Whole Episode: 22 January 2012
In the webcast of 22 January 2012, we discussed 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. Greg Perkins of Objectivist Answers was my audio co-host.
Remember, while the Philosophy in Action Webcast (and Podcast) is available to anyone free of charge, it's not free for us to produce. It requires our time, effort, and expense – week in and week out. So if you enjoy it, please contribute to the webcast's tip jar. We suggest $5 per episode or $20 per month, but any amount is appreciated. You can contribute by PayPal to diana@philosophyinaction.com. If you prefer to send a check, please write "P/A Webcast" in the memo field and send it to "Diana Hsieh; P.O. Box 851; Sedalia, CO 80135."
Listen Now 
- Duration: 1:11:37
Share This Episode
Download the Episode 
Subscribe to the Feed
Segments: 22 January 2012
My News of the Week: Lately, I've been working on the Philosophy in Action Website. Also... Save the dates! SnowCon 2012 will be held from March 15 to 18th, likely based in Frisco, Colorado. We'll play in the snow during the day, then enjoy informal lectures and discussions in the evening.
Question 1: Acquittals of the Guilty Versus Convictions of the Innocent (3:15)
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?
My Answer, In Brief: Tto convict an innocent person involves the same wrongs as acquitting guilty person, plus more. That’s why proper justice system presumes innocence, as well as limits and corrects errors of by scrupulous objectivity.
Listen or Download 
Relevant Links
Topics 
Comments:
Question 2: The Morality of the Death Penalty (15:37)
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?
My Answer, In Brief: To impose the death penalty for murder (and perhaps other heinous crimes) is morally proper, if the possibility of error in the criminal conviction can be eliminated. To eliminate not just "reasonable doubt" but also any "residual doubt" can be used to distinguish cases in which such errors have been excluded.
Listen or Download
Relevant Links
Topics
Comments:
Question 3: Alternatives to America (45:33)
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?
My Answer, In Brief: I'm not the right person to answer that question. However, I'm committed to staying in the United States, absent some disaster, because I regard America as the best hope for reason and freedom. Fight for it!
Listen or Download
Relevant Links
Topics
Comments:
Question 4: Choosing a Place to Live (54:05)
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?
My Answer, In Brief: A person should judge where to live in the United States based on his whole range of values, not solely on the differences of degree between state governments.
Listen or Download
Relevant Links
Topics
Comments:
Rapid Fire Questions (58:32)
- What is the mistaken assumption in the question, "What is the purpose of life?" Is, "Does life have a purpose?" or "Can life have a purpose?" better?
- Where should a person interested in learning about Objectivism start?
- What do you think of what happened when the Costa Concordia ran aground?
- What do you think of Chris Christie?
- What does it mean to "assume positive intent"?
Listen or Download
Comments:
Conclusion (1:10:28)
Thank you for joining us for this episode! If you enjoyed this episode, please don't forget to contribute to our tip jar. Also, please don't forget to submit and vote on questions in the webcast queue.
Connect with Us
Comments? Questions? Want more? Be sure to connect with us via Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, RSS, e-mail, and more!
Support the Webcast
The Philosophy in Action Webcast is available to anyone, free of charge. We love doing it, but it's not free for us to produce: it requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value our work, please contribute to the webcast's tip jar!
If you'd like to make a one-time contribution in an amount not listed, use this link. For instructions on canceling or revising your monthly contribution, visit the support page.
Thank you, if you've contributed to the webcast! You make our work possible every week, and we're so grateful for that! Also, whether you're able to contribute financially or not, we always appreciate your helping us spread the word about this webcast to anyone you think might be interested, as well as submitting and voting on questions for upcoming webcasts.
