I highlight some under-appreciated good developments in health care, centered around the theme that innovations in processes may be less flashy than innovations in technology — but can still save lives.
In particular, I discuss the following:
1) Improvements in cardiac care
2) Improvements in matching kidney transplant donors with recipients
3) Protecting the freedom of direct pay doctors
Our current system is very mixed, with both good and bad elements. Today, I wanted to focus on some of the good elements.
On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I answered questions on exceptions to rules, judgments of men versus women for sexual relationships with minors, 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:
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.
You can download or listen to my answers to individual questions from this episode below.
Introduction
My News of the Week: I’ve been changing my name (socially, not yet legally) from Diana Hsieh to Diana Brickell.
Question 1: Exceptions to Rules
Question: When should exceptions to established rules be granted? People often oppose some proposed exception to the rules on the grounds that doing so would set a dangerous precedent and engender abuse. For example, suppose that an honest and diligent student is in the hospital, and he wants to keep up with his school work as much as possible. His parents propose that he take his math exam from the hospital, and they’ll monitor him during the exam. The school refuses on the grounds that if all students were allowed to do that, then cheating would be rampant because not all parents would be honest or diligent monitors. Is that a valid reason for refusing this proposed exception to the rules? When should exceptions be granted to established rules?
My Answer, In Brief: Rules are not sacrosanct. The critical point – for both rule-makers and rule-followers/rule-breakers is to respect the relevant underlying principles and goals. From that basis, reasonable exceptions can be made.
To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.
Question 2: Judgments of Men Versus Women for Sexual Relationships with Minors
Question: Why aren’t women strongly condemned for sexual relationships with underage boys? A few years ago, I saw a flurry of news stories about female teachers in their twenties committing statutory rape by having sex with their teenage male students. At the time, many public commentators and comedians said that they didn’t see how the boys could have been harmed, and they thought an adult male teacher having sex with a female student would be much more predatory. Besides, those commentators often added, the female teachers in these cases were “hot.” At the time, I agreed with those views, but lately, I’ve been thinking that I should check my premises. So is it the case that an adult man having sex with a female minor is more predatory than an adult woman having sex with a male minor? Are the teenage male minor’s rights violated if he is seduced into a sexual relationship with a female teacher? Is a double standard at work here?
My Answer, In Brief: My basic advice is to ignore the media hyperventilating over these kinds of cases: you can’t know enough about the relationship to judge. In the meantime, check your premises about male versus female sexual desire.
Given that you take requests for questions to answer, how much does voting on the questions really matter? (I’m just curious–your show, your rules!)
My coworker makes unfunny, snide comments to me under the guise of kidding around. When I defend myself with cutting responses, he acts taken aback and accuses me of being sensitive. What should I do?
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.
On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on exceptions to rules, judgments of men versus women for sexual relationships with minors, ideological consistency, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 28 June 2015, in our live studio. If you can’t listen live, you’ll find the podcast on the episode’s archive page.
This week’s questions are:
Question 1: Exceptions to Rules: When should exceptions to established rules be granted? People often oppose some proposed exception to the rules on the grounds that doing so would set a dangerous precedent and engender abuse. For example, suppose that an honest and diligent student is in the hospital, and he wants to keep up with his school work as much as possible. His parents propose that he take his math exam from the hospital, and they’ll monitor him during the exam. The school refuses on the grounds that if all students were allowed to do that, then cheating would be rampant because not all parents would be honest or diligent monitors. Is that a valid reason for refusing this proposed exception to the rules? When should exceptions be granted to established rules?
Question 2: Judgments of Men Versus Women for Sexual Relationships with Minors: Why aren’t women strongly condemned for sexual relationships with underage boys? A few years ago, I saw a flurry of news stories about female teachers in their twenties committing statutory rape by having sex with their teenage male students. At the time, many public commentators and comedians said that they didn’t see how the boys could have been harmed, and they thought an adult male teacher having sex with a female student would be much more predatory. Besides, those commentators often added, the female teachers in these cases were “hot.” At the time, I agreed with those views, but lately, I’ve been thinking that I should check my premises. So is it the case that an adult man having sex with a female minor is more predatory than that of an adult woman having sex with a male minor? Are the teenage male minor’s rights are violated if he is seduced into a sexual relationship with a female teacher? is a double standard at work here?
Question 3: Ideological Consistency: Does ideological consistency lead to absurdities and wrongs? Under “zero tolerance” policies, children have been suspended or expelled from schools for innocuous actions like drawing a picture of a gun. Advocates of free markets claim that a business owner has the right to discriminate against customers for any trivial or irrational reason, including skin color or hair color. In both the cases, the problem seems to be taking some idea to its utmost extreme, to the point of absurdity. Shouldn’t we be more moderate and flexible in our views?
After that, we’ll tackle some impromptu “Rapid Fire Questions.”
To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action’s Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat.
I hope you join us for the live show or enjoy the podcast later. Also, please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics!
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.
Bergner explains that, in the past, “scientists fixated on what the rat female did in the act of sex, not what she did to get there.” And if you’re friends with any single women or are one yourself, you know that “what she did to get there” is often the most taxing part of the sexual act. It’s also where cultural factors really start to work against women’s newly documented desire. Bergner makes a pretty strong case that women are socially, not biologically, discouraged from initiating and enjoying sex. … Men and women have been barraged with the message that women are not naughty by nature. They are thought of as hardwired to hunt for a partner and a mate, while men pursue sex as a pleasurable act in and of itself. It follows from there that women — at least good women — must be pursued and coaxed into sex, and men enjoy the thrill of the chase.
…
There are other factors propping up the idea that women prefer to be sexually passive. Bergner reports that preliminary research indicates women are most turned on by their partners’ desire for them. It’s easy to see how this could be misconstrued as passivity — especially because more than a century of conventional wisdom says women don’t like sex as much as men do. But if we accept Bergner’s radical thesis that women do, in fact, like to get off, and get off on being desired, the question of who pursues whom poses a real conundrum for single women.
Think about it: Women want sex, and in particular, they want sex with people who really want them. But socially, many straight men still find it a turnoff when women are sexual aggressors. Which means that, for women, aggressively pursuing the thing they want actually leads to them not getting it. I suspect this is the source of much sexual dissatisfaction of the modern single lady, who’s so horny she’s running across the street to Walgreens to buy more batteries twice a week, but is unable to pick up men despite social conventions that men are “easy” to bed and women have to be coaxed into casual sex. The thing women are told they can access any time is, maddeningly, often just out of reach.
I’ve been thinking a whole lot about the psychology of sexual desire of late. The complexities, even just on a personal level… well, they’re complex. :-) Hence, much of the above commentary on mistaken assumptions about female sexual desire resonates with me. Plus, I wish that sex wasn’t treated in our culture as A Topic Not To Be Discussed Among Friends Except In Terms Of Vague Generalities and Allusions. I’ve had that as an explicit policy for years… but no more, and life is better for it.
As many of you already know, Paul and I separated in April after 16 years of marriage.
Last week, we decided that we should let friends know that we are definitely on a path to divorce. We’ve started seeing other people (or at least that’s in the works), so we wanted some greater public clarity about the state of our marriage.
Happily, our relationship is very amicable. We meet for a friendly meal about once a week, and we’ve been talking very openly and honestly about our marriage. We’ve also been doing (and will continue to do) divorce counseling together, as well as individual therapy. The legal process of divorce is not yet underway for logistical reasons, but that’ll start sometime in the next few months.
I know that some of you will be surprised by this announcement, but please be assured that Paul and I are doing okay, and that we appreciate the support of our friends as we move forward with our lives. This is a major and difficult life-change for both of us, and I think we’ll be better off at the end of it.
Also… I plan to change back to my maiden name — meaning that I’ll be Diana Mertz Brickell again. To ease the transition, I’m going to start using that socially now and professionally soon. Legally though, that’ll only change with the divorce.
On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I answered questions on respect without agreement, political correctness, responsibility for stolen firearms, 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:
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.
You can download or listen to my answers to individual questions from this episode below.
Introduction
My News of the Week: I’ve been busy with work and krav maga!
Question 1: Respect without Agreement
Question: How can I help my father understand that I respect him, even when I disagree with him? I generally value experience for its ability to provide helpful insights, but I am suspicious of people who fall back on appeals to authority in an attempt to win arguments. My father often does that during our debates on various subjects, as we do not see eye-to-eye on many important issues. When I reject his appeals on the grounds that they are logically fallacious, he takes personal offense and accuses me of disrespecting him. I respect my father, and I try to convey my appreciation for his experience in other ways. But I want to have civil discourse with him that doesn’t dead-end in this uncomfortable way someday. My father and I have been estranged for the last five years, in large part due to his tendency toward communicating in this and other manipulative ways, and my current attempt at reconciliation is failing again because of these communication issues. This is a shame because I truly feel that the makings of a good father-daughter relationship are in place, but my father cannot seem to stop predicating our ability to love and respect each other on my willingness to constantly agree with him simply because he is my father. What advice can you give on how best to halt this unhealthy pattern, so that I can save my relationship with my dad?
My Answer, In Brief: You cannot reasonably expect to change your father, but you can decide what you will do – perhaps compartmentalizing the relationship.
Question: What is the value of “political correctness”? I used to be a fairly typical right-winger who would regularly cry out “political correctness has gone mad!” While I still come across politically correct ideas that I find ridiculous (e.g. the ban bossy campaign), I’m finding myself more sympathetic to these ideas as I become more informed on them. So I’m now in favor of using the right pronouns for transgender people, avoiding words that can be perceived as derogatory (e.g. fag), and even changing school event names like “parent day” or “Christmas party” to something that doesn’t exclude those it doesn’t apply to. Where should the line be drawn between “political correctness” and making valuable change in our language or practices to be more accommodating and inclusive of people outside the mainstream? Are there legitimate concerns about language becoming more politically correct?
My Answer, In Brief: The whole concept of “political correctness” is meaningless junk that deserves to be scrapped. Language is badly abused in our cultural and political debates, but that needs to be addressed in non-partisan ways.
Question: 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? If the gun owner is not legally liable, might he be morally culpable?
My Answer, In Brief: A gun owner might be liable for harms inflicted on innocent parties by his weapon if he was negligent with that weapon in some fashion – just as he would be with other kinds of dangerous property.
Was Rachel Dolezal wrong for lying about her race in order to fight against racism for the NAACP?
Given our declining freedoms in the USA, have you ever thought about moving out of the country? Would you be willing to leave if greater freedoms existed elsewhere?In the current climate of police distrust and rampant abuses of power, would you advise against filming a police encounter that appeared to be suspicious or violent?When I read postmodern philosophy, it seems like philosophy is starting to “melt” into the social sciences. What do you think of this observation?
What are some of the moral concerns with commissioning art?
Sometimes, I hear people talk about the importance of “feeling like a part of your community.” Is this just collectivist nonsense? I have never felt like part of a community.
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.
For some time now, I’ve gone back and forth about whether I’m INFJ or INFP on Myers-Briggs. Over the past few months, I’ve seen some aspects of my personality change and sharpen: I feel more in control of my life, more confident, and more driven. As part of that, I’m engaged in lots more J-ish behaviors. (If only I’d let you see my spreadsheets!!)
Stereotype #2: INFJs are the natural counselors of the world, who want nothing more than to care for and nurture you.
Reality: Though they certainly do care for others, INFJs can often come across as cold if you don’t know them well. They lead with introverted intuition, which makes them infinitely more interested in analyzing big-picture problems than helping you sort out your relationship issues – they are empathetic to a fault but they’d usually rather be analyzing than empathizing.
Reading through the descriptions of INFJ and INFP again, I’m struck by how well INFJ suits. For example:
Consequently, most INFJs are protective of their inner selves, sharing only what they choose to share when they choose to share it. They are deep, complex individuals, who are quite private and typically difficult to understand. INFJs hold back part of themselves, and can be secretive.
I’m only starting to understand just how really, really true this is of me. But no, I’m not going to give you any details, random people of Earth. SO THERE.
P.S. For what it’s worth, I don’t recommend trying to type yourself using a test. The test sucks.
On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on respect without agreement, political correctness, responsibility for stolen firearms, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 21 June 2015, in our live studio. If you can’t listen live, you’ll find the podcast on the episode’s archive page.
This week’s questions are:
Question 1: Respect without Agreement: How can I help my father understand that I respect him, even when I disagree with him? I generally value experience for its ability to provide helpful insights, but I am suspicious of people who fall back on appeals to authority in an attempt to win arguments. My father often does that during our debates on various subjects, as we do not see eye-to-eye on many important issues. When I reject his appeals on the grounds that they are logically fallacious, he takes personal offense and accuses me of disrespecting him. I respect my father, and I try to convey my appreciation for his experience in other ways. But I want to have civil discourse with him that doesn’t dead-end in this uncomfortable way someday. My father and I have been estranged for the last five years, in large part due to his tendency toward communicating in this and other manipulative ways, and my current attempt at reconciliation is failing again because of these communication issues. This is a shame because I truly feel that the makings of a good father-daughter relationship are in place, but my father cannot seem to stop predicating our ability to love and respect each other on my willingness to constantly agree with him simply because he is my father. What advice can you give on how best to halt this unhealthy pattern, so that I can save my relationship with my dad?
Question 2: Political Correctness: What is the value of “political correctness”? I used to be a fairly typical right-winger who would regularly cry out “political correctness has gone mad!” While I still come across politically correct ideas that I find ridiculous (e.g. the ban bossy campaign), I’m finding myself more sympathetic to these ideas as I become more informed on them. So I’m now in favor of using the right pronouns for transgender people, avoiding words that can be perceived as derogatory (e.g. fag), and even changing school event names like “parent day” or “Christmas party” to something that doesn’t exclude those it doesn’t apply to. Where should the line be drawn between “political correctness” and making valuable change in our language or practices to be more accommodating and inclusive of people outside the mainstream? Are there legitimate concerns about language becoming more politically correct?
Question 3: Responsibility for Stolen Firearms: 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? If the gun owner is not legally liable, might he be morally culpable?
After that, we’ll tackle some impromptu “Rapid Fire Questions.”
To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action’s Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat.
I hope you join us for the live show or enjoy the podcast later. Also, please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics!
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.
On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I answered questions on responsibility for a child, career without aptitude, 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:
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.
You can download or listen to my answers to individual questions from this episode below.
Introduction
My News of the Week: I’ve been working on personal projects, and I had my first krav maga class this week!
Question 1: Responsibility for a Child
Question: When is a person responsible for an unexpected and unwanted child? Sex sometimes results in an unexpected and perhaps unwanted pregnancy. What are the moral responsibilities of each party in this situation? Do a person’s obligations depend on prior agreements about what would be done in such a case? Do they depend on whether contraception was used or not? If the man said that he didn’t want children and used contraception, yet a pregnancy occurs, does he have any moral or legal obligation to pay for an abortion, support the child, or act as a father? Does the answer change if the woman agreed to have an abortion in advance, then changes her mind? Should couples talk explicitly about these matters before sex?
My Answer, In Brief: Morally and legally, the fundamental principle is that neither men nor women should be compelled to become parents against their will.
To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.
Question 2: Career without Aptitude
Question: Should I pursue a career that interests me even if I don’t have much aptitude for it? I have a strong interest in the field of bioengineering for what it can potentially accomplish. However, in my own estimation, I have little aptitude for hard science and seriously doubt whether I can succeed academically in the areas necessary to enter the field. This self-assessment is based on my academic history, life accomplishments, and aptitude test results. Should I try to pursue this career against the odds anyway, or should I accept that I don’t have the intellectual capability to do so?
My Answer, In Brief: Your interest in bioengineering sounds like an interest in what it produces, not in the day-to-day process of creating that. To make a career in something, you need to love the process. So seek a career where you love the work itself.
If an infant is born with an incurable disease that will kill it after weeks of suffering, should it be permissible to simply euthanise the infant?
How is weed legalization going in Colorado from your observations? Do you notice people casually smoking in public? Does the public there have an overall positive or negative view of it so far?
Scanning the internet is shortening my attention span considerably. I feel impatient urges to move on whenever I start reading anything. Any advice for how to lessen the urges and retrain focus?
How does a person stop himself from obsessing about a difficult conversation they are planning to have with someone? What are some signs that he has moved beyond reasonable planning to obsessing?
A while ago I asked you about the moral considerations involved in having to revive my landlord, who didn’t take care of her type-1 diabetes properly and had me and other people calling an ambulance for her regularly, nearly a dozen times within a year. (She ate irregularly, or skipped meals altogether, causing her to pass out, get very weak, or lose most of her cognitive ability.) My concern was whether it was ethical to just leave her in a catatonic state, and you stated that there’s “duty to rescue” laws, where, given my relationship with my landlord, I was legally obligated to tend to her emergencies, regardless if they were honest or not. However, couldn’t it be said that the landlord was literally forcing me to take care of her, violating my rights, since her diabetic emergencies were due to her irresponsibility? Shouldn’t there be a limit to how many times or in what ways a duty to rescue law can apply? Shouldn’t I be able to press charges, sue, or be relieved of obligations, such as being able to move out without illegally breaking the renter’s contract?
Isn’t it true that, if the universe has always existed then that, in and of itself, is the strongest argument against design by God? In other words, for argument’s sake, doesn’t just the possibility of the universe being the metaphysical given render design arguments moot?
Did Ayn Rand have a sense of humor? Is there room for humor in Objectivism?
Could you give a brief overview of Stoicism and its good versus bad points?
Was Oskar Schindler an altruist?
Would you agree that musical theatre is the only art form that has always remained romantic? I have never heard or a realist musical or a stream of consciousness musical.
Why do people describe John Rawls as an ‘individualist’ when his ideas seem to underly all of modern statism?
Do you prefer the original Star Trek or The Next Generation?
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.
Page 1 of 21 2 Older Entries
Explore Atlas Shrugged
Do you want to better understand and appreciate Ayn Rand's epic novel Atlas Shrugged? Explore Atlas Shrugged -- my in-depth course consisting of a podcast series, study questions, and other resources -- will help you do that.
Check out the free previews, then purchase access to the whole of Explore Atlas Shrugged for just $20.
The written materials of Explore Atlas Shrugged are also available from Amazon in paperback and kindle formats, and purchasers of those editions pay just $10 for access to the podcasts.
Responsibility & Luck defends the justice of moral praise and blame of persons using an Aristotelian theory of moral responsibility, thereby refuting Thomas Nagel's "problem of moral luck."
I've been a happy customer of Audible.com since 2005. I love my platinum subscription! I read more books. I save money. I enjoy the performance. Get your free 30-day trial today!
I've enjoyed my Amazon Prime membership for years... and I couldn't live without it. It offers free two-day shipping, plus thousands of free streaming movies and televisions shows, plus free kindle book rentals!
I've saved hundreds of dollars over the last few years by ordering my glasses from Zenni Optical, spending $40 for a top-of-the-line pair rather than $400.
The comments are powered by Disqus. If you register, rather than posting as a guest, you will be able to edit your comment once posted. Spam, rude comments, and off-topic comments will be deleted.
All content on NoodleFood is copyrighted by its author. Please inquire with the author if you wish to reprint more than 600 words of a post.
