On Sunday, 26 August 2012, I broadcast a new episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, answering questions on voting for third-party candidates, self-interest in parenting, bigotry against religion, and more. Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers was the episode’s co-host.
If you missed the live broadcast, you can listen to audio podcasts of selected questions or the whole episode. You’ll find those posted below, as well as on this episode’s archive page: Q&A Radio: 26 August 2012.
To automatically download every new episode, just subscribe to the Philosophy in Action Podcast RSS Feed in your music player:
- Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader
- Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader
Q&A Radio: Episode: 26 August 2012
The Whole Episode
My News of the Week: I’ve been moving content from DianaHsieh.com to PhilosophyInAction.com, preparing docs for campaign finance litigation, and radically revising OmniFocus after my interview with Andrew Miner.
Listen or Download:
- Duration: 1:11:54
- Download: Enhanced M4A File (17.4 MB)
- Download: Standard MP3 File (16.5 MB)
You can also download or listen to particular questions from this episode.
Question 1: Voting for Third-Party Candidates (5:42)
In this segment, I answered a question on voting for third-party candidates.
Is it moral or practical to vote for third-party candidates? The Founders created a two-party political system. With features like geographic representation, first-past-the-post voting for Congress, and the Electoral College for voting for President, the Founders clearly wanted parties consisting of large umbrella groups of wide geographic and ideological interests. As a result, the United States has always had two and only two dominant political parties. Corrupt election laws, passed by these parties, now guarantee that except in rare instances (such as Jesse Ventura, of all people) only members of these two parties can be elected to office. Given these facts, what is the purpose of voting for third party candidates? Unlike the two major umbrella parties, all third parties are composed of ideological kooks of many persuasions. Isn’t a vote for a third party candidate thus immoral (for supporting kookdom) and impractical (since they can’t win)? Wouldn’t it be better to try to improve the two existing parties, or not vote at all?
My Answer, In Brief: (1) The Founders did not create a two-party system by design. (2) Voting is the least significant political act you can do, albeit still worthwhile. (3) Fiscal conservatives need to be willing to refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils if they want better candidates. (4) A good candidate from a third party is often a worthwhile protest vote. (5) I don’t yet know how I’ll vote, although I’m most likely to vote for Gary Johnson. (6) Acrimony over voting is wrong, pointless, and destructive.
Listen or Download:
- Duration: 38:30
- Download: MP3 Segment
Tags: Elections, Politics, Rights, Voting
Relevant Links:
- The Objective Standard’s blog: Romney-Ryan 2012–Ayn Rand Forever, Further Thoughts on Why Objectivists Should Actively Campaign for Romney-Ryan, and Principle vs. Pragmatism in Supporting Romney-Ryan by Craig Biddle
- Federalist #10 by James Madison
- “How the GOP Lost My Vote” by Paul Hsieh
- Philosophy in Action: Gary Johnson for US President
To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.
Question 2: Self-Interest in Parenting (44:12)
In this segment, I answered a question on self-interest in parenting.
Are my interests as a parent always aligned with the interests of my child? I have a two-month-old daughter. She is of great value to me, so to protect and provide for her is in my self-interest. However, might our interests sometimes diverge? If so, should I give priority to her interests or mine?
My Answer, In Brief: The objective interests of parents and children do not clash in the long run: neither parent nor child benefits from sacrifices. However, the difficulty lies in giving up unrealistic ideals to find reasonable win-win solutions.
Listen or Download:
- Duration: 9:58
- Download: MP3 Segment
Tags: Children, Egoism, Ethics, Parenting
To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.
Question 3: Bigotry Against Religion (54:11)
In this segment, I answered a question on bigotry against religion.
Is criticism of and opposition to religion a form of bigotry? In its entry on bigotry, Wikipedia claims that a “bigot” is “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who exhibits intolerance and animosity toward members of a group,” and that “bigotry may be directed towards those of a differing sex or sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, nationality, region, language, religious or spiritual belief, political alignment, age, economic status or medical disability.” I hear the charge of bigotry bandied about, often reflexively, particularly by theists when atheists criticize their faith-based beliefs as irrational. Is open criticism of and disrespect for religion a form of bigotry? Or is “bigotry” a loaded concept to be used by anyone whose belief system is critically challenged?
My Answer, In Brief: Bigotry is not holding fast to an unpopular opinion, but rather unjustly attacking people solely due to being members of some group. Criticisms of religion – and of religious advocates and adherents – so long as they stick to the facts (including about people as individuals) are not bigotry.
Listen or Download:
- Duration: 11:20
- Download: MP3 Segment
Tags: Atheism, Racism, Religion
Relevant Links:
- Wikipedia: Bigotry
- Philosophy in Action: Speaking Out Against Bigotry
To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.
Rapid Fire Questions (1:05:31)
In this segment, Dr. Diana Hsieh answered questions impromptu. The questions were:
- What is the best way to ask someone to re-friend you after they’ve de-friended you?
- Is it immoral to attend a Christian University as an atheist if it has exceptional academic excellence in my field of interest?
- Duration: 4:02
- Download: MP3 Segment
To comment on these questions or my answers, visit its comment thread.
Conclusion (1:09:34)
Thank you for joining us for this episode! If you enjoyed this episode, please contribute to contribute to our tip jar. Also, please submit and vote on questions for upcoming shows in in the question queue.
Support Philosophy in Action
Remember, Philosophy in Action Radio is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing these radio shows, but they’re not free to produce: they require our time, effort, and money – week in and week out. So if you enjoy and value our work, please contribute to our tip jar! You can send your contribution via Dwolla, PayPal, or US Mail.Follow Philosophy in Action
