As you know, on Sunday morning’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I answer 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:

Should a person punish herself for wrongdoing by depriving herself of a value?

A friend of mine destroyed her phone in a fit of anger over a difficult situation that wasn’t her fault. Now my friend feels guilty about her outburst. She thinks that she doesn’t deserve to properly replace her phone, as that would reward her irrational outburst. She wants to either buy a cheap phone or go without a phone for a while. That seems needlessly self-destructive. How can I explain to her that she really ought to replace her phone?

How can a person make better hard choices?

How to make hard choices was the subject of a recent TED talk from philosopher Ruth Chang. ( https://www.ted.com/talks/ruth_chang_how_to_make_hard_choices ) Her thesis is that hard choices are not about finding the better option between alternatives. Choices are hard when there is no better option. Hard choices require you to define the kind of person you want to be. You have to take a stand for your choice, and then you can find reasons for being the kind of person who makes that choice. Her views really speaks to me. In your view, what makes a choice hard? How should a person make hard choices?

Is force truly “anti-mind” and “anti-life”?

Objectivism argues that the initiation of force is anti-mind and anti-life. How does this apply to the perpetrator as it does to the victim? Why is evil to apply force to human beings as opposed to any other animal? One wouldn’t criticize a chicken farmer for forcing chickens to produce for him, on the grounds that he is dependent on them to produce eggs. If a man were to have all the power in the world, what would be anti-mind, anti-life, or anti-self to force another man to give him his food? He needs food, that man has food, how convenient. So how is initiating force is anti-mind and anti-life for the perpetrator if his victims are powerless to stop him?

Is the fact that a name is racist a good reason to cancel or refuse trademarks for it?

The US Patent & Trademark Office recently cancelled the trademarks for the Washington Redskins on the basis that the name is “disparaging to Native Americans.” Putting aside whether or not it’s a good idea for a business to have offensive terms in their trademarks, was this a good decision for the government to have made? Or does this bring America a step toward having thought police? If it was a good decision, by what basis could the government objectively determine whether or not a term is offensive and cannot be trademarked? In general, by what principles do you think the government should guide their decisions about trademarks?

Are some people unworthy of the truth?

“Never tell the truth to people who are not worthy of it”, said Mark Twain in his Notebook (1902). Is that true? Does that justify lying – or merely withholding information?

Does the virtue of pride create an infinite loop?

Pride is a response to your own virtuous moral character, but pride is also a component of that virtuous moral character. Hence, in order to have the utmost pride, a person would have to have the utmost virtue; but, in order to have the utmost virtue, a person would have to have the utmost pride. Is this a catch 22? Is that a problem?

Does state secrecy contradict the principle of government transparency?

In civics class, many students are taught that a classically liberal republic governs according to the principle of transparency. As every citizen has equal rights, every citizen has an equal right to know exactly what it is that the government is doing. According to this understanding, if only a tiny minority of citizens know what the government is doing, whereas the rest of the public is deliberately kept in the dark about such actions, then there is an imbalance of power, which is inconsistent with the principles of a liberal republic or liberal democracy. And yet every functioning republic, including the United States, has intelligence agencies that maintain classified information hidden to the public. Such information is hidden from the public on the grounds that such secrecy is necessary for defending the public from military threats. And yet such secrecy, it seems to me, contradicts the principle of transparency that is supposedly inherent to the idea of a liberal republic. Does any secrecy on the part of a government contradict the principles of classical-liberal republican transparency? Can state secrecy and classical-liberal republican transparency be reconciled?

How could criminals be identified in a system of open immigration?

You’ve in favor of open immigration, but not for criminals. However, governments can make mistakes about who’s guilty or not and of what. What measures should the government take to exclude criminals? How much trouble and expense should the government take to only exclude actual criminals?

How can I decide whether a business associate has crossed the line?

I am part of a very specialized marketing co-op group. Businesses provide samples to the marketer, who then sells them at his own profit, to the tune of thousands of dollars a month. The marketer also does many web promotions and a monthly set of videos to promote the makers of these samples. This business has worked well in sending customers my way in the past. However, a few months ago, the marketer threatened to call the whole thing off for a month, claiming there were not enough samples to sell. So all the businesses rallied and sent in more. Two weeks later the marketer posted publicly that his spouse’s hours had been cut the month before, and he was strapped for cash. This apparent dishonesty turned me off from using the service for many months. When I finally sent in samples again, I found that the same thing is still happening: the marketer is threatening to call off the promotion for the month if more samples are not sent in. Does this kind of behavior warrant dropping this business tool from my arsenal? Or am I just reacting emotionally?

Is there any validity to the concept of “the friend zone”?

The “friend zone” is used to describe the situation of a man who is interested in a woman, but she’s not interested in being more than friends with him. Then, he’s “in the friend zone,” and he can’t get out except by her say-so. So “nice guys” in the friend zone often use the concept to describe the frustration of watching the women they desire date “bad boys” while they sit over to the side waiting for their chance to graduate from being just friends to being something more. Feminists suggest that this concept devalues a woman’s right to determine the context and standard of their sexual and romantic interests, that it treats a woman’s sexual acceptance as something that a man is entitled to by virtue of not being a jerk. Is that right? Or do women harm themselves by making bad choices about the types of men they date versus the types they put in the “friend zone?”

Can I reclaim lost personality traits?

When I was a kid (probably until the age of about 12 or 13), my personality had a strong ‘I’ element (as in the DISC model I). I was fun, energetic and confident. I was willing to express myself openly (and loudly) and do silly things for the sake of laughs. When I went to high school, I was bullied heavily. I became much more quiet and withdrawn. The C element of my personality took over, and the I element all but disappeared. Now as an adult, I would like to be able to “reclaim” my lost personality. I am generally a shy and withdrawn person, and I long for the energy and enthusiasm that I once had. Is it possible to reclaim my lost personality? If so, how?

How can I create more realistic expectations about the trajectory of my job?

I’ve really only worked for two companies in my 15 years of work experience and I am presently on the hunt for a new job. In both cases, my job hunt has been initiated by the simple fact that I’m long past my breaking point in terms of being unhappy at work. The unhappiness comes as the result of not being challenged, not being given opportunities to advance, bad managers, and other routine afflictions of corporate working life. I think I should have started hunting for a new job much, much sooner but every time I considered doing that I would think to myself, “Oh, maybe it will get better.” Or “This problem isn’t that bad and it could go away in a month or two.” And so I stick it out because there are some advantages to having a long tenure. But by the time I actually kick off my job search I am burned out, apathetic, frustrated, and unproductive. Surely there has to be a better way to pick up on those trends before it reaches this level of misery. How do I know when the problem lies just with my specific circumstances that I might change by moving to a new team, as opposed to a systemic problem within the company?

Should I attend religious ceremonies in support of my friends?

I am an atheist, and I tend to stay away from any religious gatherings. I graduated high school 3 years ago, and one of my friends is graduating this year. He asked me if I would go to him to his baccalaureate ceremony, as his family and girlfriend cannot make it. This is a traditional religious ceremony held before the graduation of high school seniors. As an atheist, I object to the notion of God or that He had anything to do with the success of my friend and his classmates. My friend is semi religious, but it doesn’t seem to be a big issue for him. Should I attend this ceremony in support of my friend or not? More generally, should an atheist attend religious gatherings in support of religious friends?

Is karma real?

Although the concept of “karma” has religious roots, it seems to contain a grain of truth, namely that people will, in the end, get what they deserve. So if a father is mean to his children, he will find them unwilling to help him when he suffers a health crisis in his old age. In contrast, children raised with love and kindness will be eager to help their ailing father. Is this understanding of karma true? Is this a concept that rational people might or should use in their moral thinking?

Can an egoist have too big an ego?

People often speak disapprovingly of “big egos.” The idea seems to be that a person is not supposed to think too well of himself or be too assertive. Is this just the product of altruism, including the idea that a person should be humble? Or could a self-valuing egoist be too big for his britches?

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.)