The Blog

NoodleFood

Podcast #72: Manners, Brutal Honesty, Right to Counsel, and More

 Posted by on 26 April 2011 at 9:00 am  Podcasts
Apr 262011
 

On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I answered questions on the basis of manners, brutal honesty, right to legal counsel, government medical insurance, promoting Objectivism, the morality of sadism and masochism, 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: 24 April 2011

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: 24 April 2011

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

Introduction

My News of the Week: Please support my pledge-funded update to Explore Atlas Shrugged!

Question 1: The Basis of Manners

Question: How do you objectively define manners? Is that even possible? What makes some action rude or polite? Is it purely subjective or based on personal values? For example, some people think that guests ought to take off their shoes in another person’s house, while others don’t care or even prefer shoes to remain on the feet. And some people think that putting elbows on the dinner table or feet on the coffee table is barbaric, while others regard that as fine. Since manners vary from person to person, how do you “mind your manners” when interacting with other people? Or should you not bother with that, and instead do what you please?

My Answer, In Brief: Manners are neither cultural whims, nor intrinsically good. When based on fact, they are social customs aimed at smoothing social interactions beyond demands of law and morality.

Listen or Download:

Links:

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

Question 2: Brutal Honesty

Question: Is it rationally selfish to be brutally honest in some contexts? Often, you need to tell a person some hard truth, and you can do so either tactfully or brutally. In many instances, you might want to be brutally honest because you fear that the person will not understand what you say if you’re tactful. So which approach is better?

My Answer, In Brief: A person should be frank and straightforward in his communications with others, neither concealing unpleasant truths nor pummeling the other person with them.

Listen or Download:

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

Question 3: Right to Legal Counsel

Question: Why is receiving the counsel of an attorney a right while receiving health care is not? In both cases, you would receive something that you need for free from the state. So what’s the difference, if any? Why should a repeat offender have access to free legal counsel at taxpayer expense while an innocent, law-abiding sick person shouldn’t receive life-saving medication or treatment at taxpayer expense? In the former case, the criminal might lose his liberty, but in the latter case the sick person might die. So what I am missing?

My Answer, In Brief: Check your premises! A person does not have a right to legal counsel at taxpayer expense but rather only the right to consult his own counsel in any legal proceeding, whether purchased by his own funds or freely-given charity.

Listen or Download:

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

Question 4: Government Medical Insurance

Question: Should a person with a pre-existing medical condition that disqualifies him from most major medical insurance plans sign up for a state-sponsored high-risk insurance pool? I’m a 1099 independent software contractor, and I’m responsible for my own health insurance. I have a pre-existing condition that disqualifies me from most of the major medical insurers. My current insurer offers few benefits, and the company is notorious for trying to deny claims. I was also diagnosed with a malignant tumor in my cheek. That’s being treated, but I’ll be all the more uninsurable in the future. However, the state where I live has a high-risk insurance pool available. Financially, this plan would be a much better deal than I have with my current insurance company. I would have to pay premiums, deductibles, and co-insurance, so this plan is not complete welfare. However, I’m obviously wary of becoming dependent on the government for such a plan, and I don’t want to contribute to the continued socialization of the health-care system. I have some other options, like trying to find a job that offers benefits, but I love my current job. Am I trying to eat my cake and have it too by signing up for the state plan, which would allow me to stay in my current job without the worry of a major medical issue ruining me and my family financially?

My Answer, In Brief: For a person to accept government money as restitution for funds taken by force from him and/or due to government destruction of private markets is not wrong, provided that the person continues to oppose all such government welfare on principle.

Listen or Download:

Links:

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

Question 5: Promoting Objectivism

Question: How should one promote Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism? What are some right and wrong ways to do that? What are some good methods and target audiences?

My Answer, In Brief: Study, understand, and live the philosophy – then find ways of promoting the ideas that you’re passionate about.

Listen or Download:

Links:

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

Question 6: The Morality of Sadism and Masochism

Question: Objectivism regards harming yourself or allowing others to harm you is immoral, but how does that apply to sex, particularly sadism and masochism? Should S&M acts be illegal?

My Answer, In Brief: Consensual S&M should be legal. However, S&M that’s more than merely rough sex – when a person desires to hurt, dominate, humiliate his sexual partner (or to receive such) – reveals a self-destructive psychology.

Listen or Download:

To comment on this question or my answer, 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: 1:06:37


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 #72: Manners, Brutal Honesty, Right to Counsel, and More  Add comments
   
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