The Blog

NoodleFood

Podcast #356: Resisting Arrest, Enjoying Atlas Shrugged, Stigmatized Property, and More

 Posted by on 20 July 2015 at 8:00 am  Podcasts
Jul 202015
 

On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I answered questions on resisting arrest, enjoying Atlas Shrugged, stigmatized property, 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: 19 July 2015

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: 19 July 2015

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

Introduction

My News of the Week: I’ve been occupied with personal matters, apart from the show.

Question 1: Resisting Arrest

Question: How should the police respond to people resisting arrest? Recently, Michael Brown in Ferguson and Eric Garner in New York City have made headlines because they were killed by police officers who, many feel, used excessive force during their respective encounters. While the two cases were quite different, they did have one thing in common. In both cases, the officers were compelled to use force which resulted in lethal injury when the men, Brown and Garner respectively, resisted arrest. Brown attacked officer Wilson and then ran away, refusing to stop until Wilson chased him down. Garner refused to be arrested. Is there a more objective way to deal with an arrest in a free society? Since, in a free society, the government has a monopoly over the use of force, does that mean that the police are allowed to use brutal force when a suspect refuses to comply with the officer’s demands, regardless of the charges against the person in question?

My Answer, In Brief: The culture of policing in America is fraught with serious (but not universal) problems of police misconduct and brutality. In a free and civilized society, the police need to be restrained in their use of force, so that they protect rather than violate rights.

Listen or Download:

Links:

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

Question 2: Enjoying Atlas Shrugged

Question: How can I be less annoyed with Atlas Shrugged? I love Ayn Rand’s ideas, and I thoroughly enjoy her non-fiction. I want to enjoy Atlas Shrugged and her other fiction more, but I’m often annoyed with the aesthetics of her work. I acknowledge the fact that the novels are great, but every time I see mention of Francisco’s mocking smile or John Galt’s mocking eyes or Hank Rearden’s mocking laugh or John Galt’s implacable voice or New York City’s implacable skyline or Dagny Taggart’s silent terror, I just want to pull my hair out. I find myself wanting to throw the book at the wall every time she uses those words! I understand that loving her novels is not a prerequisite for applying her philosophy, but I really desire to experience the joy that many other people feel while reading her work. How can I get more enjoyment out of it?

My Answer, In Brief: Atlas Shrugged is an amazing novel, but it has some aesthetic flaws that can impede a person’s enjoyment of it. Try to overlook those, focus on what you love, and if all else fails, it’s okay… give up!

Listen or Download:

Links:

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

Question 3: Stigmatized Property

Question: Should sellers of homes be obliged to report the spiritual or criminal history of the property? Many state laws require that “stigmatized” properties, such as those with a history of paranormal activity or a past owner such as Jeffrey Dahmer, be reported by real estate agents. That leads to the home being devalued in price. Should such a law exist? Moreover, should potential buyers take advantage of any “stigmatized” property, thereby offering and paying less, even though belief in paranormal activity is irrational?

My Answer, In Brief: The law should forbid fraud in real estate transactions, and that likely does not require any mandatory disclosures. Instead, buyers should ask about what they’re interested in with open-ended questions, including perhaps about the spiritual and criminal history of a house.

Listen or Download:

Links:

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

Rapid Fire Questions

Questions:

  • Does the counterintuitiveness of the Monty Hall problem demonstrate an inherent flaw in the human capability to reason?
  • Is rape about sex or power?
  • How do we know that the mind is tabula rasa?

Listen or Download:

  • Start Time: 41:39
  • Duration: 7:38
  • 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: 49:18


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 #356: Resisting Arrest, Enjoying Atlas Shrugged, Stigmatized Property, and More  No Responses »

Link-O-Rama

 Posted by on 17 July 2015 at 8:00 am  Link-O-Rama
Jul 172015
 

 Link-O-Rama  2 Responses »

Preview: Sunday Radio: Resisting Arrest, Enjoying Atlas Shrugged, Stigmatized Property, and More

 Posted by on 16 July 2015 at 8:00 am  Podcasts
Jul 162015
 

On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on resisting arrest, enjoying Atlas Shrugged, stigmatized property, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 19 July 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: Resisting Arrest: How should the police respond to people resisting arrest? Recently, Michael Brown in Ferguson and Eric Garner in New York City have made headlines because they were killed by police officers who, many feel, used excessive force during their respective encounters. While the two cases were quite different, they did have one thing in common. In both cases, the officers were compelled to use force which resulted in lethal injury when the men, Brown and Garner respectively, resisted arrest. Brown attacked officer Wilson and then ran away, refusing to stop until Wilson chased him down. Garner refused to be arrested. Is there a more objective way to deal with an arrest in a free society? Since, in a free society, the government has a monopoly over the use of force, does that mean that the police are allowed to use brutal force when a suspect refuses to comply with the officer’s demands, regardless of the charges against the person in question?

  • Question 2: Enjoying Atlas Shrugged: How can I be less annoyed with Atlas Shrugged? I love Ayn Rand’s ideas, and I thoroughly enjoy her non-fiction. I want to enjoy Atlas Shrugged and her other fiction more, but I’m often annoyed with the aesthetics of her work. I acknowledge the fact that the novels are great, but every time I see mention of Francisco’s mocking smile or John Galt’s mocking eyes or Hank Rearden’s mocking laugh or John Galt’s implacable voice or New York City’s implacable skyline or Dagny Taggart’s silent terror, I just want to pull my hair out. I find myself wanting to throw the book at the wall every time she uses those words! I understand that loving her novels is not a prerequisite for applying her philosophy, but I really desire to experience the joy that many other people feel while reading her work. How can I get more enjoyment out of it?

  • Question 3: Stigmatized Property: Should sellers of homes be obliged to report the spiritual or criminal history of the property? Many state laws require that “stigmatized” properties, such as those with a history of paranormal activity or a past owner such as Jeffrey Dahmer, be reported by real estate agents. That leads to the home being devalued in price. Should such a law exist? Moreover, should potential buyers take advantage of any “stigmatized” property, thereby offering and paying less, even though belief in paranormal activity is irrational?

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.

The podcast of this episode will be available shortly after the live broadcast here: Radio Archive: Q&A: Resisting Arrest, Enjoying Atlas Shrugged, Stigmatized Property, and More. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:

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.

Philosophy in Action's NewsletterPhilosophy in Action's Facebook PagePhilosophy in Action's Twitter StreamPhilosophy in Action's RSS FeedsPhilosophy in Action's Calendar

 Preview: Sunday Radio: Resisting Arrest, Enjoying Atlas Shrugged, Stigmatized Property, and More  No Responses »

Ghosting

 Posted by on 15 July 2015 at 10:00 am  Ethics, Etiquette, Psychology, Relationships
Jul 152015
 

This article — Exes Explain Ghosting, the Ultimate Silent Treatment — is fascinating discussion of “ghosting,” which “refers to ending a romantic relationship by cutting off all contact and ignoring the former partner’s attempts to reach out.” Check out the follow-up too.

I’ve never had this happen in a romantic relationship, but my once-best-friend ghosted me a few years ago. We’d grown apart when she moved across the country, such that we were only talking every few months, but we were still on friendly terms. Then we reconnected in an intense in-person conversation when she happened to be in town, at a time when I was really, really struggling. We promised to talk again in a week… and she just disappeared. I called and emailed repeatedly but I never heard from her again.

The whole thing was very painful for me, and I wasn’t the only friend that she dropped in such a fashion. All of us knew her for years, and none of us expected that she’d ever do that to us. At least we saw clearly (after a while) that the problem resided squarely with her, not us. Still, I can feel the hurt in everyone that I’ve spoken to about it.

Truly, ghosting has got to be the most hurtful and destructive way to end a relationship with a friend or lover, hands down. Speaking personally, I’d much rather come home to find a lover in bed with someone else. That, at least, is comprehensible.

What I find so interesting is that the ghosters seem to think that what they’re doing is easy and clean and neat for everyone… and wow, are they ever full of shit. The only case discussed that I would regard as justified is the woman who ghosted the husband that she discovered was cheating on her left and right. Cases in which a person flees a relationship that is dangerous or abusive… well, that’s not “ghosting.” In those cases, the person ghosted knows damn well why the other person disappeared, even if he/she pretends otherwise.

Notably, some of those stories in the follow-up article are not “ghosting” — and I suspect that’s because the writer didn’t want to make the ghosters seem like the worse freaking people on the planet.

Basically, if you don’t have the psychological capacity to end a relationship in an honest or respectful way… if you can’t even say to the person, “Sorry, but I just can’t do this any more: it’s over,” then you have no business being in any kind of close friendship or romantic relationship.

 Ghosting  No Responses »

On Body Image and Femininity in Female Athletes

 Posted by on 14 July 2015 at 10:00 am  Body Image, Health, Love/Sex, Sports
Jul 142015
 

On Saturday, I posted a link to this article — Tennis’s Top Women Balance Body Image With Ambition — to Facebook, with the following comment:

I read this article last night, and it made me want to cry. I like what many of these women have to say, but it’s just horrible that professional freaking athletes feel such ambivalence about putting on muscle just because they’re women. And dammit, they look amazing.

A friend asked me why I was horrified, and I wrote the following comment. It’s a bit rough, but I thought it worth reposting here:

Ah, now that’s a bit difficult to articulate, but let me try.

Overall, I’d say that conventional body standards for women in our culture are pretty irrational. As far as they concern what women can control, they’re almost exclusively about being more slender. That’s the top priority — to be pursued and/or achieved at the price of health (short-term and long-term), capacities (not just athletic pursuits but daily life tasks), etc.

That’s seen in the supermarket “fitness” magazines (which always showcase slender, non-muscular women on their covers) … in the focus on “losing weight” (rather than losing fat and certainly not gaining muscle) … in the ridiculous belief / fear that lifting any kind of weights will cause women to quickly resemble bodybuilders (as if!!) … the quick and near universal compliments obtained from slimming down (whatever the price) … and so on.

So the fact that the standards are irrational and damaging to women’s health and performance is part of the problem here. That’s the easy part, I think.

The more difficult part, I think, is perhaps seeing that greater physical strength and capacity in a woman need not undermine her sense of her own femininity, nor a man’s appreciation / enjoyment of that.

Yes, greater physical strength and capacity in a woman might present a greater challenge to a man in a sexual relationship — not just physically, but because of the greater self-confidence that comes with that. And some men might not be willing or able to live up to that challenge. But many can (or could) — and that meeting of strength with strength can be something special in a sexual relationship. Moreover, the feeling of being deeply embedded in the body that can come with intense physical training… well, again, something special.

I’ve got quite a bit of raw strength relative to the other women in krav, but I’ve now sparred with enough good men to know, in a deep-down way, the overwhelming power of masculine strength, when cultivated. (It’s pretty freaking awesome to experience that, in fact.)

Even apart from these more physical dimensions, I think that our culture has the view that vulnerability cannot come from a position of strength. That’s why men aren’t supposed to be vulnerable (or terribly emotional) and women are supposed to vulnerable due to weakness.

I suppose that’s one way to do it, but I’m opting for a “vulnerability through strength” and “strength through vulnerability” route — both psychologically and physically. And so far, difficult tho it might be, it feels freaking amazing and so right. And in the process, far more dresses and other girly things are being worn, and that feels really right to me too. Fancy that. :-)

 On Body Image and Femininity in Female Athletes  No Responses »

Podcast #355: Religious Questions, the Power of Fiction, Trusting Therapists, and More

 Posted by on 13 July 2015 at 8:00 am  Podcasts
Jul 132015
 

On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I answered questions on questions about religious beliefs, the power of fiction, trusting a therapist, 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: 12 July 2015

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: 12 July 2015

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

Introduction

My News of the Week: I’ve been occupied with personal matters this week, except for doing this radio show.

Question 1: Questions about Religious Beliefs

Question: How should a doctor respond to questions about her religious beliefs? My wife recently told me about a colleague of hers – a physician and an atheist – being caught off guard when asked by the parents of one of her cancer patients in the hospital if she believed in God. These parents wanted their son treated only by a doctor who believes in God, and my wife’s friend did not qualify. How should she have answered their question?

My Answer, In Brief: The doctor should never lie, but she can choose to either answer the question honestly or refuse to answer it. If a patient wishes to behave irrationally, let him!

Listen or Download:

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

Question 2: The Power of Fiction

Question: Why does fiction arouse such a powerful emotional response? Why are people moved emotionally by literature and movies, even though they know that they’re fictional? Shouldn’t people respond emotionally only to real events, not products of imagination? Is there a rational basis for our emotional response to fiction?

My Answer, In Brief: People should respond emotionally to products of the imagination — that has major survival value — and fiction is just the result of that capacity taken to the extreme.

Listen or Download:

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

Question 3: Trusting a Therapist

Question: How can I trust a therapist to help me? I have psychological problems, and I probably need help. However, I have a negative view of the mental health profession in general due to bad experiences in the past. It bothers me that therapists are educated in modern universities where all forms of leftism and equally irrational psychological theories predominate. In my state, many licensed “counselors” are just social workers (the most leftist whackjob profession of all time) with government licenses to counsel people. I am afraid that they will have me involuntarily committed if I am honest about my thoughts of suicide, which I have ready plans to carry out if I decide to. How can I trust anybody in this [expletive deleted] profession?

My Answer, In Brief: You do need the help of a good therapist, and you can find that by exercising your own powers of judgment to differentiate good from bad within the profession. Please do that!

Listen or Download:

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

Rapid Fire Questions

Questions:

  • Should I feel empathy for Greeks enduring the financial crisis? Sure many people are innocent, but what of the majority that created this situation?
  • Would it ever be technically possible for a moral dilemma to have no resolution? Can you imagine a problem context for which the better choice could never be deduced?
  • Is there a way to cultivate faith – meaning unfailing trust in oneself and one’s decisions in an uncertain world – without accepting religious dogma?
  • What is the response to the anarchist argument that we already have anarchy since different governments are in anarchy with respect to each other?
  • I find most of the government’s decisions on how my forcibly-collected tax dollars are spent morally reprehensible. Do I need to leave the US to maintain my integrity?
  • What do you think of the publishing of Rand’s “Ideal”? Do you think its publication is motivated by a desire to spread Rand’s ideas, or is it merely a publicity stunt?
  • I can understand why there are few Objectivists among businessmen, but why are there so few businessmen among Objectivists?
  • Why is it not acceptable to buy votes at the booth, but it is acceptable to promise financial gain for a class of voters after the politician gets elected?
  • Is it wrong to take apart a device that you’ve bought just to understand it if the licensing agreement forbids that?

Listen or Download:

  • Start Time: 42:13
  • Duration: 18:11
  • 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: 1:00:24


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 #355: Religious Questions, the Power of Fiction, Trusting Therapists, and More  No Responses »

Paul Hsieh USN&WR Quote On Guns And Public Health

 Posted by on 10 July 2015 at 2:00 pm  Firearms, Health Care, Politics
Jul 102015
 

US News & World Report had a nice piece on the debate over whether gun violence should be considered a “public health” issue, and they quoted me as explaining why it should not be:

But some medical providers say doctors should stay out of the debate. Dr. Paul Hsieh, co-founder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine, says he views gun crime and violence as predominantly about criminal justice and individual rights.

“I remain deeply skeptical of any attempts to frame important public policy debates as also ‘public health’ issues, especially when it concerns a long-running political controversy,” says Hsieh, who writes on health care policy from a free-market perspective for Forbes.com. “Pretty much any public policy issue will ultimately have some sort of effects on the lives and well-being of Americans – but that doesn’t mean they should all be considered topics of ‘public health.’”

People are concerned that sharing information about gun ownership with doctors may not remain private, he wrote in a Forbes piece. “In short, I believe this undermines the critical doctor-patient trust necessary for the good practice of medicine,” he says.

I thought they characterized my views fairly, and I was pleasantly surprised to see that they even turned the quote into one of the lead article graphics!

 

 Paul Hsieh USN&WR Quote On Guns And Public Health  No Responses »

Preview: Sunday Radio: Religious Questions, the Power of Fiction, Trusting Therapists, and More

 Posted by on 10 July 2015 at 8:00 am  Announcements
Jul 102015
 

On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on questions about religious beliefs, the power of fiction, trusting a therapist, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 12 July 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: Questions about Religious Beliefs: How should a doctor respond to questions about her religious beliefs? My wife recently told me about a colleague of hers – a physician and an atheist – being caught off guard when asked by the parents of one of her cancer patients in the hospital if she believed in God. These parents wanted their son treated only by a doctor who believes in God, and my wife’s friend did not qualify. How should she have answered their question?

  • Question 2: The Power of Fiction: Why does fiction arouse such a powerful emotional response? Why are people moved emotionally by literature and movies, even though they know that they’re fictional? Shouldn’t people respond emotionally only to real events, not products of imagination? Is there a rational basis for our emotional response to fiction?

  • Question 3: Trusting a Therapist: How can I trust a therapist to help me? I have psychological problems, and I probably need help. However, I have a negative view of the mental health profession in general due to bad experiences in the past. It bothers me that therapists are educated in modern universities where all forms of leftism and equally irrational psychological theories predominate. In my state, many licensed “counselors” are just social workers (the most leftist whackjob profession of all time) with government licenses to counsel people. I am afraid that they will have me involuntarily committed if I am honest about my thoughts of suicide, which I have ready plans to carry out if I decide to. How can I trust anybody in this [expletive deleted] profession?

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.

The podcast of this episode will be available shortly after the live broadcast here: Radio Archive: Q&A: Religious Questions, the Power of Fiction, Trusting Therapists, and More. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:

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.

Philosophy in Action's NewsletterPhilosophy in Action's Facebook PagePhilosophy in Action's Twitter StreamPhilosophy in Action's RSS FeedsPhilosophy in Action's Calendar

 Preview: Sunday Radio: Religious Questions, the Power of Fiction, Trusting Therapists, and More  No Responses »

Podcast #354: Unmet Needs, Criminal Insanity, Ideological Consistency, and More

 Posted by on 6 July 2015 at 8:00 am  Podcasts
Jul 062015
 

On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Arthur Zey and I answered questions on satisfying social needs, executing insane murderers, ideological consistency, 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: 5 July 2015

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: 5 July 2015

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

Introduction

My News of the Week: I’ve been doing some work on the site, working on informally changing my name to Diana Brickell, and lots more.

Question 1: Satisfying Social Needs

Question: What should a person do about social and psychological needs he temporarily can’t satisfy? For right now, the context of my life makes it so that it’s hard to satisfy the needs for companionship. Most of the people around me don’t offer deep and intense enough values to satisfy it, even as I do have friends. The majority of the people who could fulfill my needs live out of state. Furthermore, the industry I work in, by and large, prohibits me from being able to attend clubs and whatnot, as I usually work when they run. As such, I’ve got to grin and bear my loneliness for the meanwhile, temporarily. How can I make myself feel better in doing so?

My Answer, In Brief: The most important and difficult aspect of managing unmet social and psychological needs is to simply accept them. After that, you can try to find partial satisfaction in one-way interactions and people that you have less in common with.

Listen or Download:

Links:

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

Question 2: Executing Insane Murderers

Question: Should hopelessly insane murderers be put to death? Imagine a totally psychotic and extremely mentally disturbed person who has a propensity to violently kill innocent people. I am talking about a really stark raving bonkers individual. This person has no capability to think and act rationally. How can this person have any rights whatsoever? Why should it be the job of the state to provide for this person when they are locked up in an asylum? Would it be moral and practical to simply execute this person, thus removing the burden of having to keep an eye on him in case he escapes and kills someone?

My Answer, In Brief: Given that criminally insane murderers are not responsible for their actions, and given that they might be cured at some point, executing them would be terribly unjust and inhumane.

Listen or Download:

Links:

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

Question 3: Ideological Consistency

Question: 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?

My Answer, In Brief: Ideological consistency per se does not lead to absurdities and wrongs. Good ideas don’t go bad when taken to their logical conclusion. However, the absurdities and wrongs and evils of bad ideas often becomes apparent when they’re put into practice. Also, people can seriously misapply good ideas. When judging ideas, focus on the substance of policies and principles (whether they correspond to reality or not) not on the form (whether they are consistent or not).

Listen or Download:

Links:

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

Rapid Fire Questions

Questions:

  • My son turns 12 in a week and wants a Facebook account. But Facebook policy is no younger than 13. Considering last week’s discussion on rule breaking, should I let him given that he’ll be responsible?
  • Should people get tested for diseases they have predispositions for, if there are no preventive measures/corrective actions that can be taken?
  • What is hope? Could it ever be rational to give up hope?

Listen or Download:

  • Start Time: 47:52
  • Duration: 15:29
  • 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: 1:03:23


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 #354: Unmet Needs, Criminal Insanity, Ideological Consistency, and More  No Responses »

Preview: Sunday Radio: Unmet Needs, Criminal Insanity, Ideological Consistency, and More

 Posted by on 2 July 2015 at 8:00 am  Announcements
Jul 022015
 

On Sunday’s episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on satisfying psychological needs, insane murderers and the death penalty, ideological consistency, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 5 July 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: Satisfying Psychological Needs: What should a person do to bear psychological needs he temporarily can’t satisfy? For right now, the context of my life makes it so that it’s hard to satisfy the needs for companionship. Most of the people around me don’t offer deep and intense enough values to satisfy it, even as I do have friends. The majority of the people who could fulfill my needs live out of state. Furthermore, the industry I work in, by and large, prohibits me from being able to attend clubs and whatnot, as I usually work when they run. As such, I’ve got to grin and bear my loneliness for the meanwhile, temporarily. How can I make myself feel better in doing so?

  • Question 2: Insane Murderers and the Death Penalty: Should hopelessly insane murderers be put to death? Imagine a totally psychotic and extremely mentally disturbed person who has a propensity to violently kill innocent people. I am talking about a really stark raving bonkers individual. This person has no capability to think and act rationally. How can this person have any rights whatsoever? Why should it be the job of the state to provide for this person when they are locked up in an asylum? Would it be moral and practical to simply execute this person, thus removing the burden of having to keep an eye on him in case he escapes and kill someone?

  • 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.

The podcast of this episode will be available shortly after the live broadcast here: Radio Archive: Q&A: Unmet Needs, Criminal Insanity, Ideological Consistency, and More. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed:

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.

Philosophy in Action's NewsletterPhilosophy in Action's Facebook PagePhilosophy in Action's Twitter StreamPhilosophy in Action's RSS FeedsPhilosophy in Action's Calendar

 Preview: Sunday Radio: Unmet Needs, Criminal Insanity, Ideological Consistency, and More  No Responses »
Page 3 of 703 1 2 3 4 5 … 702 703
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