Philosophy for Living On Earth

Governments are taking unprecedented measures to restrict travel and shut down businesses in order to slow the spread of the COVID-19 virus. Politicians are justifying these measures by invoking emergency, even wartime, powers. What is the proper role of government during a health crisis like this one? What values should guide us in thinking about proper policy in regard to life and death issues, especially in an individualistic society? Join us for another special episode of Philosophy for Living on Earth to get clarity on these questions. Onkar Ghate and Gregory Salmieri will join us and add their perspective.

Most people think about morality as a set of commandments handed down by a god. Others believe we can get moral guidance by consulting our own feelings of sympathy for the needs and desires of other people. Are these the only two options? Does morality have to be based on faith in a higher dimension or on feelings for others on Earth? Those who believe morality is based on either faith or feelings assume there can be no rational basis for morality. Is that true? Are there no observable facts by which we can decide what’s the right and wrong way to live? Join Ben Bayer and explore the question: Is there a rational morality?

What explains the major developments and trends that have shaped our world through the ages? Human history is complex and, obviously, there are many factors involved. And some of the questions raised are these: Is there a fundamental cause that explains the big picture? Is there an ultimate cause that directs the overall sweep of history? Ayn Rand, the iconic American novelist and philosopher, argues that there is. In her view, the primary force that drives history is philosophy—the basic philosophic ideas that shape people’s beliefs and values and, therefore, their choices and actions. Join Keith Lockitch and explore the question: What drives history?

Many people believe that privilege—the idea that special rights or advantages are available only to a particular person or group—is a problem. While there are advantages, such as the wealth and location of one’s parents, that are not a choice, there are reasons to be skeptical about whether or not privilege is a problem. For example, many United States immigrants start with nothing, but succeed through hard work. Does the concept of privilege only apply in a specific context? How does it apply to issues of race? Join David Birnbaum as he interviews philosopher Gregory Salmieri on the question: Is privilege real?

On the issue of legal, non-medical drugs, there are at least two common perspectives at odds in our culture today: one camp contends that some drugs can beneficially “expand” one’s mind—increasing creativity, decreasing anxiety, and otherwise providing benefits that should be explored. Another side regards using mind-altering “recreational” drugs as immoral or at least morally suspicious. Join David Birnbaum as he interviews philosopher Onkar Ghate on the question: Is doing drugs wrong?

Think about celebrities who tweet about their politics all the time, or think about companies who want you to buy their products because they’re supposedly eco-friendly. Some say that these are symptoms of an epidemic that’s coursing it’s way through social media and through our political discourse generally, an epidemic they call “virtue signalling”. Ben Bayer, a fellow at The Ayn Rand Institute, has some questions about this. You’re said to be a virtue signaller when you promote some cause or criticize some figure people love to hate in a way that doesn’t involve much cost, but which draws attention to your own right way of thinking. What, if anything, is wrong with this kind of behavior? Is there a kind of behavior here at all or do the critics of virtue signalling lump together lots of different things? Is speaking out ineffective only because it’s speaking? Does profiting from the judgment of others make you insincere? Join Ben Bayer and explore the question: What’s wrong with “virtue signalling”?

Every year droves of people make New Year’s resolutions, but polls suggest that four out of five people fail to keep them. One report even found that most resolutions last less than two weeks. So why are New Year’s resolutions so hard to keep? Are they just a joke and a waste of time? Are people just deluding themselves into thinking that real change is possible? Resolving to make changes that will positively impact your life is not a joke nor an exercise in self-delusion. In fact, to be truly selfishly committed to your own rational well-being and happiness is a demanding moral challenge. But the widespread failure to keep New Year’s resolutions does highlight just how difficult it is to define and maintain goals. Join Keith Lockitch as he answers the question: Why are New Year’s resolutions hard to keep?

At the turn of the millennium, two different polls were held. The question was: What’s the best English-language novel of the twentieth century? One poll questioned literary experts—they picked Ulysses by James Joyce. The second poll questioned internet users—their choice was Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Is there any objective way to settle who is right? And is art (painting, sculpture, music, architecture) objective or subjective? Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Join Harry Binswanger as he presents Rand’s revolutionary answer to the question: What is art and what are the standards for judging art?

There’s a new campaign slogan among Democratic politicians: “Abolish Billionaires.” Nobody can honestly deserve a billion dollars, they claim, so they want to impose radical new taxes on the super-wealthy. Indeed, people are arguing that the very existence of billionaires is some kind of moral outrage. Wealthy people are being blamed today for all the world’s problems. Yet all of those problems are actually the result of the very ideas being preached by the same leaders and intellectuals who want to “abolish” the billionaires. But instead of vilifying and hating billionaires, we should be thanking them for improving all of our lives on a massive scale with the products they offer for voluntary trade on a free market. As Ayn Rand argued in her novel Atlas Shrugged, if anyone deserves thanks on Thanksgiving, it’s those productive Atlases who carry the whole world on their shoulders. Join Keith Lockitch as he argues that the real moral travesty is the campaign to abolish billionaires.

We live in an age in which fabricated stories pulse through social media, fashionable startup companies are founded on swindles and, of course, politicians of all stripes routinely lie. Whatever happened to the idea that honesty is the best policy? Most people would recognize honesty as an obvious example of a moral virtue, but the idea of being honest on principle strikes many people as a burdensome duty they owe to other people, which is sometimes too impractical to stick to consistently. Is honesty really just a duty we owe to others? What does it mean to be honest and why should we bother being honest at all? Join Ben Bayer to explore one of life’s big questions: Why be honest?

Have you ever wondered what Ayn Rand’s philosophy—which she called Objectivism—is all about? Why is she such a controversial figure with millions of fans who love The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged but also with many, many critics who call her books and ideas evil? Onkar Ghate, a senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, discusses Objectivism exploring especially Rand’s moral and religious views, which are at the heart of her radicalness. Ghate also considers why she championed self-interest and her new conception of a moral hero.

When we describe someone as a person of principle, it’s often meant as a compliment. We mean that the person has a solid moral compass and that his actions are grounded in time-honored rules of conduct. On the other hand, though, we sometimes view principles as being rigid and constraining, a bunch of rules that stifle spontaneity. From that point of view we sometimes view the man of principles as being somewhat dogmatic, maybe even a bit of a zealot. So is it good to be a principled person or is it a problem? What exactly are principles anyway and what do they do for us? Do we even need them in life? These are questions that Keith Lockitch will be exploring in this episode of Philosophy for Living on Earth.

Compromise is widely seen as essential to success in life. To have healthy, meaningful relationships, we’re advised to find a middle-ground. In the workplace, we hear, it’s vital that we compromise. And in the words of one long-time politician, in Washington “if you want to get along, you have to go along.” At the same time, however, it’s clear that not every compromise leads to a win-win outcomes. Sometimes, a compromise is toxic to a relationship. Or, it can sink your business. And, in politics, some compromises can be truly disastrous. Sometimes you need to say no — and stand your ground. But when? How can you figure out which compromises lead to healthy, win-win outcomes, and which ones don’t? The philosopher Ayn Rand offers a powerfully clarifying analysis of compromise, which can guide us in navigating our relationships, work, and life. Join Elan Journo as he explores another one of life’s big questions: Does success in life require compromise?