Objectivism Versus Secular Humanism: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on Objectivism versus secular humanism. The question was:

What are the similarities and differences between Objectivism and secular humanism? Objectivism and secular humanism are two secular worldviews. What are their basic points? Are they hopelessly at odds? Or do they share some or even many attributes?

My Answer, In Brief: Secular humanism is an attempt to meld secularism with altruistic and collectivist ethics, plus leftist politics. It's not a coherent philosophy – or well-grounded in facts. I urge secular humanists to honestly consider at Ayn Rand's philosophy as an alternative.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 18:18
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Epistemology, Ethics, Metaphysics, Objectivism, Philosophy, Politics, Secular Humanism

Links:

• American Humanist Association: Definitions of Humanism and 1933 Humanist Manifesto

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

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on Objectivism versus secular humanism, moral judgment of European colonizers, the right time to declare love, and more – is available here: Episode of 8 December 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Positive Change in Islam: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on positive change in Islam. The question was:

Can Islam change for the better? Many critics of Islam claim that the religion is inherently totalitarian, violent, and repressive – and hence, that change for the better is utterly impossible. An Islamic reformation or enlightenment will never happen, they say. Is that true? More generally, what are the limits of a religion's ties to its own scriptures?

My Answer, In Brief: As in every other religion, Muslims are not bound to the barbaric elements of Islamic texts. Islam can change – and hopefully will, for the better.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 26:54
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Christianity, Foreign Policy, Islam, Judaism, Philosophy, Religion

Links:

• Can Islam Be Reformed? by Daniel Pipes
• Wikipedia: Islamic Golden Age
• Nothing Less than Victory: Decisive Wars and the Lessons of History by John Lewis

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

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on positive change in Islam, self-esteem and appearance, and more – is available here: Episode of 24 November 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Responsibility & Luck: Now Available

I'm delighted to announce that my first book, Responsibility & Luck: A Defense of Praise and Blame, is now available for purchase in paperback, as well as for Kindle and Nook.

The book defends the justice of moral praise and blame of persons using an Aristotelian theory of moral responsibility, thereby refuting Thomas Nagel's "problem of moral luck." It's an academic work but accessible to anyone with an interest in philosophy.

About Responsibility & Luck

Does the pervasive influence of luck in life mean that people cannot be held responsible for their choices? Do people lack the control required to justify moral praise and blame?

In his famous article "Moral Luck," philosopher Thomas Nagel casts doubt on our ordinary moral judgments of persons. He claims that we intuitively accept that moral responsibility requires control, yet we praise and blame people for their actions, the outcomes of those actions, and their characters -- even though shaped by forces beyond their control, i.e., by luck. This is the "problem of moral luck."

Philosopher Diana Hsieh argues that this attack on moral judgment rests on a faulty view of control, as well as other errors. By developing Aristotle's theory of moral responsibility, Hsieh explains the sources and limits of a person's responsibility for what he does, what he produces, and who he is. Ultimately, she shows that moral judgments are not undermined by luck.

In addition, this book explores the nature of moral agency and free will, the purpose of moral judgment, causation in tort and criminal law, the process of character development, and more.

For more information, including two sample chapters and the detailed table of contents, visit the book's web page.

Again, you can purchase Responsibility & Luck in paperback, as well as for Kindle and Nook.

Like every author, I depend on good reviews of the book on Amazon, social media, and elsewhere. So once you've read Responsibility & Luck, please review it!

Read more...

Atheists Patronizing Religious Businesses: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on atheists patronizing religious businesses. The question was:

Is it wrong for an atheist to patronize religious businesses? Is it an endorsement of religion or failure of integrity for an atheist to buy goods or services from a religious business, such as hiring an explicitly religious (and advertised as such) plumber or joining the local YMCA?

My Answer, In Brief: Most people are religious, and they're good trading partners. However, when a person injects his religion into his business, that's increasing the likelihood of unwanted proselytizing, as well as seeming to endorse his religiosity. In that case, find another person to do business with, if possible.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 6:15
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Atheism, Boundaries, Business, Integrity, Justice, Religion, Respect, Sanction
To comment on this question or my answer, visit its comment thread.

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on identifying a central purpose, Immanuel Kant on sex, becoming an educated voter, atheists patronizing religious businesses, and more – is available here: Episode of 15 September 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Becoming an Educated Voter: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on becoming an educated voter that might be of interest. The question was:

How should I educate myself so that I can cast informed votes in elections? I'm 25, and I've never voted in any local, state, or national election. I have good reason for that, I think: I've never been able to educate myself sufficiently on the candidates to be certain of who to vote for. Also, as a marketing student with a passion for advertising and public relations, I don't think I could vote until I'd seen the inside of a campaign team as a member of it, so that I have a personal understanding of how much the candidate presented is real or idealized. I know that that is unrealistic, because I wouldn't know which candidate to work for. Instead of that, what steps could I take to inform myself, without consuming too much time, so that I could vote in the next presidential election?

My Answer, In Brief: A person ought to educate himself before voting, and that's relatively easy to do with a bit of research into the candidate's positions and record.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 12:58
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Elections, Politics, Voting

Links:

• Philosophy in Action: Dr. Eric Daniels on Why Voting Doesn't Matter

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

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on identifying a central purpose, Immanuel Kant on sex, becoming an educated voter, atheists patronizing religious businesses, and more – is available here: Episode of 15 September 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Coalition for Secular Government Cited in the Wall Street Journal

I'm delighted to report that the Coalition for Secular Government was mentioned in a recent column in the Wall Street Journal: Bradley Smith: The Supreme Court and Ed Corsi's Life of Political Crime. Here's the relevant tidbit:

In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), and again in Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (1986), the Supreme Court held that the regulatory requirements of operating a political action committee could not be imposed on groups that lacked the primary purpose of supporting or defeating political candidates in elections. But across the country, states are flouting that command, imposing rigid requirements on ordinary citizens who are trying to express their political opinions.

In Colorado, for example, a group of friends calling themselves the Coalition for Secular Government operate a website on which they posted a long policy paper on abortion and church-state relations. The paper concluded by urging Coloradans to vote "no" on a ballot measure. For that, the state says they must register as a political committee and report their activities, income and expenses.

The article begins with an even more egregious case than ours, and it's well worth reading.

Read more...

Link-O-Rama

• Some social conservatives threaten to abandon GOP: Here, let me open the door for you...
• George Takei Responds To "Traditional" Marriage Fans: So.Much.Awesome
• Video: Meet the 12-year-old Egyptian boy who wonderfully explains his country’s crisis: Wow, this kid is amazingly perceptive and articulate... and definitely not a theocrat!
• Vatican City Explained by CGPGrey: It's crazypants run wild!
• Lady In Black: 'Burka Avenger' Fights For Pakistan's Girls: "A caped crusader is on the loose in the mountains of Pakistan, but she's not your traditional superhero. The Burka Avenger wears a flowing black veil — only her brown eyes are visible — as she fights corrupt politicians and religious zealots. Her weapons of choice: pens and books."
• Tennessee judge, citing Jesus, changes baby's name from "Messiah": "A Tennessee woman named her baby Messiah, but she and the boy's father couldn't agree on whose last name he should bear. So they went to court. Except at a hearing in Cocke County Chancery Court on Thursday, Child Support Magistrate Lu Ann Ballew changed Messiah's first name. 'The word Messiah is a title, and it's a title that has only been earned by one person, and that one person is Jesus Christ, the judge told WBIR-TV, a local channel." I'd like to introduce this judge to the concept of "separation of church and state."

Read more...

Tom Varik on Gay Marriage and Spousal Privilege: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Wednesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I interviewed attorney Tom Varik about "Gay Marriage and Spousal Privilege." The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading. You'll find it on the episode's archive page, as well as below.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

Podcast: Tom Varik about "Gay Marriage and Spousal Privilege"

As the cause of gay marriage gains ever-more traction, many have wondered whether marriage really matters. Attorney Tom Varik argues that it does. In this interview, he discussed the legal status and importance of gay marriage, including the recent Supreme Court cases, as well as the history and limits of spousal privilege.

Tom G. Varik is an attorney in Cleveland, Ohio, where he currently works for the Social Security Administration. He attended the University of Akron School of Law, earning a JD in 2009. Before that, he studied motion picture production at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio, where he produced several short films featured in various international underground film festivals, and earned a BFA in 2006.

Listen or Download:

• Duration: 1:03:30
• Download: Standard MP3 File (21.8 MB)

Topics:

• The nature of spousal privilege
• Testimonial privilege
• Communication privilege
• A few examples
• The history of spousal privilege: Funk v. US (290 U.S. 371) (1933), Hawkins v. US (358 U.S. 74) (1958), Wyatt v. US (362 U.S. 525) (1960), Wolfe v. US (291 U.S. 7) (1934), and Trammel v. US (445 U.S. 40) (1980)
• The proper rule and proper justification for spousal privilege
• A parent-child privilege?
• The relevance of spousal privilege to gay marriage
• Elements of marriage for which people cannot contract
• The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
• The recent Supreme Court Case: Windsor
• The effects of the patchwork of state laws on gay marriage
• The Full Faith and Credit Clause
• The Proposition 8 Supreme Court Case
• The cultural acceptance of gays

Links:

• Same-Sex Marriages and the Federal Spousal Privileges by Tom G. Varik

Tags:

• Culture, GLBT, Law, Marriage, Politics, Rights

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Evolution and Objectivism: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on evolution and Objectivism that might be of interest. The question was:

Does evolutionary theory contradict the principles of Objectivism? I am new to atheism and Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, and I embrace both wholeheartedly. However, I take issue with the theory of evolution. Atheism seems to imply evolution, but evolution seems to clash with Objectivism. Evolution holds that man is an insignificant piece of the larger, grander picture of the randomness that is life, that man is just one small insignificant step in the collective evolution of the earth, and that man is one with Mother Earth, not superior to it. In contrast, Objectivism holds that man has a purpose and that man is the most significant being, supreme over all other life. Also, Objectivism holds that "A is A" and that "Existence exists." Evolution, in contrast, claims that life came from non-life, fish came from non-fish, and man came from non-man – meaning that A came from non-A. Am I correct in my criticisms? Might some theory other than evolution be more compatible with Objectivism?

My Answer, In Brief: This question is based on major misunderstandings not only of evolutionary theory, but Objectivism too. Evolutionary theory is proven scientific theory that doesn’t conflict with Objectivist principles in the slightest.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 12:39
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Egoism, Epistemology, Ethics, Evolution, Human Nature, Logic, Meaning, Metaphysics, Objectivism, Rationalism, Science

Links:

• The Blind Watchmaker and The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins
• Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne

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

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on identifying dangerous people, evolution and Objectivism, and more – is available here: Episode of 4 August 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Tom Varik on Gay Marriage and Spousal Privilege: Wednesday on Philosophy in Action Radio

On Wednesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll interview attorney Tom Varik about "Gay Marriage and Spousal Privilege." This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Wednesday, 7 August 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later.

As the cause of gay marriage gains ever-more traction, many have wondered whether marriage really matters. Attorney Tom Varik argue that it does. He will discuss the legal status and importance of gay marriage, including the recent Supreme Court cases, as well as the history and limits of spousal privilege.

Tom G. Varik is an attorney in Cleveland, Ohio, where he currently works for the Social Security Administration. He attended the University of Akron School of Law, earning a JD in 2009. Before that, he studied motion picture production at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio, where he produced several short films featured in various international underground film festivals, and earned a BFA in 2006.

To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat.

If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Tom Varik on Gay Marriage and Spousal Privilege. It will be posted on Thursday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

I hope you join us on Wednesday evening!

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Eric Daniels on Why Small Government Isn't the Answer: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Wednesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I interviewed historian Eric Daniels about "Why Small Government Isn't the Answer." It's not directly related to the cause of secular government, but it's useful to anyone interested in political activism for individual rights. The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading. You'll find it on the episode's archive page, as well as below.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

Podcast: Eric Daniels about "Why Small Government Isn't the Answer"

Is "big government" the fundamental problem of American politics? Historian Eric Daniels will explain why this common formulation is misleading, wrong, and even dangerous to liberty.

Dr. Eric Daniels teaches history and works on curriculum development at the LePort Schools in Irvine, California. He has previously taught at Clemson, Georgetown, and Duke Universities. He has a Ph.D. in American History from the University of Wisconsin.

Listen or Download:

• Duration: 1:15:05
• Download: Standard MP3 File (25.8 MB)

Topics:

• The problem with "big government" versus "small government"
• The proper debate: individual rights
• The two axes of size versus rights
• Big government like judicial activism
• Three categories of government action
• Violating rights versus failing to protect rights
• The Founders' view: not size but the proper ends of government
• The failure of the Articles of Confederation
• 19th century rights violations
• The rights of women
• Violations of rights by local governments, particularly based on race
• The real-life effects of failing to protect rights
• Judges riding the circuit, too small criminal justice system
• Measuring the size of government
• Measuring the growth of government
• The problem of the inessential
• Skewing the political debate toward anarchism
• The appeal to Somalia
• The terms "limited government" and "minarchism"
• Advice for activists
• Eric's new job at LePort Schools

Links:

• The Objective Standard: Why "Big Government" is Not the Problem by Eric Daniels
• Vices of the Political System of the United States by James Madison
• lePort Schools

Tags:

• Activism, America, Anarchism, Crime, Culture, Epistemology, Government, History, Law, Libertarianism, Politics, Racism, Rights, Self-Defense, Sexism

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...

Today's Feminist Movement: Philosophy in Action Podcast

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered a question on today's feminist movement. The question was:

How should the feminist movement be judged? Do today's feminist causes have any merit? Or is the feminist movement merely seeking special favors for women at the expense of men – perhaps even via violations of the rights of men? If the movement is mixed, how should it be judged, overall? Should better feminists eschew the movement due to its flaws – or attempt to change it from within? Can advocates of reason, egoism, and capitalism ally themselves with selected feminist causes without promoting the worse elements thereof?

My Answer, In Brief: Despite its many problems, feminism has been a major force for political, economic, and social change for the better. Today, just as with any other ideologically mixed movement, alliances with feminists should be made in a careful and ad-hoc way.

Download or Listen to My Full Answer:

• Duration: 19:26
• Download: MP3 Segment

Tags: Activism, Culture, Feminism, History, Law, Politics, Politics, Rights, Sexism

Links:

• The Legal Status of Women, 1776-1830
• The Feminist Papers: From Adams to de Beauvoir, edited by Alice Rossi
• Philosophy in Action: The Wrong of Anti-Discrimination Laws
• iFeminists.net

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

A podcast of the full episode – where I answered questions on today's feminist movement, the morality of jailbreaking, racism versus moral decency, the objectivity of color concepts, and more – is available here: Episode of 14 July 2013.

You can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed:

• Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player
• Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player

About Philosophy in Action Radio

Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Read more...