The Friend Zone, Hard Choices, Frivolous Lawsuits, and More
Q&A Radio: 31 August 2014
I answered questions on 'the friend zone', making hard choices, frivolous lawsuits, and more on 31 August 2014. Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers was my co-host. Listen to or download this episode of Philosophy in Action Radio below.
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.
My News of the Week: I've been inputting the final edits for the print study guide of Explore Atlas Shrugged.
Listen or Download 
- Duration: 1:08:43
- Download: Enhanced M4A File (24.7 MB)
- Download: Standard MP3 File (23.6 MB)
You can automatically download that and other podcasts 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
Share This Episode
Segments: 31 August 2014
Question 1: "The Friend Zone"
Question: Is there any validity to the concept of "the friend zone"? The "friend zone" is used to describe the situation of a man who is interested in a woman, but she's not interested in being more than friends with him. Then, he's "in the friend zone," and he can't get out except by her say-so. So "nice guys" in the friend zone often use the concept to describe the frustration of watching the women they desire date "bad boys" while they sit over to the side waiting for their chance to graduate from being just friends to being something more. Feminists suggest that this concept devalues a woman's right to determine the context and standard of their sexual and romantic interests, that it treats a woman's sexual acceptance as something that a man is entitled to by virtue of not being a jerk. Is that right? Or do women harm themselves by making bad choices about the types of men they date versus the types they put in the "friend zone?"
Answer, In Brief: Too often, the concept of "the friend zone" is a passive-aggressive snipe at women by men who refuse to take an active role in expressing and pursuing their romantic interests. If you want a romantic relationship with another person, you must do something other than just be a friend.
Tags: Assertiveness, Causality, Communication, Dating, Ethics, Friendship, Honesty, Relationships, Romance, Sexism, Values
Listen or Download 
Comments
Question 2: Making Hard Choices
Question: How can a person make better hard choices? How to make hard choices was the subject of a recent TED talk from philosopher Ruth Chang. Her thesis is that hard choices are not about finding the better option between alternatives. Choices are hard when there is no better option. Hard choices require you to define the kind of person you want to be. You have to take a stand for your choice, and then you can find reasons for being the kind of person who makes that choice. Her views really speak to me. In your view, what makes a choice hard? How should a person make hard choices?
Answer, In Brief: Philosopher Ruth Chang offers a new perspective on hard choices: when the options are "on a par," the decision is about what kind of person you want to be and what kind of life you want to have. If that's helpful to you, make use of it!
Tags: Decision-Making, Epistemology, Ethics, Psychology, Values
Listen or Download
Relevant Links
Comments
Question 3: Frivolous Lawsuits
Question: Should judges refuse to hear cases from lawyers behind frivolous suits? In your 15 May 2014 show, you expressed curiosity about possible improvements to the justice system. I came up with the following idea after sitting on a jury for a civil trial where, after the plaintiff presented his case, the judge dismissed the suit without even having the defendant present his defense. In cases where a judge thinks everyone's time and money were wasted by a pointless case, the judge should refuse to hear any future cases from the lawyer for the losing side. That would cause the lawyer to think twice about representing any frivolous cases, since he would risk being banned from the presiding judge's courtroom henceforth. In addition, judges who know each other could share lawyer blacklists, preventing the lawyer from wasting other judges' time as well. Would this be possible? Would it fix the problem of frivolous lawsuits?
Answer, In Brief: The problem of frivolous lawsuits cannot simply be fixed: every proposed reform to exclude frivolous lawsuits would affect legitimate cases too. However, some reforms for the better are possible.
Tags: Incentives, Justice, Law, Torts
Listen or Download
Comments
Rapid Fire Questions (1:00:22)
- What do you think of Richard Dawkins' recent comments about abortion and Down's syndrome? Can it ever be right to advocate eugenics, as he was doing?
- Could it ever be moral to be involved in an orgy?
Listen or Download
Comments
Conclusion (1:06:52)
Thank you for joining us for this episode of Philosophy in Action Radio! If you enjoyed this episode, please contribute to contribute to our tip jar.
Support Philosophy in Action
Once you submit this form, you'll be automatically redirected to a page for payment. If you have any questions or further comments, please email me at [email protected].
Thank you for contributing to Philosophy in Action! You make our work possible every week, and we're so grateful for that!
If you enjoy Philosophy in Action, please help us spread the word about it! Tell your friends about upcoming broadcasts by forwarding our newsletter. Link to episodes or segments from our topics archive. Share our blog posts, podcasts, and events on Facebook and Twitter. Rate and review the podcast in iTunes (M4A and MP3). We appreciate any and all of that!
About Philosophy in Action
I'm Dr. Diana Brickell. I'm a philosopher specializing in the application of rational principles to the challenges of real life. I received my Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Colorado at Boulder in 2009. My book, Responsibility & Luck: A Defense of Praise and Blame, is available for purchase in paperback and Kindle. The book 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."
My radio show, Philosophy in Action Radio, broadcasts live over the internet on most Sunday mornings and some Thursday evenings. On Sunday mornings, I answer questions applying rational principles to the challenges of real life in a live hour-long show. Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers co-hosts the show. On Thursday evenings, I interview an expert guest or discuss a topic of interest.
If you join us for the live broadcasts, you can ask follow-up questions and make comments in the text-based chat. Otherwise, you can listen to the podcast by subscribing to our Podcast RSS Feed. You can also peruse the podcast archive, where episodes and questions are sorted by date and by topic.
For regular commentary, announcement, and humor, read my blog NoodleFood and subscribe to its Blog RSS Feed. Be sure to sign up for my newsletter and connect on social media too.
I can be reached via e-mail to [email protected].
Copyright Diana Brickell | Web | Email | Twitter | Facebook