginning of adulthood, I don’t think there can be an exact point for determining when personhood should begin. It is equally subjective whether someone is religious or not, and all views are basically equal on this. Do you agree? Also, given that subjectivity, would granting personhood to the unborn be acceptable if the law made a generous provision for “self-defense” for the mother based on even a fear of danger to herself or her own well-being?

Is an armed society a civil or uncivil society?

Author Robert Heinlein famously said that “An armed society is a polite society.” Many liberals, however, fear an armed society as barbaric and violent. Is widespread ownership and/or carry of arms a positive or a negative feature of a society?

To submit a question, use this form. I prefer questions focused on some concrete real-life problem, as opposed to merely theoretical or political questions. I review and edit all questions before they’re posted. (Alas, IdeaInformer doesn’t display any kind of confirmation page when you submit a question.)

As you know, on Sunday morning’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I answer four questions chosen in advance from the Question Queue. Here are the most recent additions to that queue. Please vote for the ones that you’re most interested in hearing me answer! You can also review and vote on all pending questions sorted by date or sorted by popularity.

Also, I’m perfectly willing to be bribed to answer a question of particular interest to you pronto. So if you’re a regular contributor to Philosophy in Action’s Tip Jar, I can answer your desired question as soon as possible. (The question must already be in the queue, so if you’ve not done so already, submit it. Just e-mail me at [email protected] to make arrangements.

Now, without further ado, the most recent questions added to The Queue:

Do humans ever act on instinct?

Animals are supposed to act by instinct and learning. Humans, on the other hand, have the capacity choose their actions based on rational thought. Does that mean that humans don’t have any instincts, not even an instincts to live, eat, sleep, or procreate? Or do we have some instincts, but those can be overridden by reason?

Should Objectivism be applied to new fields?

Advocates of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism claim that the philosophy is not changeable or expandable, meaning that is it what Ayn Rand made it. Yet they claim that the philosophy can be applied to new philosophical issues (such as induction) or other disciplines (such as educational theory) – and that scattered or brief comments (such as on the virtues) can be fleshed out. Is that approach likely to be profitable? Why or why not?

Will Obama’s second term further damage American culture and values?

I’m not as worried about the tax hikes, foreign policy, and other concrete policies of Obama’s second term as I am about the cultural change that his administration will instill in society over the next four years, just as it did over the last four years. The next generation of liberals – college age kids, that is – are little socialists who repeat the phrases like “social justice” and “fair share.” Is such cultural change a genuine problem? If so, what can be done to combat it?

Can Objectivism save the culture?

Advocates of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism often claim that the philosophy is necessary for substantially changing the culture for the better. That seems presumptuous to me. Is it true? Also, is the philosophy capable of saving the culture on its own? Or is more needed?

How can I refuse solicitations for gifts for co-workers?

I work in a department of about thirty people. In the past few months, we have been asked to contribute money to buy gifts for co-workers – for engagements, baby showers, bereavement flowers, and Christmas gifts for the department chair, administrative assistants, housekeeping staff, and lab manager. Generally these requests are made by e-mail, and I can see from the “reply all” messages that everyone else contributes. Often these donations add up to a large amount ($10-20 each time). I do not wish to take part, but am worried that since I am a newer employee my lack of participation will be interpreted negatively. What can I do?

What is the relationship between Objectivism and libertarianism?

Some libertarians – and some Objectivists, including John Allison – claim that Objectivism’s politics is a type of libertarianism. Is that true? What is the essence is libertarianism? Should Objectivists ally themselves with libertarians, such as via the Cato Institute, now under John Allison’s leadership? Why or why not?

Should police attempt to collect the DNA of everyone in the vicinity of a serious crime?

In 2012, Jessica Ridgeway was abducted from a Denver suburb. (She was murdered.) During the search for her, the police voluntarily collected the DNA of about 500 people who made cell phone calls around the time and location of the abduction. Ultimately, Jessica’s body was found, and the suspect turned himself in before the DNA was processed. However, the suspect gave his DNA voluntarily, and he would have been caught by his DNA. Is this a proper method of police investigation? Even though people can refuse, does it violate rights? See: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/jessica-ridgeway/suspect-in-jessica-ridgeway-murder-austin-sigg-appears-in-court-thursday

Is the welfare state a good reason to restrict immigration?

Conservatives – and even some Objectivists – claim that immigrants are flocking to the United States for our welfare benefits. They claim that immigration must be restricted until the welfare state is curtailed. Is this a reasonable position – or does it amount to punishing would-be immigrants for our own welfare state? Also, what kind of message are supposed advocates of free markets sending with this anti-immigration rhetoric?

How can I say no to a friend’s request to become a business partner?

Over the past several years, I developed a home craft business. Now that it is successful one of my friends wants to be involved. She sends messages asking to get together to discuss ideas for new products and expanding the business. However, I am not interested in having a partner. How can I let her know that I don’t want a partner – without coming across as mean or hurting her feelings? Also, since I want to support and encourage my friends’ interests, I’m struggling with guilt for saying “no.” How can I overcome that?

Why do some organizations change their own names so often?

Over the years, I’ve seen several businesses and institutions change their names while staying the same for all intents and purposes. Is this intentionally done to confuse people? To me, it seems like an attempt to play matador whenever a problem arises, as if abandoning the name will solve the problem. How should people respond to these superficial changes?

Should we stop caring about the sex lives of politicians?

In response to the affair and resignation of David Petraeus, many have argued that such sex scandals are the absurd consequence of American puritanism. These people claim that sex is easily compartmentalized in a person’s life, such that sexual fidelity has no bearing on a person’s intelligence, character, or suitability for public office. Is that right?See: http://davidsimon.com/stray-penises-and-politicos/

Is “radical honesty” moral and wise?

Psychotherapist Brad Blanton claims that people should be “radically honest” – meaning that they should say what they think all the time. (See http://www.esquire.com/features/honesty0707) Is that a life-serving policy – or simply an excuse for rudeness? For example, if my friend is telling me a story that I don’t care to hear, should I tell her of my disinterest? Would that foster a more authentic and valuable relationship? Should I try to gently signal my disinterest? Or should I try to cultivate some interest in her story? In other words, is tact a value – or a destructive form of pretense?

Is it wrong to have a romantic relationship with a married person?

In Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged,” Dagny Taggart had an affair with Hark Rearden, knowing that he was married. How should those actions be judged in real life? Clearly, Hank’s cheating was dishonest and wrong. Was Dagny wrong to pursue the affair? What should she have done instead? Or, imagine that Dagny didn’t know that Hank was married until after they’d slept together. What should she have done in that case upon finding out the truth? Should she stop the affair? Should she inform the wife about the cheating? Should she apologize to the wife? Also, if your answer is different than Dagny’s, how do you reconcile that?

Will Obama usher in dangerous cultural change in America?

With another four years of Obama in office, I’m not too worried about the coming tax hike, war decisions, and so on. Rather, I’m worried about the cultural changes that the Obama administration will instill in society over the next four years, as it did in the past four years. Today’s college-age liberals – our next generation – are little socialists who repeat the phrases of “social justice” and “fair share.” Am I right to be worried?

What should be done about third party payments in medicine?

I was fascinated by your statement in your November 7th, 2012 discussion of the election that the real need in medicine was to do away with third party payments. It’s quite a radical proposal, one of the most radical I’ve heard from you. How would you think such a think might be implemented through ethically proper means – as opposed to measures such as legally prohibiting third party payments? Are there types of medical care – perhaps catastrophe illness or injury – where third party payment would need to be kept in place, or where people in a free economy would likely still choose to keep them in place?

To submit a question, use this form. I prefer questions focused on some concrete real-life problem, as opposed to merely theoretical or political questions. I review and edit all questions before they’re posted. (Alas, IdeaInformer doesn’t display any kind of confirmation page when you submit a question.)

As you know, on Sunday morning’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I answer four questions chosen in advance from the Question Queue. Here are the most recent additions to that queue. Please vote for the ones that you’re most interested in hearing me answer! You can also review and vote on all pending questions sorted by date or sorted by popularity.

Also, I’m perfectly willing to be bribed to answer a question of particular interest to you pronto. So if you’re a regular contributor to Philosophy in Action’s Tip Jar, I can answer your desired question as soon as possible. (The question must already be in the queue, so if you’ve not done so already, submit it. Just e-mail me at [email protected] to make arrangements.

Now, without further ado, the most recent questions added to The Queue:

How can I efficiently evaluate potential romantic prospects?

When introduced to a person – or out on a first or second date – it’s often difficult to evaluate that person quickly and fairly as a potential romantic prospect. What should I look for? What questions should I ask? What kinds of qualities – moral and psychological – should I regard as particularly important, for better or worse?

Should people ask for permission or ask for forgiveness when breaking the rules?

People often say that “it’s better to ask forgiveness than to ask for permission” when excusing their own rule-breaking. I hate the phrase, but I can’t put my finger on what’s so objectionable about it. So what does the phrase mean? Is it right or wrong? If it’s true for some organizations, doesn’t that indicate that the organizations’s rules or policies are somehow bass-ackwards?

What’s wrong with the government “investing” in business?

During the election debates, President Obama claimed that the government should be “investing” in science, education, alternative energy, and other worthy businesses. What is the ideal at work in such claims? What’s right or wrong about it? What does such “investment” mean in practice?

Is it moral to buy products from Chinese companies?

Recently I discovered several online companies based in China that sell clothing of reasonable quality for very low prices. I’ve made a few purchases, and I am happy with the items received. But I wonder: is it moral to purchase goods made in a communist country? Granted China has changed a lot in the past two decades, but the communists still rule in a totalitarian fashion. Am I supporting that kind of regime by sending my money there, or am I supporting the entrepenurial class which might exist in China?

Is it wrong for me to do less than my best at my job?

At work, I used to go above and beyond my basic obligations routinely. However, I was never recognized or rewarded for my superior performance. Instead, I was paid the same as those who barely functioned in their jobs. To this day, my employer uses only collective or team recognition; he does not appreciate individuals. Also, those who do poorly or make serious mistakes are not being disciplined, while those of us who work hard are given more duties. My response has been to lower my own work output. While I meet the minimum standards of my employment and still do far more than my equally paid coworkers, I am not performing nearly close to the level I could. Is that wrong of me? Should I do my best at work, even though my employer doesn’t seem to value that? Should I continue to suggest ideas for improvement – and perhaps work on them on the side, in secret, if ignored?

What should happen when the energy practices of one nation threaten another nation’s property?

Suppose that global warming were in the process of causing a substantial rise in the sea level, such that the coasts of all nations were in danger of being obliterated. Would that be a violation of rights? What should be done about it, by individuals, corporations, and governments? (This issue arose in Alex Epstein’s November 2012 debate with Bill McKibben. See: http://youtu.be/0_a9RP0J7PA )

What’s the difference between laws enforcing property rights and regulations?

Laws preventing fraud and defending property rights can be complex – and, in my opinion, they need to be strengthened and actually enforced. What distinguishes such proper laws from rights-violating regulations? For example, a mining company does not have the right to dump toxic waste and thereby pollute an underground aquifer long-used for drinking water. So should the water pollution standards be codified into law in some way? How can that be done without instituting burdensome and rights-violating regulations?

What is philosophic nihilism?

What is the definition of philosophic nihilism? Some people seem to be quick to apply the label “nihilistic” to a broad range of phenomena, particularly art and ideas. So how should the term be used? Can a philosophy be very harmful and destructive without it being nihilistic?

Is it wrong to have children in an increasingly irrational and statist culture?

People should think about the long-range effects of their actions, and act based on principles. So if a person thinks that our culture is in decline – and perhaps even slipping into dictatorship – is it wrong for that person to have children? Is such an assessment accurate? Along similar lines, were people wrong to have children in Soviet Union and other dictatorships?

To submit a question, use this form. I prefer questions focused on some concrete real-life problem, as opposed to merely theoretical or political questions. I review and edit all questions before they’re posted. (Alas, IdeaInformer doesn’t display any kind of confirmation page when you submit a question.)