On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I answered questions on the “marginal humans” argument, sex when not in the mood, responding to polite homophobes, 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:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

Whole Podcast: 21 July 2013

Listen or Download:

• Duration: 1:07:03
• Download: Enhanced M4A File (24.1 MB)
• Download: Standard MP3 File (23.0 MB)

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: 21 July 2013

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 some programming projects for Philosophy in Action. Yesterday, my horse Lila and I won two first place and one second place ribbon doing the three “training level” tests in a dressage schooling show.

Question 1: The “Marginal Humans” Argument

Question: What’s wrong with the “marginal humans” argument against uniquely human rights? Ayn Rand, following Aristotle, defined man as the rational animal – meaning that man’s essential quality is that he possesses the faculty of reason, while other animals do not. Such is the basis for rights, in her view. Opponents of animal rights often appeal to this gap between humans and other animals to justify raising animals to be killed and eaten. They claim that animals can’t have rights because they’re not rational. Advocates of animal rights, however, often attempt to refute this claim via the “marginal humans” argument. They observe that human infants lack the faculty of reason, and hence, we should not use rationality as the moral criterion for rights. What is wrong with this argument? Do opponents of animal rights conflate potential with actual rationality, in that the infant seems potentially but not actually capable of reason?

My Answer, In Brief: The “marginal humans” arguments helps clarify the nature and limits of rights, but it does not undermine the view that rights are limited to humans or based on the capacity to reason.

Listen or Download:

• Start Time: 4:07
• Duration: 29:28
• Download: MP3 Segment
• Tags: Animal Rights, Animals, Children, Disability, Human Nature, Politics, Rights

Links:

• On the Margins of Humanity by Diana Hsieh

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

Question 2: Sex When Not in the Mood

Question: Is it wrong to have sex when you’re not in the mood? Assume that you’re in a long-term romantic relationship with another person. You are not always going to feel the desire to have sex. If your lover wants sex, is it wrong to have sex? Might you have sex anyway, perhaps because you want to do something nice for your lover – perhaps in the hope that your lover might do the same for you later? Many people seem uncomfortable with sex under those circumstances, i.e. absent a strong physical desire. Some think that having sex even if not in the mood isn’t right: it’s degrading and might lead to resentment. Others claim that if you’re truly in love, then your physical desires will fall into line. Hence, if you don’t want to have sex, you might not really be in love – or you might have other philosophical or psychological problems. Which of these views is right?

My Answer, In Brief: Sex should never be a sacrifice, but that doesn’t mean that both people must be desperately wanting it to have great sex.

Listen or Download:

• Start Time: 33:35
• Duration: 10:21
• Download: MP3 Segment
• Tags: Ethics, Love, Relationships, Romance, Romance, Sacrifice, Self-Sacrifice, Sex

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

Question 3: Responding to Polite Homophobes

Question: How should I respond to people who think that homosexuality is an immoral or neurotic choice? I’m straight, but I have many gay friends. From years of experience, I know that they’re virtuous and rational people. Moreover, their romantic relationships are not fundamentally different from mine. Also, I’m a strong believer in gay rights, including gay marriage. So what should I do when confronted with seemingly decent people who think that homosexuality is an immoral choice, based in neurosis, or otherwise unhealthy? These people often present their ideas in polite and seemingly respectable ways; they’re not just flaming bigots. Yet still I find them appalling, particularly when used to justify denying rights to gays. Should I be more tolerant of such views? How should I express my disagreement?

My Answer, In Brief: Given today’s cultural context, hatred of or bias against gays is not an excusable position for most people: it’s too obviously wrong. A person deeply committed to that – meaning, a person who publicly condemns gays or treats them unjustly – deserves to be ostracized by decent people.

Listen or Download:

• Start Time: 43:56
• Duration: 15:06
• Download: MP3 Segment
• Tags: Bigotry, Communication, Epistemology, Ethics, GLBT, Love, Psychology, Romance, Sex, Sexism

Links:

• Ron Pisaturo: “I am Married … to a Woman”, “The Volitional, Objective Basis for Heterosexuality in Romantic Love and Marriage”: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

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

Rapid Fire Questions

Questions:

• What are you thoughts on the outcome of the Zimmerman trial? Was justice served or not?
• How much time do you spend each week preparing for this show? What are the perks and drawbacks of being a full-time philosopher?
• Is there any point saying ‘bless you’ when someone sneezes?

Listen or Download:

• Start Time: 59:02
• Duration: 6:04
• 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: 1:05:05

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.