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.

With the stock market now crashing and many people facing unemployment in the wake of the ongoing pandemic, governments are reacting with a variety allegedly aimed at stabilizing the markets and promoting economic security.

What effects will these measures have on the economy? Will they address the root causes of the crash or might they aggravate the situation further?

In this special episode of Philosophy for Living on Earth, finance and economics specialists Yaron Brook and Rob Tarr join us to answer these questions from a rational 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?

The COVID-19 pandemic and the responses to it from both business and government are now dominating the headlines and overwhelming our lives. As we all begin to grapple with the wide-ranging effects of both the disease and the steps being taken to fight it, there’s a need to take a step back and survey the situation with a philosophic eye.

This week is a special episode of Philosophy for Living on Earth. Onkar Ghate and Greg Salmieri discuss how philosophy can help guide our thinking about the impact of the pandemic on our lives, our economy, and about our government’s response to it.

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?

Most people believe that society has a moral obligation toward its poor and its needy—and that something must be done, politically, to help them.

Is this the right way to think about the poor and society? Are these issues for the whole of society to decide? Are they political problems that need to have imposed political solutions? How would one think about issues surrounding the poor, handicapped or needy from a more individualist perspective rather than a collectivist perspective?

Join Aaron Smith in examining the question: What should society do about the poor?

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?

Abortion is an important issue consistently in the public discourse. What makes it so persistent? Should there be any legal limit on abortion? Much of the discussion about abortion revolves around differing views of when life begins. Is there something significantly different about an entity before and after it’s born?

Join David Birnbaum as he interviews philosopher Ben Bayer on the question: Is abortion immoral?

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?

Israel is talked about often in the media, but many Americans don’t understand why we are so preoccupied with this country.

Often Israel is spoken of in a negative context: boycotts at universities, condemnations by the United Nations, and so on. What makes Israel worse than other countries? On the flip side, good defenses of Israel are scant. Is Israel important to U.S. foreign policy? If so, why?

Join David Birnbaum as he interviews foreign policy expert Elan Journo on the question: Why should I care about Israel?

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”?