The Blog

NoodleFood

Podcast #268: Virtues as Duties, Indecision, Sharia Finance, and More

 Posted by on 29 January 2014 at 8:00 am  Podcasts
Jan 292014
 

On Tuesday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I answered questions on thinking of virtues as duties, overcoming paralyzing indecision, sharia finance, and more. The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:


Whole Podcast: 28 January 2014

Listen or Download:

Remember the Tip Jar!

The mission of Philosophy in Action is to spread rational principles for real life… far and wide. That’s why the vast majority of my work is available to anyone, free of charge. I love doing the radio show, but each episode requires an investment of time, effort, and money to produce. So if you enjoy and value that work of mine, please contribute to the tip jar. I suggest $5 per episode or $20 per month, but any amount is appreciated. In return, contributors can request that I answer questions from the queue pronto, and regular contributors enjoy free access to premium content and other goodies.


Podcast Segments: 28 January 2014

You can download or listen to my answers to individual questions from this episode below.

Introduction

My News of the Week: I enjoyed a great time skiing with friends in bad conditions in Tahoe last week, and now I’m frantically making last-minute preparations for Aiken. Remember, the live broadcasts will be on Thursday evenings for the whole of February.

Question 1: Thinking of Virtues as Duties

Question: What’s wrong with thinking about the virtues as duties? My parents taught me ethics in terms of “duties.” So being honest and just was a duty, along with “sharing” and “selflessness.” They were simply “the right way to be,” period. Now, I tend to think of the Objectivist virtues – rationality, productiveness, honesty, justice, independence, integrity, and pride – as duties. I have a duty to myself to act in these ways. Is that right or is that a mistake?

My Answer, In Brief: A person who thinks of virtue as duties – as obligations, come what may, disconnected from his life and values – invites serious emotional and cognitive problems.

Listen or Download:

Links:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Question 2: Overcoming Paralyzing Indecision

Question: How can I overcome my paralyzing indecision? I am caught amid some difficult circumstances at present. To make matters worse, I suffer from almost paralyzing indecision about major life decisions, especially with respect to my career. As a result of my failure to act decisively, I have stagnated painfully for years, missing many opportunities. How can I break out of this horrible pattern?

My Answer, In Brief: Paralyzing indecision is a serious problem. You can do various things to help yourself overcome that – such as setting deadlines, practicing being decisive, and considering the consequences of failing to make decisions. But if your problem is interfering with your life, you should see a therapist.

Listen or Download:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Question 3: Sharia Finance

Question: Should financial companies be permitted to offer financial products consistent with sharia law? Sharia Finance – meaning, investments that specifically conform with Islamic law – are growing in popularity and have been adopted by major financial companies like Citi. Should these private businesses be legally permitted to offer whatever their clients want to buy? Or should these investments be banned due to their connection with funding terror, oppressing women, and violating rights in other ways? Morally, should companies offer these investments? Should people protest or boycott companies offering them?

My Answer, In Brief: Sharia finance is economically backwards, but not a violation of rights. Companies should be allowed to offer it – and it’s moral for them to do so or refuse, as they see fit.

Listen or Download:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Rapid Fire Questions

Questions:

  • What bedtime stories would you recommend for children?
  • What explains the early Church Fathers’ denunciations of human sexuality? Is it altruism, misogyny, or something else?
  • After recently experiencing a loss, I feel as though grief is the most selfish of all emotions. Is this true? Are some emotions more selfish than others?
  • Is it moral to avoid marriage simply to gain financial aid while in college?
  • Would you recommend Stephen Molyneux’s videos?
  • If morality is not primarily social, and flourishing can be achieved on one’s own, could a flourishing person be morally condemned if they are also a hermit?
  • Would it be wrong for a person to murder a serial killer who framed him for his own murders, and thereby ruined his life completely?
  • What are the ground rules for getting intimate with pets around? How close can they be before it’s creepy?

Listen or Download:

  • Start Time: 47:01
  • Duration: 14:37
  • Download: MP3 Segment

To comment on these questions or my answers, visit its comment thread.

Conclusion

Be sure to check out the topics scheduled for upcoming episodes! Don’t forget to submit and vote on questions for future episodes too!

  • Start Time: 1:01:38


About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio focuses on the application of rational principles to the challenges of real life. It broadcasts live on most Sunday mornings and many Thursday evenings over the internet. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Philosophy in Action's NewsletterPhilosophy in Action's Facebook PagePhilosophy in Action's Twitter StreamPhilosophy in Action's RSS FeedsPhilosophy in Action's Calendar


 Podcast #268: Virtues as Duties, Indecision, Sharia Finance, and More  No Responses »

Paul Hsieh Forbes Column: How ObamaCare Creates Ethical Conflicts For Physicians

 Posted by on 29 January 2014 at 8:00 am  Activism, Economics, Health Care, Politics
Jan 292014
 

Forbes has published my latest column, “How ObamaCare Creates Ethical Conflicts For Physicians And How Patients Can Protect Themselves“.

Here is the opening:

Do you trust your doctor? Most patients assume their doctor is working in their best medical interests whenever he or she orders a diagnostic test or recommends a particular treatment. Customers might wonder whether an unscrupulous auto mechanic is being truthful when he recommends a brake job or a new transmission. But most patients trust that their doctor isn’t recommending unnecessary surgeries merely to line his pockets.

The vast majority of doctors take their ethical responsibilities very seriously. Prior to ObamaCare, only a relatively few “bad apples” have chosen to compromise their professional ethics for financial gain. However, ObamaCare creates new ethical conflicts for doctors. We’ll examine some common physician conflicts of interest before and after ObamaCare, and discuss how patients can best protect themselves…

Prior to ObamaCare, physicians faced perverse incentives for overtreatment. Physicians might also be tempted to pad their income through inappropriate self-referral or business relationships such as “physician owned distributorships”.

After ObamaCare, physicians will face perverse incentives for undertreatment, especially with “bundled payments” and government “appropriate use criteria”.  The new “narrow networks” required by many ObamaCare exchange plans will exacerbate these issues:

To cut costs, many ObamaCare exchange plans also require “narrow networks” of providers, where patients may only receive treatment from a short list of approved hospitals and doctors. President Obama has repeatedly promised, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” but many patients are learning the hard way that this isn’t true.

Such “narrow networks” also mean that many doctors will lose long-standing relationships with patients they’ve seen for years. Instead, doctors will be increasingly reliant on the government-run exchanges for new patients. This will create a powerful incentive for physicians to adhere to any treatment guidelines mandated by the government or by government-approved insurance plans.

I also discuss several ways patients can protect themselves from these old and new physician conflicts of interest.

For more details, see the full text of “How ObamaCare Creates Ethical Conflicts For Physicians And How Patients Can Protect Themselves“.

[Crossposted from the FIRM blog.]

 Paul Hsieh Forbes Column: How ObamaCare Creates Ethical Conflicts For Physicians  No Responses »

Activism Recap

 Posted by on 26 January 2014 at 8:30 pm  Activism Recap
Jan 262014
 

This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine):

Follow FIRM on Facebook and Twitter.


This week on Politics without God, the blog of the Coalition for Secular Government:

Follow the Coalition for Secular Government on Facebook and Twitter.


This week on The Blog of The Objective Standard:

Follow The Objective Standard on Facebook and Twitter.


This week on The Blog of Modern Paleo:

Follow Modern Paleo on Facebook and Twitter.

 Activism Recap  No Responses »

Lila Versus the Trailer

 Posted by on 25 January 2014 at 10:00 am  Animals, Horses, Psychology
Jan 252014
 

Most horses, once they overcome their initial fears of the confined space of the horse trailer, are perfectly happy to load and unload without trouble. But… not Lila.

Lila doesn’t mind the trailer so much by itself. However, she’s a smart cookie, so she’s figured out that the trailer means work. She’s lazy, so work is bad. Lila can even tell when I’m just trying to practice loading her, because then she loads without a fuss. However, when we’re actually going somewhere — and particularly when I’m late — she’ll refuse to load (and act like an idiot) for anywhere from 5 to 30 minutes.

So I’ve been playing a game with her lately, to try to convince her that the trailer is the place she wants to be.

I load Lila on the trailer, but I don’t secure the butt bar or shut the door. She’s free to leave whenever she pleases. However, when she backs out of the trailer, she’s immediately put to work (just groundwork — trotting, turning, backing, etc). After a few minutes, I load her on the trailer again, again without securing her. When she backs out, she goes back to work. Repeat, repeat, repeat.

The game works, thankfully! However, I’ve found that I need to play it with her pretty regularly. Otherwise, she figures out that the trailer means work, and she doesn’t want to load. (Alas, that’s been hard to do in winter, when the ground is often slick with snow, ice, and mud.)

Interestingly, I’ve done variations on this game for some time before, without much success. The critical change that I made is that with this version, Lila chooses when to exit the trailer, and hence, when she’ll be worked. That way, she learns to correct her own impulse to leave the trailer — and in the process, she learns to yearn for the trailer. That’s an insight that I need to apply elsewhere in her training, I think.

Maybe someday, she’s be like these well-trained horses, who respond to the sound of the whip cracking by galloping in from the pasture and loading themselves:

But I doubt it!

 Lila Versus the Trailer  No Responses »

Link-O-Rama

 Posted by on 24 January 2014 at 1:00 pm  Link-O-Rama
Jan 242014
 

 Link-O-Rama  No Responses »

Institute for Justice Defends Food Freedom

 Posted by on 22 January 2014 at 10:00 am  Activism, ARI, Food, Health, Institute for Justice, Law, Politics
Jan 222014
 

I’m a bit late in blogging this news, but I’m delighted to report that the Institute for Justice has created a Food Freedom Initiative:

A new national initiative launched [November 19, 2013] by the Institute for Justice seeks to make sure the government stays out of some of the most personal decisions people make every day: What we eat and how we get our food. This nationwide campaign will bring property rights, economic liberty and free speech challenges to laws that dictate what Americans can grow, raise, eat or even talk about.

To kick off the initiative, IJ is today filing three separate lawsuits challenging Miami Shores, Florida’s ban on front-yard vegetable gardens; Minnesota’s severe restrictions on home bakers, or “cottage food” producers; and Oregon’s ban on the advertisement of raw–or unpasteurized–milk. Each case demonstrates how real the need for food freedom is in every corner of the country.

“More and more, the government is demanding a seat at our dining room tables, attempting to dictate what we put on our plates, in our glasses and, ultimately, in our bodies,” said Michael Bindas, an IJ senior attorney who heads up the new initiative. “The National Food Freedom Initiative will end government’s meddlesome and unconstitutional interference in our food choices so that Americans can once again know true food freedom.”

  • IJ is challenging Miami Shores’ front-yard vegetable garden ban in state court on behalf of Herminie Ricketts and Tom Carroll, a married couple who grew vegetables on their own property for their own consumption for nearly two decades before Miami Shores officials ordered them to tear up the very source of their sustenance or face fines of $50 per day. Learn more about their case: www.ij.org/FlVeggies.

  • Minnesota allows food entrepreneurs to make certain inherently safe foods–such as baked goods–in home kitchens, but it: (1) prohibits their sale anywhere other than farmers’ markets and community events; and (2) limits revenues to $5,000 per year. Violating these restrictions can lead to fines of up to $7,500 or up to 90 days in jail. IJ is challenging these restrictions under the Minnesota Constitution on behalf of cottage food entrepreneurs Jane Astramecki and Mara Heck. Learn more about their case at: www.ij.org/MNCottageFoods.

  • In Oregon, it is legal for small farmers to sell raw milk, but they are flatly forbidden from advertising it. If they do advertise their milk, they face a fine of $6,250 and civil penalties as high as $10,000–plus one year in jail. IJ is challenging this ban under the First Amendment on behalf of farmer Christine Anderson of Cast Iron Farm. Learn more about Christine’s case at: www.ij.org/ORMilk.

These three cases raise important constitutional questions that show how meddlesome government has become in our food choices: Can government really prohibit you from peacefully and productively using your own property to feed your family? Can government really restrict how many cakes a baker sells and where she sells them? Can government really ban speech about a legal product like raw milk? The answer is no.

IJ’s President and General Counsel, Chip Mellor, said, “For 22 years, IJ has been on the forefront of protecting Americans’ property rights, economic liberty and freedom of speech. With our National Food Freedom Initiative, IJ will now bring that experience to bear in the most fundamental area–food–so that Americans can be truly free to produce, market, procure and consume the foods of their choice.”

If you care about your access to foods of your own choosing and the rights of food producers to engage in voluntary trade, please consider donating to IJ! IJ is extremely effective and principled in their advocacy of liberty, and I know that my donor dollars are going to very good use.

P.S. With this initiative, the Institute for Justice is tackling a really important and growing aspect of statism in a way that resonates with ordinary Americans. They’re doing so on the basis of sound principles and facts, and they’re likely to effect change through the courts and public outreach. In contrast, ARI’s only activity in this area has been a series of propagandistic blog posts in defense of GMOs by an astrophysicist without an adequate understanding of relevant principles of biology. Basically, ARI’s approach seems little better than what Christian Wernstedt satirized here: The Tragedy of Milkia®: The Luddite Attack Against Industrial Dairy Progress. For this reason and about a hundred others, I’m glad that my donor dollars have long gone elsewhere, particularly to IJ.

 Institute for Justice Defends Food Freedom  No Responses »

Acting Badly Does Not Equal Being Bad Person

 Posted by on 21 January 2014 at 10:00 am  Character, Ethics, Justice
Jan 212014
 

Too often, when I say something like, “Mr. X acted unjustly toward Ms. Y” or “Mr. X, I think that you were not honest with Ms. Y,” the reaction of Mr. X (and defenders of Mr. X) is something like , “SO YOU THINK THAT MR. X IS AN UNJUST PERSON!” or “HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A LIAR!” (Yes, they’re often angry and yelling.)

Alas, such inferences are wholly unwarranted. The simple fact is that a person might act wrongly — even perhaps violating the basic demands of a virtue — without being a terrible or corrupt or vicious person. Perhaps the person acted in haste, without sufficient forethought. Perhaps the person acted on a mistaken principle. Perhaps the person didn’t see the full effects or implications of his actions. Perhaps the person misunderstands the proper application of the principle. Perhaps the person was ignorant of certain facts about the situation. Perhaps the person thought the principle didn’t apply in that case. And so on.

Basically, a person can act wrongly — meaning, in a way harmful to self or others — without intending to do so. A person might act contrary to a virtue, yet do so honestly.

That’s part of why moral judgments of persons for their actions need to be distinguished from moral judgments of persons for their characters. These are two different kinds of judgments, and they serve two distinct purposes. (That’s a critical point for my case against moral luck.) Of course, these two kinds of judgments are related: judgments of actions are the basis for judgments of character. Nonetheless, a single bad action does not a bad character make — just as a single good action does not a good character make.

Aristotle makes a similar point in Book 5, Chapter 8 of the The Nicomachean Ethics. (Note that to act by “choice” means that the person deliberates beforehand about his best course of action.)

When [a man] acts with knowledge but not after deliberation, it is an act of injustice — e.g. the acts due to anger or to other passions necessary or natural to man; for when men do such harmful and mistaken acts they act unjustly, and the acts are acts of injustice, but this does not imply that the doers are unjust or wicked; for the injury is not due to vice. But when a man acts from choice, he is an unjust man and a vicious man.

Now, I make more allowances than Aristotle does here. Deliberation can go awry for many reasons, even in good people. Still, I agree with Aristotle that a person’s chosen actions reveal his character more clearly than do his hasty, impulsive, or rote actions. Often, when a person deliberates, he ought to know better, and he ought to have acted differently.

As for the people who assume that any moral criticism means an accusation of vice… well, that kind of defensiveness suggests that they damn well intended to do what they did — or, in any case, they’re sure as heck not going to admit that they were wrong. I’d consider that a major red flag in a person.

 Acting Badly Does Not Equal Being Bad Person  1 Response »

Don’t Let the Kiddos Win Easy!

 Posted by on 20 January 2014 at 1:00 pm  Children, Competition, Ethics, Honesty, Parenting
Jan 202014
 

I hate the practice of allowing kids to win games, although I’ve never really considered the alternatives.

Two weeks ago, when Paul and I were in Los Angeles visiting his family, I played Connect Four with my five year old nephew, Jeremy, and I hit on a strategy that I really like.

Basically, I played all my best moves, but throughout the game, I gave him hints about his moves and strategy, as well as explained what I was doing and why. I enjoyed that, he enjoyed that, and he learned how to play better. That felt so much better — and more honest — than pretending to be slow and dumb.

As a result, I checkmated him in the first game, but then I lost the second game to him, because I got too excited about the move that I’d make next, and I forgot to block him. Doh!

Another option is to handicap games. That’s fair, since the adult knows so much more. The goal, after all, is to play an enjoyable and competitive game!

Good times!

 Don’t Let the Kiddos Win Easy!  No Responses »

Podcast #267: Faith in Reason, Free Speech, Gay Pride, and More

 Posted by on 20 January 2014 at 8:00 am  Podcasts
Jan 202014
 

On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I answered questions on faith in reason, free speech of government officials, gay pride, and more. The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:


Whole Podcast: 19 January 2014

Listen or Download:

Remember the Tip Jar!

The mission of Philosophy in Action is to spread rational principles for real life… far and wide. That’s why the vast majority of my work is available to anyone, free of charge. I love doing the radio show, but each episode requires an investment of time, effort, and money to produce. So if you enjoy and value that work of mine, please contribute to the tip jar. I suggest $5 per episode or $20 per month, but any amount is appreciated. In return, contributors can request that I answer questions from the queue pronto, and regular contributors enjoy free access to premium content and other goodies.


Podcast Segments: 19 January 2014

You can download or listen to my answers to individual questions from this episode below.

Introduction

My News of the Week: I’ve been very busy preparing for my departure for Aiken, South Carolina, plus I’ll be away at SnowCon Tahoe late next week. As a result of that travel, the next live show will be on Tuesday, January 28th. After that, we’ll broadcast on Thursday evenings through the end of February. Check out the calendar and episodes on tap for details. The half-price sale on my podcast on Finding Good Prospects for Romance and Friendship ends on January 20th.

Question 1: Faith in Reason

Question: Does being rational mean having faith in reason? I’m a high school student in a religious school. Many of my classmates claim that my belief in a knowable reality, science, and reason is merely a form of faith. So how can a person validate his own reason and senses? How can a person know that they are reliable means of knowing reality – unless he uses them and thereby engages in circular reasoning? My classmates claim that God is the only way out of this puzzle: God checks our reasoning by verifying and opposing our various conclusions. How can I respond to their arguments effectively?

My Answer, In Brief: The validity of perception and logic cannot be proven due to problems of circularity, but they can be validated by noticing that they are fundamental and inescapable in any thinking or claims of knowledge. Faith, in contrast, rejects the need for any justification – not just of itself, but of any claims of faith too.

Listen or Download:

Links:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Question 2: Free Speech of Government Officials

Question: Does freedom of speech apply to government officials? In August 2013, Rolling Stone caused a furor by putting accused Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover. In response, Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino wrote to the publisher of Rolling Stone, telling him that doing so “rewards a terrorist with celebrity treatment” – treatment the magazine should have given to the survivors. Other government officials were similarly critical of Rolling Stone. My first reaction was that these government officials had no place saying anything about a publication. But then I wondered, doesn’t the First Amendment still apply to them? In other words, do government officials have freedom of speech?

My Answer, In Brief: Politicians have the right to free speech, just like the rest of us. However, they overstep the bounds of proper government when they speak from their political office without an explicit statement recognizing the rights of the people involved.

Listen or Download:

Links:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Question 3: Gay Pride

Question: Are “gay pride” parades good? Sexuality is not chosen, so being gay is not something that a person could be proud of. However, these parades seem like harmless fun, and they might even help alleviate homophobia. (They might perpetuate stereotypes too, however.) So are they, on balance, of benefit? Also, what should be made of the fact that a “straight pride” parade would be seen as homophobic? Isn’t the goal here equality? Does that show that gay pride parades are elevating a minority into something special and unequal?

My Answer, In Brief: The concept of “gay pride” does not mean taking homosexuality per se to be a virtue. Rather, it recognizes the virtues requires to come out and assert one’s rights in today’s society.

Listen or Download:

Links:

To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

Rapid Fire Questions

Questions:

  • Do you have any opinion about Ann Coulter?
  • Should I be conflicted about enjoying the late Michael Jackson’s music given that I believe he molested children (even though he was publicly acquitted)?
  • If one is interested in becoming a voice for a cause or an activist, how does one start?

Listen or Download:

  • Start Time: 1:03:05
  • Duration: 6:26
  • Download: MP3 Segment

To comment on these questions or my answers, visit its comment thread.

Conclusion

Be sure to check out the topics scheduled for upcoming episodes! Don’t forget to submit and vote on questions for future episodes too!

  • Start Time: 1:09:31


About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio focuses on the application of rational principles to the challenges of real life. It broadcasts live on most Sunday mornings and many Thursday evenings over the internet. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Philosophy in Action's NewsletterPhilosophy in Action's Facebook PagePhilosophy in Action's Twitter StreamPhilosophy in Action's RSS FeedsPhilosophy in Action's Calendar


 Podcast #267: Faith in Reason, Free Speech, Gay Pride, and More  4 Responses »

Activism Recap

 Posted by on 19 January 2014 at 3:00 pm  Activism Recap
Jan 192014
 

This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine):

Follow FIRM on Facebook and Twitter.


This week on The Blog of The Objective Standard:

Follow The Objective Standard on Facebook and Twitter.


This week on The Blog of Modern Paleo:

Follow Modern Paleo on Facebook and Twitter.

 Activism Recap  No Responses »
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 Older Entries
Home | Live | Podcasts | Blog | Queue | Connect | Contribute | Search
Copyright Diana Hsieh | Web | Email | Twitter | Facebook

Philosophy in Action's NewsletterPhilosophy in Action's Facebook PagePhilosophy in Action's Twitter StreamPhilosophy in Action's RSS FeedsPhilosophy in Action's Calendar
Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha