Philosophy in Action: Sunday Webcast

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

The Rationally Selfish Webcast has a new name and new web site:
Philosophy in Action! (The web site won't be available until the
morning of the webcast.) Here's this week's announcement. I hope to
see you on Sunday morning! -- DMH

In my live "Philosophy in Action" Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll
answer questions on the morality of working for a minister, giving
away unhealthy food, voting for horrible politicians, celebrating
holidays, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively
discussion, where where we'll apply rational principles to the
challenges of living virtuous, happy, and free lives at
http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com!

* What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
* Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins
* When: Sunday, 6 November 2011 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11
am ET
* Where: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/

Here are this week's questions:

* Question 1: The Morality of Working for a Minister: Is working for a
minister giving religion moral sanction? As an atheist, I once worked
for an ordained minster who was the owner of a gallery. I became his
manager when I made it clear that I was an atheist, but that I was a
good framing manager. I don't think I gave him a moral sanction for
his irrationality by working for him under those terms. What do you
think?

* Question 2: Giving Away Unhealthy Food: Is it immoral to give away
food that you regard as unhealthy? Assuming that one believes (as I
do) that candy and sweets are harmful to health (especially in
quantity), is it immoral to participate in trick-or-treat by giving
children candy when they come to your door? Or, is it immoral to
"dispose" of an unwanted gift of, say, a rich chocolate cake by
leaving it by the coffee machine at work to be quickly scarfed up by
one's co-workers (as an alternative to simply discarding it)? Is the
morality of these two cases different because in one case the
recipients are children while in the other case they are adults?

* Question 3: Voting for Horrible Politicians: All the candidates are
nearly perfectly horrid, just in different ways. Why should I even
bother to vote?

* Question 4: Celebrating Holidays: What is the value of celebrating
holidays? How do you think holidays should or should not be
celebrated? Also, what is your favorite holiday and how do you like
to celebrate it?

After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire
Questions."

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll answer

questions on admitting mistakes, body modifications, evasion versus
context-dropping versus rationalization, declining too-expensive
outings, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion,

where where we'll apply rational principles to the challenges of

living virtuous and happy lives at http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com!

* What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
* Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins

* When: Sunday, 13 November 2011 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11

am ET
* Where: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/

Here are this week's questions:

* Question 1: Admitting Mistakes: Should you always own up to your
mistakes? Recently, I made a huge mistake at work, accidentally
discarding some very important files. When inquiry was made, I denied
knowing anything about it. Should I have fessed up?

* Question 2: Body Modifications: What kinds of aesthetic body
modifications are moral or immoral? What differentiates piercing your
ears from circumcision? Is tattooing moral? Does the amount of tattoos
matter? What about gages, piercing kids' ears, scarring, dying hair,
plastic surgery, and so on? Where do you draw the line – and why?

* Question 3: Evasion Versus Context-Dropping Versus Rationalization:
How are evasion, context-dropping, and rationalization similar and
different? When thinking over a problem I notice that these terms can
often be applied simultaneously. So what do they mean – and how are
they similar and different?

* Question 4: Declining Too-Expensive Outings: How can I politely
decline outings with friends that I cannot afford? Recently, a friend
proposed an outing that was far too costly for my limited budget. In
such cases, how do you recommend telling the person that it's too
pricey? If the person then offers to pay my way, is it wrong to accept
that? I don't want to be an object of charity, nor pressure my friends
into paying for me in any way.

After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire
Questions."

In the meantime, be sure to check out the Webcast Archives –
http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/archive/ – where you can listen to
the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode.
You can also subscribe to the podcast and other RSS feeds:
http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/rss/

Don't forget to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast
episodes in the Question Queue: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/queue/

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

-- Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy)
http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast ( http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com
), I answered questions on admitting mistakes at work, aesthetic body
modifications, evasion versus rationalization versus context-dropping,
how to decline too-expensive outings, and more. An audio recording of
the webcast is now available as a podcast:

http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2011-11-13.html

Don't miss an episode – subscribe to the podcast and other RSS feeds:
http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/rss/

You can submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes in

the Question Queue: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/queue/

And be sure to check out the Webcast Archives: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/archive/

Watch the Philosophy in Action Webcast live and join its text chat
every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. Each
week, I answer questions from listeners on the application of rational
principles to the challenges of living a happy and virtuous life. To
join us, just go to: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll answer

questions on the meaning of citizenship in a free society, the legal
status of automatic weapons, forcing religious fanaticism on others,
detecting emotions as tools of cognition, and more. Please join us

for this hour of lively discussion, where where we'll apply rational
principles to the challenges of living virtuous and happy lives at
http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com!

* What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
* Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins

* When: Sunday, 20 November 2011 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11

am ET
* Where: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/

Here are this week's questions:

* Question 1: The Meaning of Citizenship in a Free Society: What
should it mean for a person to be a citizen of country? Suppose that
America were a free country, with open borders. What would it mean for
a person to be just a resident rather than a citizen? How would that
affect a person's relationship to the government? How would a person
(including someone born in the US) become a citizen? Could a person be
a citizen of two countries?

* Question 2: The Legal Status of Automatic Weapons: Should it be
legal for civilians to own fully automatic weapons? Should a law-
abiding citizen be able to own a fully-automatic rifle? Or is that
something that only members of the police and military should possess?
As a law-abiding civilian, am I somehow violating someone else's
rights by owning an M-16 fully automatic rifle – as opposed to the
virtually identical (and currently legal) semi-automatic AR-15 rifle?

* Question 3: Forcing Religious Fanaticism on Others: Why do religious
fanatics seek to impose their beliefs on others? Most religious
fanatics aren't content to practice their religion for themselves:
they seek to impose it on others by law. Why is that? Why is that
wrong? What can be done to combat it?

* Question 4: Detecting Emotions as Tools of Cognition: How do I know
if I am using my emotions as tools of cognition or not? Often, I have
strong emotions on some issue. How do I know that I'm not being
driven by them in my reasoning?

After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire
Questions."

In the meantime, be sure to check out the Webcast Archives –
http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/archive/ – where you can listen to
the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode.

You can also subscribe to the podcast and other RSS feeds:
http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/rss/

Don't forget to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast

episodes in the Question Queue: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/queue/

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast ( http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com

), I answered questions on the meaning of citizenship in a free

society, the legal status of automatic weapons, forcing religious

fanaticism on others, reasoning by facts rather than emotions, and

more. An audio recording of the webcast is now available as a
podcast:

http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2011-11-20.html

Watch the Philosophy in Action Webcast live and join its text chat
every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. Each
week, I answer questions from listeners on the application of rational
principles to the challenges of living a happy and virtuous life. To
join us, just go to: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll answer

questions on the wisdom of friends with benefits, obligations to help
others in need, supporting political compromises, lying to a dying
person, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion,

where where we'll apply rational principles to the challenges of
living virtuous and happy lives at http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com!

* What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
* Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins

* When: Sunday, 27 November 2011 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11

am ET
* Where: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/

Here are this week's questions:

* Question 1: The Wisdom of Friends with Benefits: Are "friends with
benefits" relationships a mistake? It is moral and/or wise to pursue
sexual relationships with friends, even though you're not in a
romantic relationship? What are some of the benefits and/or pitfalls?
If it's a mistake, what should a person do to avoid such
entanglements?

* Question 2: Obligations to Help Others in Need: Do we have an
obligation to help others in need? Many people think that the need of
others creates an obligation to help. Is that right or wrong? Why?
When should a person help others?

* Question 3: Supporting Political Compromises: When is it morally
right or wrong to support political compromises? The marijuana
legalization initiative for the 2012 Colorado ballot also specifies
open-ended taxation that circumvents the protections of TABOR (the
Taxpayer Bill of Rights). It specifies that the first $40 million
raised goes to schools. Both of these taxation items are compromises
added to get voters to accept the marijuana legalization. Is it
ethical to support more taxation to get more freedom from drug laws?
Is it okay to circulate petitions to get this on the ballot so the
voters can decide? More generally, when if ever should a person
support political compromises that uphold some rights but violate
others?

* Question 4: Lying to a Dying Person: Is it wrong to lie to a person
on their deathbed? Is lying in such cases justified so that the dying
person can "go in peace"? For instance, a man might tell his fellow
soldier dying on the battlefield that his heroism helped win a
critical victory, even if it actually made no difference. Or a nurse
might tell a dying mother desperate to make peace with her long-
estranged daughter that the daughter called to tell her she loves her,
even if that didn't happen. Is that wrong? If so, what's the harm?

After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire
Questions."

In the meantime, be sure to check out the Webcast Archives –
http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/archive/ – where you can listen to
the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode.
You can also subscribe to the podcast and other RSS feeds:
http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/rss/

Don't forget to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast
episodes in the Question Queue: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/queue/

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll answer

questions on the principle of sustainability, playing practical jokes
on kids about Ewoks, donating sperm or eggs anonymously, revealing
atheism to inquisitive strangers, and more. Please join us for this

hour of lively discussion, where where we'll apply rational principles
to the challenges of living virtuous and happy lives at
http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com!

* What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
* Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins

* When: Sunday, 4 December 2011 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11

am ET
* Where: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/

Here are this week's questions:

* Question 1: The Principle of Sustainability: What's wrong with the
principle of sustainability? In the discussion of "sustainable
agriculture" in your October 9th webcast ( http://bit.ly/uTnk0e ), you
didn't explain the problem with the basic principle of the
"sustainability movement," namely "that we must meet the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs." Doesn't that just mean respecting rights? If not,
what does it mean and why is it wrong?

* Question 2: Playing Practical Jokes on Kids about Ewoks: Should
parents play practical jokes on their kids, such as pretending that
Ewoks are real? As recounted in Wired ( http://bit.ly/su8C7D ), a
father told his kids that Ewoks (from "Star Wars") lived in the
Sequoia National Forest. On their recent family vacation, they made a
game of looking for these imaginary Ewoks. Afterwards, the father even
photoshopped a few Ewoks into the family vacation pictures. Are these
kinds of deceptions harmless or are they bad parenting? The father
said: "Maybe I'm a little wrong for lying to her and falsifying the
pictures, but I don't care. She'll never forget the time she spent in
the big woods with Ewoks."

* Question 3: Donating Sperm or Eggs Anonymously: Is it moral to
anonymously donate sperm or eggs, not knowing how the resulting
children will be raised? Is the answer the same for donating
fertilized embryos left over from an in vitro fertilization procedure,
where the DNA is both yours and your spouse's?

* Question 4: Revealing Atheism to Inquisitive Strangers: Should I
reveal my atheism to strangers when asked? I work at a hospital. One
night a patient asked me if I'm religious. I answered yes. He then
asked me if I believed that Jesus Christ died on the cross for my
sins. I answered yes. Then he took my hand and prayed for me.
Immediately, I felt guilty, because I lied in answering these
questions. In fact, I'm an atheist. The next day, I told the patient
the truth, and he thanked me for my honesty. What should I have done
in answering his original questions?

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast ( http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com

), I answered questions on the principle of sustainability, convincing
kids that Ewoks are real, donating sperm or eggs anonymously,
revealing atheism to inquisitive strangers, and more. An audio

recording of the webcast is now available as a podcast:

http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2011-12-04.html

Don't miss an episode – subscribe to the podcast and other RSS feeds:
http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/rss/

You can submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes in

the Question Queue: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/queue/

And be sure to check out the Webcast Archives: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/archive/

Watch the Philosophy in Action Webcast live and join its text chat
every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. Each
week, I answer questions from listeners on the application of rational
principles to the challenges of living a happy and virtuous life. To
join us, just go to: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll host a
special episode focused on the Republican primary, offering my view of
Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Gary Johnson. Please join us
for this hour of lively ... but infuriating ... discussion at

http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com!

* What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
* Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins

* When: Sunday, 11 December 2011 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11

am ET
* Where: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/

Here are the questions that I'll answer this week... yes, they're all
the same, albeit with an extra question about Gary Johnson running as
Libertarian.

* Question 1: Mitt Romney for US President: Should I support Mitt
Romney for US President? What's the proper evaluation of his
principles and record on the budget, health care, national defense,
immigration, the drug war, abortion, and gay marriage? Does Romney
deserve the vote of advocates of individual rights in the primary or
the general election?

* Question 2: Newt Gingrich for US President: Should I support Newt
Gingrinch for US President? What's the proper evaluation of his
principles and record on the budget, health care, national defense,
immigration, the drug war, abortion, and gay marriage? Does Gingrinch
deserve the vote of advocates of individual rights in the primary or
the general election?

* Question 3: Ron Paul for US President: Should I support Ron Paul for
US President? What's the proper evaluation of his principles and
record on the budget, health care, national defense, immigration, the
drug war, abortion, and gay marriage? Does Paul deserve the vote of
advocates of individual rights in the primary or the general
election?

* Question 4: Gary Johnson for US President: Should I support Gary
Johnson for US President? What's the proper evaluation of his
principles and record on the budget, health care, national defense,
immigration, the drug war, abortion, and gay marriage? Does Johnson
deserve the vote of advocates of individual rights in the primary or
the general election? Also, should supporters of Gary Johnson vote
for him on a Libertarian Party ticket?

After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire
Questions."

In the meantime, be sure to check out the Webcast Archives –
http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/archive/ – where you can listen to
the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode.

You can also subscribe to the podcast and other RSS feeds:
http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/rss/

Don't forget to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast

episodes in the Question Queue: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/queue/

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast ( http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com

), I took early look at the 2012 election, particularly at GOP
candidates Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Gary Johnson, and

more. An audio recording of the webcast is now available as a
podcast:

http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2011-12-11.html

Don't miss an episode – subscribe to the podcast and other RSS feeds:
http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/rss/

You can submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes in

the Question Queue: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/queue/

And be sure to check out the Webcast Archives: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/archive/

Watch the Philosophy in Action Webcast live and join its text chat
every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. Each
week, I answer questions from listeners on the application of rational
principles to the challenges of living a happy and virtuous life. To
join us, just go to: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll answer
questions on rationality in face of overwheming emotions, the value of
reading literature, balancing introspection and productive work,
optimism or pessimism about the future, and more. Please join us for
this hour of lively discussion, where where we'll apply rational
principles to the challenges of living virtuous and happy lives at

http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com!

* What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
* Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins

* When: Sunday, 18 December 2011 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11

am ET
* Where: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/

Here are this week's questions:

* Question 1: Rationality in Face of Overwheming Emotions: How can a
person regain his rationality in the face of overwhelming emotions?
On occasion, I find my rational judgment swamped by strong emotions
like anger and anxiety. In such cases, my thinking seems distorted by
my emotions. While in the grip of such emotions, what can I do to re-
establish my powers of rational thought? Also, how can I prevent
myself from saying or doing things that I'll later regret?

* Question 2: The Value of Reading Literature: What value do you gain
from reading literature? I've never much connected with literature,
particularly not the classics. I know that you read them routinely.
What value do you find in them? Or, what am I missing?

* Question 3: Balancing Introspection and Productive Work: How can I
achieve a better balance between introspection and productive work?
Particularly I've made some mistake, I'll get wrapped up in the
process of introspection until I get the problem sorted out. However,
that consumes time – and often my projects suffer and I miss
deadlines. How can I find a better balance between these two important
activities?

* Question 4: Optimism or Pessimism about the Future: Should we be
optimistic or pessimistic about the future of the culture? What do
you think will happen to the culture in the next 20 to 50 years? Are
you optimistic or pessimistic – and why? What do you think the value
and certainty of such predictions based on philosophy are?

After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire
Questions."

In the meantime, be sure to check out the Webcast Archives –
http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/archive/ – where you can listen to
the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode.

You can also subscribe to the podcast and other RSS feeds:
http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/rss/

Don't forget to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast

episodes in the Question Queue: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/queue/

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast ( http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com

), I answered questions on rationality in face of overwhelming

emotions, the value of reading literature, balancing introspection and

productive work, optimism or pessimism about the future, and more. An

audio recording of the webcast is now available as a podcast:

http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2011-12-18.html

Don't miss an episode – subscribe to the podcast and other RSS feeds:
http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/rss/

You can submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes in

the Question Queue: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/queue/

And be sure to check out the Webcast Archives: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/archive/

Watch the Philosophy in Action Webcast live and join its text chat
every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. Each
week, I answer questions from listeners on the application of rational
principles to the challenges of living a happy and virtuous life. To
join us, just go to: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll answer

questions on tenacity in pursuit of goals, sex without love, the
ethics of helping inept co-workers, giving back to your communities,

and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where
where we'll apply rational principles to the challenges of living
virtuous and happy lives at http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com!

* What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
* Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins

* When: Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am

ET
* Where: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/

Here are this week's questions:

* Question 1: Tenacity in Pursuit of Goals: How can I become more
tenacious in pursuit of my goals? I find that I give up too easily on
some of my goals, particularly when success is far away and much
effort is required now. What can I do to make myself more tenacious?

* Question 2: Sex Without Love: Is sex without love or romance
irrational? Is it wrong to have sex with someone that you don't love
– or don't love yet? (Here, assume that the person isn't unworthy, but
just that you're not in love.) Couldn't that be the start of romance?
What if you don't have any intentions of pursuing a romantic
relationship with this person?

* Question 3: The Ethics of Helping Inept Co-Workers: Is it moral to
help inept co-workers? On my team at work, we have only a very few
people who use their time productively. We all get paid for 8 hours of
"work", every day, but most of my team would rather talk on their
phone, hide from management, and underperform at their job. We also
belong to a union, which makes it harder for management to fire the
ones who don't work despite being informed about the situation. I
often find myself in the position of helping these people, or going in
behind them and fixing their work. I am beginning to feel taken
advantage of, and am getting fed up with most of my co-workers. Is it
moral to continue helping people who do not take their own work
seriously?

* Question 4: Giving Back to Your Communities: Is a person ever
obliged to "give back to the community"? Businesses often speak about
their charitable work as "giving back to the community." I know that's
wrong, because they didn't take anything from it in the first place.
But when a person benefits from a certain group or organization,
should he "give back" to it by volunteering his time or donating his
money? Why or why not?

After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire
Questions."

In the meantime, be sure to check out the Webcast Archives –
http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/archive/ – where you can listen to
the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode.

You can also subscribe to the podcast and other RSS feeds:
http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/rss/

Don't forget to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast

episodes in the Question Queue: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/queue/

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast ( http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com

), I answered questions on tenacity in pursuit of goals, sex without

love, the ethics of helping inept co-workers, giving back to your

communities, and more. An audio recording of the webcast is now
available as a podcast:

http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-01-08.html

Don't miss an episode – subscribe to the podcast and other RSS feeds:
http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/rss/

You can submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes in

the Question Queue: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/queue/

And be sure to check out the Webcast Archives: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/archive/

Watch the Philosophy in Action Webcast live and join its text chat
every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. Each
week, I answer questions from listeners on the application of rational
principles to the challenges of living a happy and virtuous life. To
join us, just go to: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll answer

questions on SOPA and online piracy, unprovable accusations of
wrongdoing, dealing with temperamental people, judging young adults
fairly, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion,

where where we'll apply rational principles to the challenges of
living virtuous and happy lives at http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com!

* What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
* Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins

* When: Sunday, 15 January 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11

am ET
* Where: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/

Here are this week's questions:

* Question 1: SOPA and Online Piracy: Should SOPA (Stop Online Piracy
Act) be supported or opposed? SOPA was recently introduced to the US
House of Representatives, then shelved temporarily, and many people
are urging businesses and their representatives to oppose it. Would
the bill promote prosperity and creativity by protecting copyright? Or
does it justify internet censorship and cripple free access of
information through online media?

* Question 2: Unprovable Accusations of Wrongdoing: How should a
rational person evaluate unproven accusations of serious wrongdoing
about people he deals with? I recently heard some information about a
business associate's dealings with another of his associates that, if
true, would make me reconsider doing business with him. However, his
side of the story is that the other person is the one who acted
wrongly. This is a serious matter, and it's clear that one or both of
them acted very badly, but since I was not personally involved and the
only information I have is of a "he said/she said" nature, I am not
sure how to decide what I should do. Am I right to consider the
information I heard at all, since I can't confirm it?

* Question 3: Dealing with Temperamental People: Should people be
willing to "walk on eggshells" around temperamental people? Some
people – often very talented – are known to be highly temperamental.
They'll explode in anger if others disagree with them, make innocent
mistakes, or just act differently than they'd prefer. Is that a moral
failing, and if so, what is its source? How should people around them
act? When and how much should others try to placate them?

* Question 4: Judging Young Adults Fairly: Is it fair to judge by a
person's intellect or other qualities of character purely based on his
age? I am 16 and am facing problems with some people who seem to think
that my views aren't clear even to me just because "I am a lazy teen
with no experience in life." Is that unjust? Should I try to show
them they are wrong about me or is it not worth it? If I should try,
how might I be effective?

After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire
Questions."

In the meantime, be sure to check out the Webcast Archives –
http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/archive/ – where you can listen to
the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode.

You can also subscribe to the podcast and other RSS feeds:
http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/rss/

Don't forget to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast

episodes in the Question Queue: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/queue/

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast ( http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com

), I answered questions on SOPA and online piracy, mutual unprovable

accusations of wrongdoing, dealing with temperamental people, judging

young adults fairly, and more. An audio recording of the webcast is

now available as a podcast:

http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-01-15.html

Don't miss an episode – subscribe to the podcast and other RSS feeds:
http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/rss/

You can submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes in

the Question Queue: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/queue/

And be sure to check out the Webcast Archives: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/archive/

Watch the Philosophy in Action Webcast live and join its text chat
every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. Each
week, I answer questions from listeners on the application of rational
principles to the challenges of living a happy and virtuous life. To
join us, just go to: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll answer

questions on wrongful convictions of the innocent and the guilty, the
morality of the death penalty, alternatives to America, choosing a
place to live, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively
discussion, where we apply rational principles to the challenges of
living virtuous, happy, and free lives at http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com!

* What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
* Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins

* When: Sunday, 22 January 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11

am ET
* Where: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/

Here are this week's questions:

* Question 1: Wrongful Convictions of the Innocent and the Guilty: Why
is punishing an innocent man worse than failing to punish a guilty
man? English jurist William Blackstone said that "better that ten
guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." What does this
mean, and is it true? Is some higher ratio of wrongly-punished to
wrongly-released acceptable?

* Question 2: The Morality of the Death Penalty: Is the death penalty
moral? I understand why people are opposed to the death penalty when
there might be genuine doubt as to whether the accused person really
committed the crime. Certainly, we've seen cases where DNA evidence
has exonerated someone who was convicted several years ago for a crime
they didn't actually commit. But if someone confesses to first degree
murder and if there's incontrovertible physical evidence to confirm
their guilt, is the death penalty then appropriate?

* Question 3: Alternatives to America: What other countries besides
America have a relatively healthy sense of life? Suppose America
takes a bad turn politically and I need to relocate to another
country. What other countries still have a relatively healthy "sense
of life" and decent culture – in that they respect reason,
accomplishment, and productiveness – even if their politics are left-
leaning? Over the past few months, I've heard various people discuss
Canada, New Zealand, Costa Rica, China, and India as possible places
to relocate to. What do you think of the cultures of those countries?

* Question 4: Choosing a Place to Live: Is it rational to value good
weather over good politics when choosing a place to live? I currently
live in a state with fairly good politics, with respect to taxes, gun
rights, and so on. However, I have friends who live in California who
say that the weather there is so good, that it's worth it to them even
if the taxes are high, the gun laws are terrible, and the overall
political climate is abysmal. Is it rational to value something like
good weather over good politics in choosing a place to live?

After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire
Questions."

In the meantime...

* Connect With Us: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/connect/ –
Connect via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more.

* Peruse the Webcast Archives: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/
– Listen to whole episodes and individual questions.

* Contribute to the Question Queue: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/queue/
– Submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcasts.

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast ( http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com

), I answered questions on acquittals of the guilty versus convictions
of the innocent, the morality of the death penalty, alternatives to
America, choosing a place to live, and more. An audio recording of

the webcast is now available as a podcast:

http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-01-22.html

You can also just listen to the questions of most interest to you:

* Acquittals of the Guilty Versus Convictions of the Innocent:
http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-01-22-Q1.html

* The Morality of the Death Penalty: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-01-22-Q2.html

* Alternatives to America: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-01-22-Q3.html

* Choosing a Place to Live: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-01-22-Q4.html

* Rapid Fire Questions: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-01-22-RF.html

Join the next Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am
MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at http://www.philosophyinaction.com/live

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll answer

questions on being pragmatic, feigning indifference to attract a man,
explaining atheism, "ignostic" versus "atheist", and more. Please

join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we apply rational
principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy, and free lives
at http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com!

* What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
* Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins

* When: Sunday, 29 January 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11
am ET

* Where: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/

Here are this week's questions:

* Question 1: Being Pragmatic: What's wrong with being pragmatic? My
dictionary defines being pragmatic as "dealing with things sensibly
and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than
theoretical considerations." What's wrong with that, if anything? Is
that the same as "pragmatism"?

* Question 2: Feigning Indifference to Attract a Man: Should I act
uninterested in a man to attract him? One common theme in romance
advice is that a woman should act aloof and unattainable in order to
attract a man or to get him to commit to a relationship. Is that
dishonest? Is it counterproductive?

* Question 3: Explaining Atheism: How can I effectively explain my
atheism to religious believers? When I discuss religion with
believers – mostly Christians – I find that I can't easily explain why
I don't believe in God. Should I appeal to the principle of the
"primacy of existence"? Should I explain the problems with the
arguments for the existence of God? Or should I try a different
approach?

* Question 4: "Ignostic" Versus "Atheist": Should rational people
describe themselves as "ignostics" rather than "atheists"? By
rational principles, no cognitive consideration should be given to
arbitrary assertions. Since the concept of God is invariably a
floating abstraction and incoherent in its definition, shouldn't the
claim that God exists be dismissed as arbitrary and invalid – rather
than being answered in the negative? If so, shouldn't rational people
describe themselves as ignostics? In contrast to atheism, ignosticism
is "[the] view that a coherent definition of God must be presented
before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully
discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the
ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the
question of the existence of God (per that definition) is
meaningless." [Wikipedia]

After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire
Questions."

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast ( http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com

), I answered questions on being pragmatic, feigning indifference to
attract a man, ignosticism versus atheism, explaining atheism, and

more. An audio recording of the webcast is now available as a
podcast:

http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-01-29.html

You can also just listen to the questions of most interest to you:

* Being Pragmatic: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-01-29-Q1.html

* Feigning Indifference to Attract a Man:
http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-01-29-Q2.html

* Ignosticism Versus Atheism: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-01-29-Q3.html

* Explaining Atheism: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-01-29-Q4.html

* Rapid Fire Questions: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-01-29-RF.html

Join the next Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am
MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at http://www.philosophyinaction.com/live

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll answer

questions on overcoming perfectionism, false but beneficial ideas,
possessiveness in romance, term limits for politicians, and more.

Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we apply
rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy, and
free lives at http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com!

* What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
* Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins

* When: Sunday, 5 February 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11
am ET

* Where: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/

Here are this week's questions:

* Question 1: Overcoming Perfectionism: What is the problem with and
solution to perfectionism? Lately, I've realized that I might have a
problem with "perfectionism" – meaning that I hold myself to
unrealistically high standards in some areas of my life. For example,
I feel like I should be much more productive, to the point of being
unrealistic about what I can do in a day. What's the basic error of
such perfectionism? And what can I do to overcome it?

* Question 2: False But Beneficial Ideas: Should you just keep quiet
when a friend's bad philosophy works for him? If someone you know
pretty well believes in something mystical, such as "The Law of
Attraction" (from "The Secret"), or "The Power of Prayer," and this
has helped them move their outlook on life toward a benevolent
universe premise, and they are more productive and happier, is it
better to leave them with their faulty metaphysics and avoid the
topic, or should you try to show them the error? What do you say when
they start trying to convince you of the truth of their view?

* Question 3: Possessiveness in Romance: Is possessiveness wrong in a
romantic relationship? I have a drawback: I'm extremely possessive. I
expect that the person who loves and understands me – he being the
only one who understands me – should be mine and only mine. I can
accept other women in his life and contain my jealousy on the
condition that he reveals to me every single of them who was, is, or
will be. But he should love me the most. And I expect that he should
stay with me till the end and that we spend the last days together
reflecting on the past and life. Am I wrong in expecting all that from
my partner? If so, what can I do to change?

* Question 4: Term Limits for Politicians: Are term limits necessary
and proper for good government? Many people – usually conservatives –
claim that term limits are essential to liberty. They say that the
Founders never intended to have career politicians, and they blame the
growth of government on those career politicians and their pork
projects. Do you support term limits? Are they an important restraint
on the growth of government?

After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire
Questions."

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast ( http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com

), I answered questions on overcoming perfectionism, false but

beneficial ideas, possessiveness in romance, term limits for

politicians, and more. An audio recording of the webcast is now
available as a podcast:

http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-02-05.html

You can also just listen to the questions of most interest to you:

* Overcoming Perfectionism: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-02-05-Q1.html

* False But Beneficial Ideas: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-02-05-Q2.html

* Possessiveness in Romance: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-02-05-Q3.html

* Term Limits for Politicians: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-02-05-Q4.html

* Rapid Fire Questions: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-02-05-RF.html

Join the next Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am
MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at http://www.philosophyinaction.com/live

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll answer

questions on low passion for career, patriotism as a virtue,
artificial intelligence, boycotting Chick-Fil-A, and more. Please

join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we apply rational
principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy, and free lives
at http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com!

* What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
* Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins

* When: Sunday, 12 February 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11
am ET

* Where: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/

Here are this week's questions:

* Question 1: Low Passion for Career: What should I do if I have a
good job but not burning professional ambition? I have a good job
that pays well. I perform my job well to the best of my ability. But I
don't feel about it the same way that Howard Roark felt about the
field of architecture in "The Fountainhead" or that Dagny felt about
the railroad business in "Atlas Shrugged." I don't hate my job – I do
enjoy the work and the people I work with. But it's not my burning
passion. On a scale of 1-to-10, my paying job (and the overall field)
is a 7, but I also have various non-paying outside hobbies and
activities that are more of a 8 or 9 for me. Should I try to cultivate
a strong passion for my paying job? Or look for a different line of
work? Or ramp up my pursuit of various hobbies and outside activities
that give my greater satisfaction on the side?

* Question 2: Patriotism as a Virtue: Is patriotism a virtue? Is
patriotism towards America a virtue? Should a person "love America" –
or is that just jingoistic nationalism?

* Question 3: Artificial Intelligence: Is artificial intelligence
possible? Can consciousness be created on a purely logical system
such as a computer? Might consciousness and even free will somehow
"emerge" out of a purely logical system? Also, what do you think of
the "Turing Test" as a test of intelligence?

* Question 4: Boycotting Chick-Fil-A: Should people boycott Chick-Fil-
A for its hostility to gays? The fast food chain Chick-Fil-A is well-
known for its promotion of Christian values. In recent years, the
company has actively worked against gay marriage, in alliance with
other organizations promoting the imposition of biblical commands by
law. More generally, the company is hostile to same-sex couples.
Given that Chick-Fil-A uses money from customers and shareholders to
promote theocracy and other rights-violations, should people condemn
and boycott the chain?

After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire
Questions."

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast ( http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com

), I answered questions on low passion for career, patriotism as a
virtue, artificial intelligence, boycotting Chick-Fil-A, and more. An

audio recording of the webcast is now available as a podcast:

http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-02-12.html

You can also just listen to the questions of most interest to you:

* Low Passion for Career: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-02-12-Q1.html

* Patriotism as a Virtue: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-02-12-Q2.html

* Artificial Intelligence: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-02-12-Q3.html

* Boycotting Chick-Fil-A: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-02-12-Q4.html

* Rapid Fire Questions: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-02-12-RF.html

Join the next Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am
MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at http://www.philosophyinaction.com/live

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll answer

questions on better and worse religions, telling a friend about
romantic feelings, overfeeding a child as abuse, interest in a lover's
writings, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively

discussion, where we apply rational principles to the challenges of
living virtuous, happy, and free lives at http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com!

* What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
* Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins

* When: Sunday, 19 February 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11
am ET

* Where: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/

Here are this week's questions:

* Question 1: Better and Worse Religions: Are some religions better
than others? Do certain religions encourage rationality more than
others? Do some promote better moral systems than others? I am curious
both about different forms of Christianity (Catholic, Protestant,
Unitarian, Mormon, etc.), as well as other religions (Judaism, Islam,
Hinduism, Buddhism, Baha'i, etc.). Should rational atheists respect
followers of certain religions more than others?

* Question 2: Telling a Friend about Romantic Feelings: Am I obliged
to tell a friend that I've developed romantic feelings towards her?
Recently, I've developed romantic feelings for a platonic friend. Is
it dishonest to withhold this information from her and just continue
our friendship? What should I do if she asks me a direct question
about my feelings? When would it be wrong to withhold this information
from her, if ever?

* Question 3: Overfeeding a Child as Abuse: Is overfeeding a child a
form of abuse? In November, county officials in Ohio placed a third-
grade child into foster care on the grounds that he's over 200 pounds
and his mother isn't doing enough to control his weight. (See
http://bit.ly/s3llRw ) The boy does not currently have any serious
medical problems: he's merely at risk for developing diabetes,
hypertension, etc. The county worked with the mother for a year before
removing the child, and it claims that her actions constitute medical
neglect. Now his mother is only permitted to see him once per week for
two hours. Did the state overreach its proper authority in removing
the child from his home?

* Question 4: Interest in a Lover's Writings: Should a person always
be interested in the creative works of a romantic interest or lover?
I'm romantically interested in a woman who writes as her career. While
my admiration of her is based in her virtues and even heroic
qualities, I'm don't find the subjects of her writing to be
particularly interesting. If I were to begin dating this woman, should
I read everything that she's written and writes?

After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire
Questions."

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast ( http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com

), I answered questions on judging religions as better and worse,

telling a friend about romantic feelings, overfeeding a child as

abuse, interest in a lover's writings, and more. An audio recording

of the webcast is now available as a podcast:

http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-02-19.html

You can also just listen to the questions of most interest to you:

* Judging Religions as Better and Worse: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-02-19-Q1.html

* Telling a Friend about Romantic Feelings:
http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-02-19-Q2.html

* Overfeeding a Child as Abuse: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-02-19-Q3.html

* Interest in a Lover's Writings: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-02-19-Q4.html

* Rapid Fire Questions: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-02-19-RF.html

Join the next Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am
MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at http://www.philosophyinaction.com/live

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In my live [url="http://www.philosophyinaction.com/"]Philosophy in
Action Webcast[/url] on Sunday morning, I'll answer questions on
consent in sex, terminating online versus in-person acquaintances,
compensating the victims of your negligence, the meaning of faith, and

more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we
apply rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy,

and free lives!

[list]
[*] What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast

[*] Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins

[*] When: Sunday, 26 February 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT /
11 am ET
[*] Where: [url="http://
www.philosophyinaction.com/"]www.PhilosophyInAction.com[/url]
[/list]

Here are this week's questions:

[list]
[*]Question 1: Consent in Sex: What constitutes consent in sex? Can a
person give tacit consent by his or her actions? Is explicit consent
required for some sex acts? Once consent has been given, when and how
can a person withdraw that consent? Does the legal perspective on
these questions differ from the moral perspective?

[*]Question 2: Terminating Online Versus In-Person Acquaintances:
What's the proper threshold for cutting off a digital versus in-person
acquaintance? Morally, when it is wrong to end your friendly
interactions with an in-person acquaintance? And when is it wrong not
to do so? Does the answer differ for a digital acquaintance – meaning,
for example, someone that you know only via Facebook?

[*]Question 3: Compensating the Victims of Your Negligence: What
should you do for a person that you injured in a car accident that was
your fault? Does a person have moral obligations – over and above any
legal obligations – to the victim, since the accident was due to your
own carelessness or mistake?

[*]Question 4: The Meaning of Faith: Is it wrong to use "faith" to
mean "trust and confidence in a person"? Some people talk about
having "faith" in their friends or in themselves – and by that, they
mean that they trust and have confidence in those people. Is it wrong
to use "faith" in that way? In other words, blind faith is wrong, but
is all faith blind faith?
[/list]

After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire
Questions."

In the meantime, [url="http://www.philosophyinaction.com/
connect/"]Connect with Us[/url] via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds,
and more. Check out the [url="http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/
archive/"]Webcast Archives[/url], where you can listen to the full
webcast or just selected questions from any past episode. And go to
the [url="http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/queue/"]Question Queue[/
url] to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes.

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast ( http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com

), I answered questions on consent in sex, terminating online versus

in-person acquaintances, compensating the victims of your negligence,

the meaning of faith, and more. An audio recording of the webcast is

now available as a podcast:

http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-02-26.html

You can also just listen to the questions of most interest to you:

* Consent in Sex: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-02-26-Q1.html

* Terminating Online Versus In-Person Acquaintances:
http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-02-26-Q2.html

* Compensating the Victims of Your Negligence:
http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-02-26-Q3.html

* The Meaning of Faith: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-02-26-Q4.html

* Rapid Fire Questions: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-02-26-RF.html

Join the next Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am
MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at http://www.philosophyinaction.com/live

In the meantime...

* Connect With Us: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/connect/ –
Connect via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more.

* Peruse the Webcast Archives: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/
– Listen to whole episodes and individual questions.

* Contribute to the Question Queue: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/queue/

– Submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcasts.

I hope to see you on Sunday morning!

[Giga]

"Diana Mertz Hsieh" <dianame...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9422cbdd-9c05-47c6...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

* The Meaning of Faith:
http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-02-26-Q4.html

So this opens up the question of what counts as 'evidence'? Does what you
want not count at all? Why do we want certain things? How is it possible
that we even have this idea of God (Descartes took this line of potential
evidence)? What about dreams or visions? These may not count much for other
people but can be profoundly convincing for the person who actually
experiences them, and it is hard to see why they should discount those
experiences just because they are unusual. What about ancient texts? If we
perceive a great wisdom and benefit in them where does that come from? Can
that not be evidence for at least some supernatural influence on the
writers? That is a matter of opinion not of science but would not be an
irrational approach. What about guidance? Many people get an instinct that
they are being urged one way or another by 'something' at various points in
their lives. Maybe they ignore those intuitions or guidance, maybe they
don't. If they try out following that guidance perhaps they find it useful
or profound in some way and follow it more. They might come to believe that
this guidance could be coming from God. In a way they are in a kind of
relationship with something, and isn't that the most important way how we
get to know something or someone? Is a relationship not evidence and
potentially a basis for faith in all the meanings of the word?

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll answer
questions on giving the benefit of the doubt, requests for prayers,
selling yourself into slavery, the depth of Ayn Rand's fictional
characters, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively

discussion, where we apply rational principles to the challenges of

living virtuous, happy, and free lives at http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com!

* What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
* Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins

* When: Sunday, 4 March 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am
ET
* Where: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/

Here are this week's questions:

* Question 1: Giving the Benefit of the Doubt: When should we give
another person "the benefit of the doubt"? Often, people say that
public figures facing some scandal should be given "the benefit of the
doubt"? What does that mean in theory and in practice? When ought
people give the benefit of the doubt? Is doing so a matter of
generosity or justice?

* Question 2: Requests for Prayers: What is the proper response to
requests for prayers? A relative of mine recently had surgery to have
his appendix removed. I was asked by another relative to pray for the
first relative, even though everyone in my family knows that I don't
believe in God or the power of prayer. I tried to let it slide during
the conversation, but she was insistent. How should I respond to such
requests for prayers, particularly when I don't want to offend anyone
or seem unconcerned?

* Question 3: Selling Yourself into Slavery: Why can't a person sell
himself into slavery? People often decry indentured servitude,
whereby people paid for their travel to America with several years of
service. But this seems like a perfectly sound trade given certain
assumptions about the terms of that service, e.g. you can't starve or
abuse the servant. Is that right? If so, why can't a person sell
himself into slavery? For instance, suppose that my family is poor, so
I arrange with someone to give my family money in exchange for me
becoming their slave, i.e. literally becoming their property. Is that
possible? Should the law forbid that?

* Question 4: The Depth of Ayn Rand's Fictional Characters: Are the
characters in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged flat due to philosophic
consistency? I'm reading Atlas Shrugged currently, and rather
enjoying it. However, I've heard many people claim her characters are
'flat', 'one-dimensional' etc. I usually respond to this by saying
that Ayn Rand's characters are the incarnation of her ideas, the
physical embodiment of her ideas: an individual is consumed with this
philosophy, so much so that they are entirely logically consistent (or
at least as much as humanly possible, they are human, and do make
mistakes, e.g. Rearden's marriage), thus, because of their abnormally
extensive logical consistency within their philosophy, these
characters merely appear to be 'one-dimensional'. Is this an accurate
understanding of Rand's characters?

After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire
Questions."

[Giga]

"Diana Mertz Hsieh" <dianame...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:3d69e9c8-897d-41e7...@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

=You have definitely got my interest.

[dianame...@gmail.com]

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast ( http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com ), I answered questions on giving the benefit of the doubt, responding to requests for prayers, selling yourself into slavery, the depth of Ayn Rand's fictional characters, and more. An audio recording of the webcast is now available as a podcast:

http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-03-04.html

You can also just listen to the questions of most interest to you:

* Giving the Benefit of the Doubt: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-03-04-Q1.html

* Responding to Requests for Prayers: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-03-04-Q2.html

* Selling Yourself into Slavery: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-03-04-Q3.html

* The Depth of Ayn Rand's Fictional Characters: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-03-04-Q4.html

* Rapid Fire Questions: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-03-04-RF.html

Join the next Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at http://www.philosophyinaction.com/live

[Giga]

<dianame...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:28984212.7136.1331142265613.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynnk21...

=I did watch some of that podcast and found it very good.

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll answer

questions on Ayn Rand's view of women, the proper place of women, the
health of cynicism and sarcasm, praying for atheists, and more.

Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we apply
rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy, and
free lives at http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com!

* What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
* Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins

* When: Sunday, 11 March 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am
ET

* Where: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/

Here are this week's questions:

* Question 1: Ayn Rand's View of Women: Did Ayn Rand regard women as
inferior to men? I admire Ayn Rand, and I've used her philosophy in
my business and personal life, but I disagree with her view of women.
In her article "About a Woman President," Ayn Rand said that "For a
woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship – the
desire to look up to man. 'To look up' does not mean dependence,
obedience or anything implying inferiority." Yet her view seems to
imply inferiority in practice: Rand says that no woman should aspire
to be U.S. President because that would put her in the psychologically
unbearable position of not having any man to look up to. So, does
Rand's view imply that women are inferior to men? What is the factual
basis of her view, if any? Do you agree with her?

* Question 2: The Proper Place of Women: Are women subservient to men
in Objectivism like in Christianity? The Bible and Christians teach
that God made women to be subservient to men and not to be their
leader. Ayn Rand thinks that women are naturally subservient to men
and should not be their leader. Aside from the appeal to God, what's
the difference?

* Question 3: The Health of Cynicism and Sarcasm: Are cynicism and
sarcasm unhealthy? I know some very bright people who also frequently
express cynicism and sarcasm towards world events, public figures,
etc. Their remarks can often be quite witty and insightful. But is
there something unhealthy about looking at the world in this way, or
can that be an appropriate response to all the many real negative
facts of reality?

* Question 4: Praying for Atheists: What should I do when other people
offer to pray for me? Sometimes my friends and family members offer
to pray for me – whether because I've got some problem in my life or
because they know that I'm an atheist. How should I respond?

After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire
Questions."

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast ( http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com

), I answered questions on Ayn Rand's view of women, the proper place
of women, the health of cynicism and sarcasm, offers of prayers for
atheists, and more. An audio recording of the webcast is now
available as a podcast:

http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-03-11.html

You can also just listen to the questions of most interest to you:

* Ayn Rand's View of Women: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-03-11-Q1.html

* The Proper Place of Women: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-03-11-Q2.html

* The Health of Cynicism and Sarcasm: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-03-11-Q3.html

* Offers of Prayers for Atheists: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-03-11-Q4.html

* Rapid Fire Questions: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-03-11-RF.html

Join the next Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am
MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at http://www.philosophyinaction.com/live

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll answer

questions on belligerence in online communities, managing projects
better, statutory rape laws, talking about selfishness, and more.

Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we apply
rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy, and
free lives at http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com!

* What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
* Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins

* When: Sunday, 18 March 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am
ET

* Where: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/

Here are this week's questions:

* Question 1: Belligerence in Online Communities: Why are disputes so
belligerent in online communities? I've noticed that people get into
very loud and heated disputes online, whereas that doesn't seem to
happen in local communities. Disputes in local communities tend to be
less frequent, less belligerent, and last for a shorter time – even
when some people end up hating each other and refusing to have
anything to do with each other in the end. Why is that? Also, why do
people who are closest with each other (whether close friends, dating,
or married) seem to agree more on hot-button issues? Are people are
more willing to reject a stranger's arguments than those of a friend?
Is that an error?

* Question 2: Managing Projects Better: How can I manage my projects
better? Too often, I'm overwhelmed by the sheer volume of projects on
my agenda. Because I'm overcommitted, I'll miss important deadlines or
allow some projects to be delayed into oblivion. Other times, my work
is rushed and sloppy. Sometimes I feel so overwhelmed that I become
paralyzed, and then I don't get any work done. What can I do to manage
my various work and home projects better, so that I keep making
progress on what really matters to me?

* Question 3: Statutory Rape Laws: Are statutory rape laws proper?
Statutory rape laws criminalize seemingly consensual sex when at least
one party is below the age of consent, but sexually mature, e.g. when
an 18 year old has sex with a 15 year old. Are such laws proper?
Should the over-age person be convicted if he or she didn't know (or
couldn't reasonably know) that the under-age person was under-age?
What if the under-age person lied about his or her age? What, if
anything, should happen legally when both parties are under-age, e.g.
when two 15 year olds have sex?

* Question 4: Talking About Selfishness: Should I use the term
"selfish" in conversation without explanation? According to Ayn Rand,
selfishness means acting for your own long-range life and happiness,
and that's moral and proper. Yet most people think that selfishness
means brutalizing other people, lying and cheating to satisfy your
desires, or at least acting like an insensitive jerk. Should I avoid
using the term unless I can explain what I mean by it? And how can I
best explain its proper meaning?

After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire
Questions."

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

Last week, I had to cancel the Philosophy in Action webcast due to the
overwhelming demands of SnowCon. (Alas, I forgot to post an
announcement here. Sorry!) So... last week's questions are still on
tap for this week. Here's the announcement again.

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll answer

questions on unfriendly disputes in online communities,
overcommittment in projects, statutory rape laws, talking about

selfishness, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively
discussion, where we apply rational principles to the challenges of
living virtuous, happy, and free lives at http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com!

* What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
* Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins

* When: Sunday, 25 March 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am

ET
* Where: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/

Here are this week's questions:

* Question 1: Unfriendly Disputes in Online Communities: Why are

disputes so belligerent in online communities? I've noticed that
people get into very loud and heated disputes online, whereas that
doesn't seem to happen in local communities. Disputes in local
communities tend to be less frequent, less belligerent, and last for a
shorter time – even when some people end up hating each other and
refusing to have anything to do with each other in the end. Why is
that? Also, why do people who are closest with each other (whether
close friends, dating, or married) seem to agree more on hot-button

issues? Are people more willing to reject a stranger's arguments than

those of a friend? Is that an error?

* Question 2: Overcommittment in Projects: How can I manage my

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast ( http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com

), I answered questions on unfriendly disputes in online communities,
overcommittment in projects, talking about selfishness, and more. An

audio recording of the webcast is now available as a podcast:

http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-03-25.html

You can also just listen to the questions of most interest to you:

* Unfriendly Disputes in Online Communities:
http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-03-25-Q1.html

* Overcommittment in Projects: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-03-25-Q2.html

* Talking About Selfishness: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-03-25-Q3.html

* Rapid Fire Questions: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-03-25-RF.html

Join the next Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am
MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at http://www.philosophyinaction.com/live

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll answer

questions on statutory rape laws, outing anti-gay politicians as gay,
potential employers demanding facebook logins, enjoying fantasy and
theology literature, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively

discussion, where we apply rational principles to the challenges of
living virtuous, happy, and free lives at http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com!

* What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
* Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins

* When: Sunday, 1 April 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am
ET

* Where: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/

Here are this week's questions:

* Question 1: Statutory Rape Laws: Are statutory rape laws proper?

Statutory rape laws criminalize seemingly consensual sex when at least
one party is below the age of consent, but sexually mature, e.g. when
an 18 year old has sex with a 15 year old. Are such laws proper?
Should the over-age person be convicted if he or she didn't know (or
couldn't reasonably know) that the under-age person was under-age?
What if the under-age person lied about his or her age? What, if
anything, should happen legally when both parties are under-age, e.g.
when two 15 year olds have sex?

* Question 2: Outing Anti-Gay Politicians as Gay: Is it wrong to "out"
a hypocritical anti-gay public figure who is secretly gay? Some
conservative politicians have taken strongly anti-gay positions, but
are secretly gay themselves. If one learns of this, is it wrong for
gay activists to publicly "out" them? What if they don't take engage
in public hypocrisy, but are just quietly "in the closet"? Should
activists respect their privacy in that case?

* Question 3: Potential Employers Demanding Facebook Logins: Should
employers ask applicants for their Facebook logins and passwords?
More employers are asking job applicants for their Facebook logins and
passwords as part of a background check. (See
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_20218922/privacy-red-flag-raised-more-job-applicants-asked
) Of course, applicants can decline, in which case they might not be
considered for the job. Should employers be asking for this
information? Is it proper to want to check on the online activities of
potential employees? Is that an invasion of privacy? How should
someone respond if asked by a potential employer?

* Question 4: Enjoying Fantasy and Theology Literature: Is an interest
in fantasy and theology literature proper? I'm fascinated with
fantasy as a literary genre. I find it easier to get excited about a
fantastic story rather than about a realistic one, and I'm also really
interested in fantasy with a certain sophistication: the extremely
well-constructed world of Tolkien in "Lord of the Rings," for example,
or the mythological background of vampire stories and so on. Along the
same line, I am also fascinated with theology. For example, I found it
extremely interesting to read "Paradise Lost," and to read up on the
many theological questions it raises and answers. Is such an interest
proper – or am I indulging in some kind of evasion or escapism from
reality? Does it matter that I want to become a writer and so find
much inspiration for potential own stories this way?

After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire
Questions."

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast ( http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com

), I answered questions on statutory rape laws, outing anti-gay
politicians as gay, potential employers demanding Facebook logins,
enjoying fantasy and theology literature, and more. An audio

recording of the webcast is now available as a podcast:

http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-04-01.html

You can also just listen to the questions of most interest to you:

* Statutory Rape Laws: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-04-01-Q1.html

* Outing Anti-Gay Politicians as Gay: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-04-01-Q2.html

* Potential Employers Demanding Facebook Logins:
http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-04-01-Q3.html

* Enjoying Fantasy and Theology Literature:
http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-04-01-Q4.html

* Rapid Fire Questions: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-04-01-RF.html

Join the next Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am
MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at http://www.philosophyinaction.com/live

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll answer

questions on cultivating good luck, public breastfeeding, national
identification card, repeatedly reviewing memories, and more. Please

join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we apply rational
principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy, and free lives
at http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com!

* What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
* Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins

* When: Sunday, 8 April 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am
ET

* Where: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/

Here are this week's questions:

* Question 1: Cultivating Good Luck: Can and should a person try to
cultivate his own "good luck"? For example, a construction worker
might leave his business card with neighbors in case they or anyone
they might know happens to need his services in the future. Similarly,
an investor might look to buy stock in companies with promising
patents pending or forthcoming products. Is pursuing these kinds of
uncertain opportunities a means of cultivating good luck?

* Question 2: Public Breastfeeding: Is breastfeeding children in
public wrong? My wife and I want to have kids, and one question we
have concerns public breastfeeding. Is it immodest or improper to
breastfeed in public? Should stores permit or forbid it on their
premises? Should public breastfeeding be restricted or banned by law
as indecent?

* Question 3: National Identification Card: Should the government
institute a national id card? Periodically, politicians speak of
instituting a national identification card in order to protect
identify and track potential terrorists, prevent the hiring of illegal
immigrants, stop welfare fraud, and more. Would such a national id
card violate rights – or be unwise for other reasons? Are state-level
identification cards sufficient? Are they proper?

* Question 4: Repeatedly Reviewing Memories: Should I mull over my
memories less frequently? Is it unhealthy for a person to
continuously mull over previous events and specific memories? I go
over past events in my mind on a constant basis. I try to recall
specific details (i.e., things I was thinking at the time, etc.) and
keep a perfect "image" of the memory/event in my mind as long as
possible. Is this strange, unhealthy, or counterproductive?

After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire
Questions."

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast ( http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com

), I answered questions on cultivating good luck, public
breastfeeding, national identification card, mulling over memories,

and more. An audio recording of the webcast is now available as a
podcast:

http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-04-08.html

You can also just listen to the questions of most interest to you:

* Cultivating Good Luck: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-04-08-Q1.html

* Public Breastfeeding: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-04-08-Q2.html

* National Identification Card: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-04-08-Q3.html

* Mulling Over Memories: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-04-08-Q4.html

* Rapid Fire Questions: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2012-04-08-RF.html

Join the next Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am
MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at http://www.philosophyinaction.com/live

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll answer

questions on the morality of breaking the law, the morality of
vigilantism, stealing valor, selling sub-optimal products, and more.

Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we apply
rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy, and
free lives at http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com!

* What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
* Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins

* When: Sunday, 15 April 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am
ET

* Where: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/

Here are this week's questions:

* Question 1: The Morality of Breaking the Law: When is it moral to
break the law? Laws should be written to protect individual rights.
Unfortunately, many laws today violate rights. When should I abide by
a rights-violating law, and when is it proper to break it?

* Question 2: The Morality of Vigilantism: Where is the line between
justice and vigilantism? When is it moral to take the law into your
own hands – meaning pursuing, detaining, and/or punishing criminals as
a private citizen? Suppose that you know – without a shadow of a doubt
– that some person committed a serious crime against you or a loved
one. If the justice system cannot punish the person due to some
technicality, is it wrong for you to do so? If you're caught, should a
judge or jury punish you, as if you'd committed a crime against an
innocent person?

* Question 3: Stealing Valor: Should "stealing valor" be a crime?
Rencently, a man was arrested by the FBI in Houston and charged with
"stolen valor." (See: http://bit.ly/IcWwCV ) This is the charge made
against someone who falsely poses as a decorated soldier. Is it proper
to make this a crime? Why or why not?

* Question 4: Selling Sub-Optimal Products: What should a businessman
do if he decides that his product or service is not really good? More
specifically, what should a businessman do if he's rises up in the
business world on promoting a particular product or service, only to
learn decades into the ventures that there are better alternatives? As
a fictional example, let's take a mattress manufacturer CEO. He has
spent decades of his life trying to make the most comfortable
mattresses possible, but then read scientific studies that concludes
that there is no healthier sleeping surface than the solid floor, and
in using his honest judgment he agrees. Being so high up and so long
involved in the mattress world, what are the moral range of options
for him?

After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire
Questions."

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast ( http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com

), I answered questions on the morality of breaking the law, the

morality of vigilantism, stealing valor, selling sub-optimal products,

and more. An audio recording of the webcast is now available as a
podcast:

http://www.philosophyinaction.com/webcast/2012-04-15.html

You can also just listen to the questions of most interest to you:

* The Morality of Breaking the Law: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/webcast/2012-04-15-Q1.html

* The Morality of Vigilantism: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/webcast/2012-04-15-Q2.html

* Stealing Valor: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/webcast/2012-04-15-Q3.html

* Selling Sub-Optimal Products: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/webcast/2012-04-15-Q4.html

* Rapid Fire Questions: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/webcast/2012-04-15-RF.html

Join the next Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am
MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at http://www.philosophyinaction.com/live

In the meantime...

* Connect With Us: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/connect/ –
Connect via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more.

* Peruse the Webcast Archives: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/webcast/

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll answer

questions on responsibility, obligation, and duty, stockpiling
medication, poking fun at others' ideas, encouraging friends to be
more purposeful, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively

discussion, where we apply rational principles to the challenges of
living virtuous, happy, and free lives at http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com!

* What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
* Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins

* When: Sunday, 22 April 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am
ET

* Where: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/

Here are this week's questions:

* Question 1: Responsibility, Obligation, and Duty: What is the
difference between responsibility, obligation, and duty? Often,
people use these terms interchangeably. What's difference between
them, if any?

* Question 2: Stockpiling Medication: Is it wrong to stockpile
medication now in the event of an economic crash in the future? We
are concerned that increasing economic troubles will raise the prices
of some prescription and over-the-counter medications, and make them
hard to find in the future. Is it okay to start a stockpile of some
medications (most of which have a long shelf-life)? In the case of
prescription medications, is it okay to exaggerate to our doctors or
play "musical pharmacies" in order to obtain more medication?

* Question 3: Poking Fun at Others' Ideas: Is indirectly poking fun at
a person's ideas rude or otherwise wrong? Is posting jokes, pictures,
articles, or expressing views that might offend others – including
friends and family – rude, offensive, or just in bad taste? For
example, is it proper to make jokes about Jesus, Obama, or
environmentalism on Facebook – knowing that some of your Facebook
friends are Christians, Democrats, or environmentalists? Should a
person limit himself to serious arguments?

* Question 4: Encouraging Friends to Be More Purposeful: How can I
encourage my friends to be more purposeful and passionate? I have
been certain about my life's purpose – in terms of what career and
personal creative works I'd like to pursue – from a young age. I've
had friends who are above-average in their academic and career work,
and who explore various hobbies, but they do not pursue those
activities with eager passion. They say that "do not know what they
want out of life" and have not "found their calling." What is at the
root of uncertainty about one's purpose? Is there a moral breach
involved? How can I motivate, encourage, and inspire my friends?

After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire
Questions."

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast ( http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com

), I answered questions on obligation, responsibility, and duty,
stockpiling medication, poking fun at friends' ideas online,
encouraging friends to be more purposeful, and more. An audio

recording of the webcast is now available as a podcast:

http://www.philosophyinaction.com/webcast/2012-04-22.html

You can also just listen to the questions of most interest to you:

* Obligation, Responsibility, and Duty: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/webcast/2012-04-22-Q1.html

* Stockpiling Medication: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/webcast/2012-04-22-Q2.html

* Poking Fun at Friends' Ideas Online: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/webcast/2012-04-22-Q3.html

* Encouraging Friends to Be More Purposeful:
http://www.philosophyinaction.com/webcast/2012-04-22-Q4.html

* Rapid Fire Questions: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/webcast/2012-04-22-RF.html

Join the next Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am
MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at http://www.philosophyinaction.com/live

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll answer

questions on the wrong of utilitarianism, the morality of government
jobs, planning in advance, padding your resumé, and more. Please join

us for this hour of lively discussion, where we apply rational
principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy, and free lives
at http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com!

* What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
* Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins

* When: Sunday, 29 April 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am
ET

* Where: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/

Here are this week's questions:

* Question 1: The Wrong of Utilitarianism: What's wrong with
utilitarianism? The basic principle of utilitarianism is "the
greatest happiness for the greatest number." What's wrong with that as
a moral standard? Should't a person act for the good of society?

* Question 2: The Morality of Government Jobs: Is it moral to work for
the IRS? Is it morally wrong to work for government agencies like the
IRS (or equivalent tax bureaus), IAS (Indian Administrative Services),
or the EPA? I'm an advocate of free markets. Would I be a hypocrite to
work for such illegitimate government agencies?

* Question 3: Planning in Advance: How much advance planning is
optimal? Some people like to plan everything well in advance, while
others prefer to allow events to unfold and make decisions on the fly.
Is one approach better than the other? How much does it depend on the
circumstances? How can people with difference preferences coordinate
comfortably?

* Question 4: Padding Your Resumé: Is doing activities just to pad
your resume dishonest? Some people work on mastering playing the
violin, competing in tennis tournaments, learning calculus, and other
activities – not because they have any interest in them or because
they think they might develop an interest once tried, but rather
because they think these activities will look good on an application
or resumé. Is that dishonest? Is it unwise?

After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire
Questions."

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll answer

questions on forgiving yourself, unforgivable acts, the meaning of
life, downloading and sharing online videos, and more. Please join us

for this hour of lively discussion, where we apply rational principles
to the challenges of living virtuous, happy, and free lives at
http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com!

* What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
* Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins

* When: Sunday, 6 May 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET

* Where: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/

Here are this week's questions:

* Question 1: Forgiving Yourself: Should we forgive ourselves? How
can a person free himself from guilt over past errors and wrongs,
particularly irrationality? Should such a person forgive himself – and
if so, what does that entail?

* Question 2: Unforgivable Acts: Can an ordinary person do something
unforgivable? Could a friend act in a way that would make rational
forgiveness impossible? Might a person do something so hurtful or
unfair that you couldn't ever trust them again? In such cases, how
should the person wronged acted towards the unforgivable person?

* Question 3: The Meaning of Life: Does life have a purpose or
meaning? Religious people say that God gives their lives meaning,
purpose, and direction. Other people find meaning in doing good for
others or society as a whole. As an atheist and egoist, what do you
think the purpose of life is? Does it have any inherent meaning – or
should a person arbitrarily decide its meaning? And shouldn't a person
think that something is more important than himself and his own petty
concerns?

* Question 4: Downloading and Sharing Online Videos: Is downloading
music from YouTube a violation of intellectual property rights? Given
that content creators can remove YouTube videos that violate their
intellectual property rights, is it wrong to assume that they consent
to the posting if they've not asked to remove it? It is wrong to watch
or share clips that seem to be uploaded without permission? It is
wrong to download music from YouTube for my own personal use, whether
uploaded by the creator or someone else?

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast ( http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com

), I answered questions on forgiving yourself, unforgivable acts, the
meaning of life, respecting intellectual property online, and more.

An audio recording of the webcast is now available as a podcast:

http://www.philosophyinaction.com/webcast/2012-05-06.html

You can also just listen to the questions of most interest to you:

* Forgiving Yourself: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/webcast/2012-05-06-Q1.html

* Unforgivable Acts: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/webcast/2012-05-06-Q2.html

* The Meaning of Life: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/webcast/2012-05-06-Q3.html

* Respecting Intellectual Property Online:
http://www.philosophyinaction.com/webcast/2012-05-06-Q4.html

* Rapid Fire Questions: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/webcast/2012-05-06-RF.html

Join the next Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am
MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at http://www.philosophyinaction.com/live

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I'll answer

questions on self-destructive pleasures, privacy in a high-tech
society, pushy fundraising, browsing locally, buying online, and

more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we
apply rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy,
and free lives at http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com!

* What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
* Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins

* When: Sunday, 13 May 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET

* Where: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/

Here are this week's questions:

* Question 1: Self-Destructive Pleasures: It is wrong to pursue self-
destructive pleasures? Suppose that you know that drinking to excess
is not good for your mind or body, but you want to enjoy the oblivion
of drunkeness. Or perhaps you know that sleeping with your ex-
girlfriend is a very bad idea, but you want the pleasure of sex with a
warm body. Is it wrong to pursue these pleasures, if you're willing to
accept their destructive consequences?

* Question 2: Privacy in a High-Tech Society: Do you have the right to
privacy with respect to information that I can gather about you from
observation of you while I'm on my own property? For instance, if I
have technology that allows me to gather photons or sound waves that
you emit from your property while I'm sitting on my property next
door, can I post that information onto YouTube or Facebook? For
example, imagine that I have an infrared video of your activities
emitted through your bedroom wall or the audio of your personal phone
conversation that can be detected by sensitive microphones from 100
yards away. Have I violated your rights by gathering and publicizing
information you've chosen to allow to be broadcast to anyone who can
detect it with the right equipment?

* Question 3: Pushy Fundraising: How should I respond to the constant
demands to contribute to fundraisers from my child's school? I am
barraged with "requests" for contributions to school fundraisers. This
week, for example, each student in the band is asked to put together a
"buddy bag" with sweets (against my views), a toy (more plastic junk
to fill the landfills), and a gift (I can't afford that). Every week,
there's another fundraiser, for which parents asked to spend their
money on things they don't value or aren't a fair value. Should I
refuse these requests – and if so, how should I do so?

* Question 4: Browsing Locally, Buying Online: Is it wrong to browse
in a local store but then buy online? Suppose that you shop for an
item in a brick-and-mortar store, taking advantage of the opportunity
to browse and get recommendations for staff, but then make your
purchases at a discounted online retailer – for example, browsing
through a local bookstore but then buying from Amazon at a lower
price. Is that wrong or unfair?

After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire
Questions."

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In my live Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio on Sunday morning, I'll
answer questions on warning others about dangerous people, explaining
a firing, investment versus sacrifice, downloading music after hard
drive failure, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively

discussion, where we apply rational principles to the challenges of
living virtuous, happy, and free lives at http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com!

* What: Live Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio

* Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins

* When: Sunday, 20 May 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET

* Where: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/

Here are this week's questions:

* Question 1: Warning Others about Dangerous People: Should you warn
others about vicious people in your community? If you know a person
to be dishonest, but that person is well-regarded in your community,
should you tell others in that community what you know? Does it matter
if the person is in a position of authority (perhaps over an
organization's finances), such that he could do a whole lot of damage?
What kinds of immorality would be serious enough to warrant warning
others?

* Question 2: Explaining a Firing: Should an employer have to explain
and justify his firing of an employee? Should an employer be able to
fire an employee for some alleged misconduct, even though the employer
never bothered to verify the misconduct, nor asked the employee for
his side of the story? For example, suppose that when the employee
shows up for work he is simply told that he's been fired because
someone made a complaint about him. The employee could easily prove
the complaint to be false but the employer isn't concerned with proof
or lack thereof. The employee's reputation in the eyes of possible
future employers is damaged, even if the employer never discusses the
firing with anyone else. In such a case, should the employee be able
to sue for having been fired without proper cause?

* Question 3: Investment Versus Sacrifice: What is the difference
between "investment" and "sacrifice"? In your February 26, 2012
webcast ( http://bit.ly/z7uESR ), you indicated that you regard
sacrifices as something very different from investments. But doesn't
sacrifice just mean giving up something? In that case, don't
investments in the future require sacrifice now?

* Question 4: Downloading Music After Hard Drive Failure: Does
respecting intellectual property require me to re-purchase my music
collection lost due to hard drive failure? Over the years I have
purchased quite a bit of digital music and have built quite a large
library. Recently, due to a computer crash and lack of backup, a large
segment of that library was erased. Since I paid for all of the music
that was lost, I would like to restore it, whether by copying from my
friends or by downloading illegal copies from the internet. But I am
not entirely sure what I have the right to do based on my original
purchases. What do you think?

After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire
Questions."

In the meantime...

* Connect With Us: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/connect/ –
Connect via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more.

* Peruse the Q&A Radio Archives: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/Q&A
Radio/ – Listen to whole episodes and individual questions.

* Contribute to the Question Queue: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/queue/

– Submit and vote on questions for upcoming Q&A Radios.

[Diana Mertz Hsieh]

In my live Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio on Sunday morning, I'll

answer questions on disclosing atheism to babysitters, outing yourself
to bigots, spousal sabotage, skipping advertisements, and more.

Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we apply
rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy, and
free lives at http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com!

I'll be broadcasting from live from ATLOSCon this week!

* What: Live Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio
* Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy)

* When: Sunday, 27 May 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET

* Where: http://www.PhilosophyInAction.com/

Here are this week's questions:

* Question 1: Disclosing Atheism to Babysitters: Should I mention we
are atheists when interviewing babysitters? I am looking for a
babysitter. The question is: How do I handle the fact that many of the
candidates will be very very strong Christians? Should I bring up the
fact we are atheists right away or would that be creating an issue
when there could be none? I definitely have to set some boundaries
like "No praying with my children," but what is the appropriate way to
handle it?

* Question 2: Outing Yourself to Bigots: Am I obliged to disclose that
I am gay if I know that the person then wouldn't wish to do business
with me? Let's say that I have a job that I enjoy, but I find out
that my boss does not like gay people and would refuse to hire or
would fire anyone that she knew was gay. Somehow, she doesn't know
that I am, in fact, gay. Should I tell her knowing that she would want
to fire me – a decision that I think is wrong, but nonetheless
something she should be free to do? Assume that in every other regard
I enjoy my work and job, and sharing her discriminatory view is by no
means a requirement for my work.

* Question 3: Spousal Sabotage: How can I stop my spouse from
sabotaging my self-improvement? Over the course of my 15 years of
marriage, I'd gained over 100 pounds. After feeling disgusted with
myself for too long, I decided to change my habits. So I switched to a
paleo-type diet and started lifting weights. So far, I've lost 40
pounds, as well as shed some health problems. My husband still eats
what he pleases, and I don't pester him about that, although he needs
to eat better too. However, he's constantly attempting to undermine my
efforts – for example, by bringing home and encouraging me to eat
doughnuts. I want him to celebrate and support my new-found success,
but he seems to want me to be fat, unhealthy, and miserable. What
should I do?

* Question 4: Skipping Advertisements: Is it wrong to skip over
advertisements? Many people use plug-ins that block advertisements on
web sites, and many more people skip advertisements on television by
recording shows with a DVR. Is this moral? Is it a failure to act as a
trader?

After that, we'll do a round of totally impromptu "Rapid Fire
Questions."

In the meantime...

* Connect With Us: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/connect/ –
Connect via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more.

* Peruse the Q&A Radio Archives: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/