Philosophy Talk Live at The Marsh SF this Sunday
Devon Strolovitch

13 October 2010

This Sunday we kick off anotherseries of live recordingsat the Marsh theater with two new shows in San Francisco:

  • 12 pm:The Moral Costs of Free Markets. We live in a market-driven society—our day-to-day lives consist of buying and selling goods and services, and to some, our ability to do so without government regulation is the underpinning of democratic freedom itself. Everything has a price, and pretty much everything is for sale, from concert tickets to political influence. But should it be this way? John and Ken to discuss the moral limits of the free market with Stanford philosopher Debra Satz, author ofWhy Some Things Should Not Be for Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets.
  • 3pm:Abortion. Nothing stirs up controversy like abortion. To some, it carries the steep moral cost of destroying human life, and to others, it represents an inviolable bastion of women’s rights over their own bodies. Despite the polarizing nature of the debate, it covers broad philosophical ground, and touches on religious, political, social and moral considerations. John and Ken unravel the complicated issues surrounding abortion and see what can be gained by a rational philosophical approach to the discussion with UC Berkeley Journalism professor Cynthia Gorney, author ofArticles of Faith: A History of the Abortion Wars.

Tickets for these shows can be pruchased throughBrown Paper Ticketsor by calling the Marsh box office at 1-800-838-3006.

This year, we're also offeringadvance-ticket and multiple-show discounts.

Speaking as one of the men behind the Philosophy Talk curtain (official title: Production Coordinator), I can say that putting the program on for a live Bay Area audience is both a ton of work and incredibly rewarding. There are a lot of individual elements to line up for everything to run smoothly and coherently: tables, microphones, music, visuals, etc. Not to mention making sure everyone is in the right place at the right time with the right material. And once the tape is rolling (so to speak), I tend to focus on what'll need to happen production-wise to get the program ready for broadcast.

But what unique radio it is! And as we start our second full season of Marsh tapings, I can only hope that if you haven't yet made it out for a live event you'll make the trek to the Mission district. And if you have been to one before, we hope you'll be enticed by this year's lineup. Philosophy Talk is nothing without its audience (Ken refers to the callers on the radio broadcast as a "second guest"), so this Sunday come down and question everything -- except your desire for thought-provoking, audience-engaging radio.

Comments(6)


Guest's picture

Guest

Friday, October 15, 2010 -- 5:00 PM

Sounds like a lively and engaging program, ladies

女士们先生们,听起来这是个生动有趣的节目。建议您的编辑兴趣:您可能希望检查您的拼写检查器(s)。到底什么是广播?我知道,这只是一个打字错误——但我们努力通过书面文字交流的人知道人们有多挑剔。
Yes, everything is for sale it seems and no, I for one do not think everything ought to be. I am tired of having the best government money can buy. Just one opinion though. Question about your upcoming (tonight) broadcast: can I tune in here in Ohio, via ordinary radio? If not, best of wishes with the abortion issues. That dialogue could generate some pretty firey rhetoric. YT, PDV.

Guest's picture

Guest

Saturday, October 16, 2010 -- 5:00 PM

I attended the Philosophy Talk today with the topi

我参加了今天的哲学讲座,主题是中国伊朗亚洲杯比赛直播堕胎。在节目的最后,约翰·佩里使用了“事后堕胎”这个短语。我认为这需要纠正或澄清。事后避孕药又不是堕胎。事后避孕药中的激素是通过阻止女性卵巢排卵而起作用的吗?排卵。如果没有卵子与精子结合,就不能怀孕。事后避孕药中的激素还会使女性的宫颈粘液变稠,从而防止怀孕。黏液会阻止精子与卵子结合。这种激素还会使子宫内膜变薄。 In theory, this could prevent pregnancy by keeping a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. Since one of the main topics of the show was the point at which point a fertilized egg becomes a fetus or "person" and the morality behind destruction of that so-called life, I believe this is relevant. The morning-after pill (often called Plan B) does not destroy a fertilized egg but prevent fertilization from potentially occurring. This is a common misconception and i was a little bit shocked to here it go out there into the universe, especially in San Francisco.

Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Saturday, October 16, 2010 -- 5:00 PM

I doubt that Mr. Perry was being insensitive or di

I doubt that Mr. Perry was being insensitive or disrespectful with his comment concerning morning-after abortion. Still, the entire subject is, admittedly, a sensitive one and given the polarity it has generated, I can understand Ms. Green's concern.It is interesting that in some quarters, we are hearing it said that people are too sensitive about certain remarks which are made; actions that are taken; other behaviors which are found unacceptable or offensive in some way.
It appears there has been a paradigm shift of sorts---at least in some areas of human interaction. No more than thirty years ago (in my memory, anyway),people were being roundly chastised for not being sensitive enough to the feelings and situations of others. I wonder if we can have it both ways, or if in trying to do so, we lose credibility and respect? Yes, maybe I think too much. "Ah, but I was so much older then,I'm younger than that now..."*
(*The Byrds, Younger Than Yesterday, Columbia Records-from: My Back Pages, written by Bob Dylan)

Guest's picture

Guest

Sunday, October 17, 2010 -- 5:00 PM

I'll weigh in here. My opinion says we cannot have

I'll weigh in here. My opinion says we cannot have it both ways. One and one does not equal equanimity. There are no paradigms which excuse intolerance, either on the positive or the negative side of the balance. If you cannot get through your own biases, you have no business criticizing someone else's.
我也不知道,这就是我要说的。纽曼在伦理上是正确的。他的失败之处正是我们许多人的失败之处:道德现在基本上毫无意义。我们是一个没有任何真正道德基础的国家——或许是一个世界。事实就是:历史把我们搞砸了。历史性将导致我们目前缺陷的事情发扬光大。最后,历史效应继续加剧我们的处境。
This is not complicated, on its face. I have a book which explains it. Talk to me, if you are interested. If not, I'll find a venue. No worries.

John Perry's picture

John Perry

Saturday, November 20, 2010 -- 4:00 PM

I think Lisa Green makes a good point, and gives a

我认为Lisa Green提出了一个很好的观点,并给出了一个非常清楚的解释为什么我的短语是不合适的。