All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 23, 2008 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:03:03
1218 Sunday Call-in Show November 23, 2008 -- UPB!

A brilliant listener and I debate the relative merits of UPB.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thanks, everybody, so much for joining Sunday, November the 23rd, 2008, 4 p.m.
in the afternoon.
And we have an exciting turnout for today's show.
Thank you so much. I just wanted to, because I've been getting a lot of common questions about the Guardian article and response and this sort of stuff, I just wanted to go over a couple of points.
I did a podcast on this recently, which you can see and you can get a little bit more out of this.
I mean, the people who think that or who have said to me, Steph, you implanted this idea into someone and you have overturned his history and you've convinced him that bad things have happened and so on.
That, I mean, you just need to read up on psychology to understand.
I know that there's this fear of, I don't know, mind control or whatever.
And it's not quite tinfoil hat territory, but it's not that far off.
Personality is extraordinarily inert.
And this has been observed from Freud onwards.
Personality is really hard to change.
And if I had some way of reversing people's experience in some way, like in 40 minutes or 50 minutes, I could completely reverse that.
Their history, their emotions, their loyalties, their whatever, right?
And think that they loved people that they thought they hated and hated people that they thought they loved.
And if I had this amazing ability to overturn people's histories in 40 or 50 minutes, I can tell you that Christina would rule the world.
Right? Because I would teach her how to do it, or I'd teach therapists how to do it.
Again, what I do is not therapy, but if there was some way through reasoning, through argument, through support, through whatever, to reverse people's thinking, then...
And you could do that in 40 or 50 minutes, then nobody would need therapy, right?
And it would make no sense why I would suggest that people go to therapy, because I would just change them.
I would just erase and rebuild with my amazing internet TCPIP brain packets.
I would simply rewire their entire brain to reverse what had come before.
And every therapist or every self-help guru or every person in the world who wanted to improve humanity or control humanity would be offering me millions of dollars for this amazing mind control trick because let's say you could do this, then you would not need to spend years in therapy as I did in order to change, right?
Change is very hard.
Change takes a lot of work.
There is no magic pill, right?
There is no 40 or 50 minute conversation that can rewrite people's history and turn them into different people.
It is a complete fantasy.
And so you just need to read up on the difficulties of change, the inertness of the personality, how long therapy takes.
Again, this is not what I do.
It's not therapy. But if you could just change people with a 40 or 50 minute conversation, then that's what people would do.
And so on.
Like, let's say some woman was attracted to abusive men for whatever historical reason, then she would, instead of having to go through years of therapy and deal with family issues and low self-esteem and self-punishment and self-attack and guilt and shame and all the toxicity that may have come out of her history, why, she just used this magic internet pill.
40 minutes later or 50 minutes later, she would completely have reversed her desire for the bad boys.
And she would only be attracted to Ned Flanders.
So that is just not possible.
I mean, there is this fantasy, right?
Of course, right?
But there's no reality in science or psychology.
There's just no reality.
Change is really hard and it takes a long time.
And if you've ever, what is it?
Some tennis player, I think it was Martina Navratilova, said the thrill of victory lasts 15 minutes, right?
So when you get really pumped up from something, it doesn't last very long.
You get pumped up at a concert.
Like people say, oh, you pumped them up and you got them all, right?
But that doesn't last.
We all know that, right?
I mean, we get thrilled at a sports game, maybe, and then the next day, you know, we don't stay cheering for...
I mean, there's nobody still cheering over the Canadian victory, over the Americans...
Seven years ago in the Olympics in hockey.
Nobody is still cheering about that.
The parade is gone.
The parade was gone within a couple of hours, right?
So if Tom, through this conversation, felt something solid, true, real, deep and meaningful about his history, and it is still the case that six months later he is feeling the same way, well...
You just know that it wasn't me pumping him up or manipulating him, because it lasts, right?
Imagine, I call up some show, and someone says, your wife is a monster, right?
Now, it's true she's a little bossy.
But I'm actually better off, right?
Living in a chicktatorship is the place for me.
Girlie wealth, while it has rules, is beneficial, right?
It's not anarchy here, I'll tell you that much.
But, I mean, if someone called me, oh, I thought I loved my wife, I thought I have, you know, we have the occasional problems like everyone, I thought I loved my wife, but then I talked to this guy on the internet for 40 or 50 minutes, I'm getting a divorce and I'm never going to talk to her again.
That's absolutely inconceivable.
It's absolutely inconceivable.
If there was this way of manipulating people in this kind of way, why would elections ever be close?
You just take some McCain supporter and you completely rewire his brain to vote Obama or vice versa.
I mean, it just doesn't work that way.
That's not how the brain, how personality, how growth, how knowledge, how self-understanding works.
So you just need to drop this fantasy that there's some mystery switch that people can flip.
Now, there's illumination.
There's illumination.
That's a little different. That's when someone breaks through a defense About something that you deep down know to be true, and that stays with you.
But that's not created.
Any more than an archaeologist creates the statues he unearths.
He just finds them and unearths them.
He does not create them. So I wanted to mention that.
I also wanted to mention, and I touched on this in the podcast, unless people come into the board and drop it in my email and raising questions about the ethics of the situation, being manipulative, and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I mean, let me put out a suggestion for you.
A possibility. I invite you into this planet of possibility.
If you are concerned about the situation, why not focus on where the real crime was?
Where the indisputed, admitted by everyone in the interaction crime has occurred, which was terrorizing and brutalizing of a young child for 18 years.
If you really want to be a good person, this is my suggestion.
Again, I'm not going to say I've proven anything.
I'm just going to put this out there.
You can slide it into the sympathy chambers of your heart and see how it sits.
If you really want to be a good person in this situation, don't make it about me.
Don't make it about his mom.
Don't make it about FDR. Don't make it about internet cults.
Don't make it about any of that stuff.
Don't make it sinister or insinuating about me or anyone else.
If you really want to be a good person, if you really want to show sympathy and empathy to where the real problems have occurred, why not post something on the FDR board or anywhere, right?
Why not post something and say, Tom, I'm so sorry about what happened to you in your childhood.
I'm so sorry that you were terrorized, attacked, humiliated.
Frightened, bullied in this way for so long.
What a terrible situation. My heart goes out to you.
I wish you the best. My sympathies go out to you.
That, I think, is the appropriate.
I mean, just in terms of the magnitude of the crime, 18 years of physically terrorizing a child has got to be morally worse than a conversation on the internet.
Even if you think that I... Did that conversation completely wrong?
I should have done it better. I should have done it different.
I shouldn't have done this. I shouldn't have used that word.
Even if we say all of that, if I was inappropriately sympathetic to the victim of extended and terrifying child abuse, I think that it's important to focus.
Don't miss the mountain by staring at the molehill.
That's all I'm saying.
To me, if you really want to do something good and right and kind in this situation...
Just post something saying, Tom, I'm so sorry.
That must have been terrifying. How sad.
What a terrible thing. You will never get your childhood back.
I'm so sorry that you had to endure these rages, these screamings, watching rooms get trashed, windows get smashed, living in terror.
That's a terrible thing. No child should have to endure that.
Tom, I'm so sorry.
I hope that you do well.
I wish you the best. What a terrible thing.
That, to me, would be a humane, decent, moral, kind, compassionate, considerate, and in proportion response to this situation.
Don't make it about me or FDR or Guardian articles or whatever.
I mean, the tragedy...
It's not that it came out.
The tragedy is not that Tom talked about it.
The tragedy is not how I handled it well or handled it badly or anything like that.
The tragedy is not whether the Guardian twisted things and made them look a certain way when they weren't.
The tragedy is not any of that.
Right? Let's keep our heads.
Let's keep our focus.
Let's keep our sense of proportion.
And let's remember that The only wrong in this situation, even if you disagree with everything that I did in a 50-minute voluntary adult-to-adult call, even if you disagree with everything, let's keep our heads, people.
Let's keep our perspective.
And let's remember that the real tragedy here is what he endured as a child.
That's what we need to focus on.
That's where our sympathies should lie.
Not the bickering about an article.
Not the bickering about what I said.
Not a bickering about this call.
Not the bickering about anything To do with what's happening between adults in the present.
But what happened to what was inflicted upon a helpless, dependent, innocent, beautiful child throughout his childhood?
The rage, the fear, the failure to protect.
That is the real crime.
Right? Let's not step over the bodies in search of parking ticket violations and call ourselves Moral champions, right?
Let's just keep remembering that that's the real issue.
And I hope that people will post that.
I don't know if he's looking at the board or not.
I hope he is, but...
Post some support for Tom, because that's where the real issue is.
That's sort of all I wanted to say.
I got a response to a woman who was posting a bunch of stuff about me, and maybe that will be helpful to people who want to get into the nitty-gritty, but let's keep our perspective here.
And remember where the real crime is.
And it did not occur... Between any adults in voluntary situations.
The only crime that really occurred was the assault upon and failure to protect a child for many years.
So, anyway, that having been said, sorry to start it off this way.
I just wanted to try and, you know, put it back in perspective, trying to remind people where the true tragedy and sadness has occurred at this situation.
It occurred long before that conversation in April.
So I just wanted to mention that.
And I hope that people will post some stuff to support Tom, because it is the tragedy that occurred in the past, and he's the one who's facing the fallout from this, not me.
Everybody who's coming down on me, all they're doing is further inflicting shame and pain upon Tom.
People, oh, he's a manipulator, it's culty, it's this.
All they're doing is shaming Tom even further by saying that Tom was taken in by a cheap con man, exploited for money.
Show the man some respect, people.
Show the man some respect.
He did a very difficult thing.
He is following his conscience.
He is following his reason.
He is not unaware of the consequences.
He is very intelligent, very sensitive.
Very knowledgeable. Show him some respect.
Because trashing those who've helped him just trashes him all the more, and I think he's had enough of that.
I really, really do.
Well, sorry for those who want to try following that speech.
I'm sorry to start off that way, but I just feel so strongly So if anybody had anything they wanted to add to that or questions or criticisms, of course we can talk about any topic that we like.
It is your show on Sundays.
All right, you're on? Test.
Yes, hello. Excellent.
Hey, how's it going, Steph? Good, good.
Thanks. How are you? I'm doing great, actually.
So I meant to put together some notes so that I could make good use of your time, but I didn't get around to it.
Let's make bad use of my time then.
I'll try to just make specific questions rather than having you start me at the beginning and walk me through UPB because that would be redundant for most people.
So I've listened to now the first...
Ooh, I'm getting a strange echo.
You know what? I'm going to get rid of the chat room because the player keeps turning itself back on for some reason.
So, okay, that problem is solved.
So now I'm up to Podcast 266, and I've read all seven books, and I agree with most of it, but I still don't have a full understanding of UPB from end to end, how the logic builds on itself.
So let me start with sort of a throwaway question.
Sorry, you're assuming that I do, right?
Let's go with that as an assumption.
I'm assuming that you do.
It was actually originally an ancient Aramaic, and it came in a Scottish-based growl.
Sorry, go on. So now we have to worry about translation errors on top of the logic.
Somali pirates whispered it in my ear.
Sorry, go on. Okay, so let's start with a throwaway question just to get warmed up.
I keep stumbling between preferred and preferable.
Now, it's universally preferable behavior.
But I was wondering, what is the difference in meaning between preferred and preferable?
And why did you choose preferable as the name?
A good question.
The idea behind it is that if we say universally preferred behavior, it would seem to me that we would be identifying things which humanity already prefers universally, right?
Okay. Okay. I mean, there has to be confusion about it, right?
Like, if every single human being enjoyed eating chocolate all the time, and eating chocolate all the time was the best possible diet, there would be no need for a science of nutrition, right?
I see. So preferred would just basically be a documentary.
It would say, here's what everyone's doing right now.
That would not be useful. That would not be a theory of morality of preferable behavior.
Right. So Dawkins and other kinds of biologists will talk about the socio-adaptive positivity of altruism, right?
That human beings are developed to help each other for the sake of enhancing the selfish gene and so on.
And that is a description of Of what human beings, what they would consider universal enough for biology, right?
But, of course, 4% of the population is sociopathic, right?
So altruism doesn't even hit 97%, right?
And that may be fine for biology, but it's not fine for philosophy.
So, to me, a description of what people like, you know, most people don't like to kill people.
So, it's almost universally preferred that people don't like to kill people.
And I think, by and large, right, absence propaganda and a military costume, that's very true.
But so what, right?
That is a mere description of the way things are, and obviously enough people do like to kill others that we have a significant problem, right?
So simply saying, well, a lot of people don't like to, that doesn't matter, right?
That's like saying, I'm going to become an oncologist, and I'm going to say, well, a lot of people don't get this kind of cancer, right?
And think that I've cured it, right?
But it doesn't really help. Okay.
Not sure how that tied in.
Not sure how what? I'm not sure how that tied in.
I'm suggesting something prescriptive, not descriptive, right?
So with UPB, I'm suggesting that there is universally preferable behavior which we should conform to or which theories should conform to, right?
That there is an ideal of logical consistency and evidentiary consistency, right?
So there's something that we should approach and we sure as hell don't at the moment, right?
So it's not descriptive, it's prescriptive.
It's not even prescriptive, right?
Because it's actually a framework for determining what's prescriptive, right?
Well, no. Yes and no.
And this is the annoying and confusing part about UPB, which I tried to make as clear as possible, but obviously didn't do as great a job as I could have, which is that when you talk about science, you're talking about fundamentally two things.
You're talking about The scientific method as a methodology and you were talking about scientific experiments and theories and proposals and so on as specific things, right?
So there's a methodology and then there's the content of that methodology which is the specific theories, right?
So there's the scientific method and then there's quantum physics, right?
And then there's individual theories within quantum physics and so on, right?
Those are the conclusions that you arrive at by applying the scientific method.
Right, exactly. So when you talk about science, you're talking about two things, right?
The methodology and the practice, right?
Right. Like when you talk about tennis, you're talking about the game of tennis, the rules of tennis, right?
And you're also talking about playing tennis, right?
So you're talking about the theory, and you're talking about the practice.
In science, you've got the scientific method, which is the theory, and the practice, which is scientific things that are done within the scientific method, right?
So to avoid confusion, we'll try to be clear about what context we're using at any given time.
Right, so with UPB, we're talking about a methodology for validating truth statements about reality.
Okay. And we are also talking about, as a subset of UPB, statements about ethics, right?
Is ethics interchangeable with the word morality, in your opinion?
Yeah, I use the two just because it spices it up a little.
Okay, because if I can go on another tangent.
One of the most interesting things to me about getting involved with FDR Conversation is my newfound exploration of...
The concept of morality.
Because before FDR, I had pretty much completely buried it.
Because before FDR, I would have described myself as a benevolent nihilist.
Because all the experience I had with morality, moral concepts and the concept of morality at all in the past, has always been sort of artificial fantasies, you know, handed on down from up high.
And I finally came...
Exactly. I finally came to grips with my own understanding of reality, which is that all meaning is in the mind.
There is no such thing as an objective morality in the way that society uses it.
You know, no one can tell me what's right and wrong or good and evil because even those concepts are created.
No one had ever prepared an objective...
Sort of a definition for them.
So I pretty much trashed morality, but I still didn't feel like killing anyone and I still prefer to live in a society where people didn't kill anyone.
So I basically adopted the non-aggression principle as being a good idea.
So I consider myself a benevolent nihilist and I was comfortable with that.
And I'm still kind of there because Well, because I don't understand UPB completely.
But I'm working on that, and once I understand it, if it turns out I agree with it, then maybe I will no longer be a nihilist.
Right, so it's like, there's no such thing as a better food, but I like cheesecake, right?
There's no such thing as morality, but I don't like to kill people.
Exactly. I had never found a way to say objectively that killing is wrong because wrong is subjective.
Because no one could define wrong or right or good and evil in any objective way.
And it didn't seem like it would ever be possible.
Because the concepts themselves seem to be flawed in and of themselves.
Like the way God or religion is.
Like the concept of holy.
Holy doesn't really actually mean anything.
It's just... You get a sort of impression of what it feels like because of the way it's presented to you psychologically.
Right. It taps into existing psychological, it taps into the conscience, which does have some interpretation of good and bad the way that a body has interpretations of pain and pleasure.
Right. But that was how they...
Made good and evil mean something to people, but it never really actually...
I don't know how to explain it.
No, no, I think I totally understand where you're coming from.
And this is the... It's the frayed rope bridge over the chasm of nihilism that...
Religiosity and patriotism and kindergarten kind of guilt-tripping that tends to try and hold morality up, traditional morality, cultural-based morality, inflicted upon children through fairy tales, either of the state, the country, or gods, or whatever. The morality within modern society is hanging on a really frayed rope bridge over this chasm of nihilism, right?
And people don't want to give up morality, in my opinion.
Right, because all prior concepts of good and evil were based on obedience to authority.
Yeah, it's all crap, right?
I mean, that's all junk, right?
But so what? I mean, people used to believe that the earth was the way it was because it was turtles all the way down, right?
Right. But that doesn't mean that we can't come up with a rational definition of the Earth and its circumference and its orbit and its rotation and so on.
Just because people had a whole load of nonsense and fairy tales to explain physics before doesn't mean that it will forever be the case.
And to me, the same thing is true of ethics.
I'm not a dogmatic nihilist.
I'm totally open to the possibility.
I just never encountered one before now.
And the reason that UPB struck me as having potential, whereas nothing else did, is it seems to me that you did an end run around the inherent flaw in the definitions of good and evil by sort of...
Stealing the words and applying them to something different.
Rather than saying, this is good and this is evil because I say so, you say, here's what people prefer.
Which is different.
It's as different as fantasizing about sex and then finally standing in front of a woman for the first time.
It's a completely different thing.
One is real and one is fantasy.
That is the sexiest UPB analogy I've ever heard.
And I came up with some completely filthy ones when I was writing the book.
Most of it didn't make it to the final edits, but good for you.
I'm actually going to put on some Marvin Gaye in the background, but please keep talking and talk softly.
Nice.
Well, it's important for me to explore this because it's kind of like – It's kind of like the difference between watching some computer generated effects in a film and then seeing real life.
The CG is just a little glossy and a little unreal.
And then if you saw the same scene, you know, there's beautiful music playing in the background.
But then if you experienced the same, if the exact same actions that happened in the movie happened in real life.
It would feel totally different.
It doesn't have the same gloss.
It doesn't have the same drama.
It's just real. Okay, now if you and I continue trading metaphors, we're going to have a great time, but we're not going to get anywhere intellectually, right?
And don't get me wrong. I love a good metaphor trade.
I think my metaphors are doing some unspeakable things to yours.
But let's try, if we can, to just see if we can put a little rigor, a little rationality behind this and see what comes out.
So just a backpedal. The lack of gloss is what I see in UPB. It's not as glossy because it's just pretty basic.
It's, you know, look around you and it's based on reality.
So that was really interesting.
But how it's constructed.
Okay, so the argument for there are preferences, I'm totally fine with.
You know, clearly I have preferences, you have preferences.
Everyone we meet has preferences.
I also have no problem with consciousness, identity, and existence.
I'm totally fine with those as axioms.
Then you make...
Then we have to go from people have preferences to universal preferences.
And I'm still unclear on how that step is taken.
Sure. Okay, let's go back to your nihilism, right?
So for you, in the past, maybe in the present, and maybe after this conversation in the future, and I'll join you, but for you...
So morality, as is discussed in these fairy tales and cultural blah blah blah, that's false, right?
Correct. And therefore, people should not believe those things, right?
Correct. Well, it connects to something real.
We have an innate desire not to kill, I think.
I'm sorry? But I think it connects to something real within us.
I think that we do have an innate desire not to kill.
Well, but so what? It doesn't matter.
Because again, if none of us had any desire to do anything, quote, wrong...
Then we wouldn't need ethics at all, right?
So just saying a lot of people don't like to kill doesn't solve the problem, right?
Correct. And if you look at the body count of, what, almost half a billion people in the 20th century through wars and democide, clearly enough people like to kill that it's a problem, right?
Right. So when you say to people, the ethics that you believe in is an illusion, Because there's no, you can't get an ought from an is or because it's the obedience to authority or whatever, right?
That's UPB. Because you're saying there is a standard called truth which your belief in a fairytale morality does not satisfy and therefore you should drop this false belief.
That's UPB. There's a standard of truth.
That your truth statement does not reach, does not match, it's self-contradictory, it's not founded on anything real, and therefore you should drop your belief, right?
Okay. But still, how do we get from, how do we, a specific question, how do we get the, how do we take a step from there are preferences, which I agree with, to there are universal preferences?
But you see, this is the challenge of UPB. Asking me that question is UPB. Because you're saying this step has to be supported or it's universally not valid, right?
And therefore false and therefore should be rejected.
You're using UPB to try to establish UPB. You're saying, I have to get this step sorted out within my mind.
There are ways of doing it, but I want to try and do the shortcut, right?
There's more in the book about it. But if you're saying to me, Steph, I cannot accept that there is a universal standard because unless this step is sorted, it doesn't meet my universal standard.
But that's just me expressing my preference.
That doesn't mean that what I'm expressing is universal.
Same problem. No, you are expressing something that is universal.
Am I? Yes. You're saying if UPB doesn't meet the standard, it's invalid, right?
I don't know that I said that.
I'm trying to understand the logic, the chain of logic that you've built.
Okay, okay, that's fine. Let's say that I don't satisfy the chain of logic.
Does that mean that my theory faults?
That means that it has yet to be proven.
It might still be right, but we still haven't proven it.
Let's say I completely contradict myself.
Then it would be invalid, yes.
Okay, so valid versus invalid is a universal standard which requires logical consistency, right?
Right, and that's another thing that I accept wholeheartedly is logic consistency.
Wait! That's UPB! Oh.
Do you want me to go over it again?
Well, okay, let's take an example.
No, no, let's not take an example, right?
Because this is where you have to stop yourself and say, what am I doing in this debate, right?
I am saying to Steph, Steph, if your theory is self-contradictory, it is invalid, objectively invalid.
Not, I don't like cheesecake, but not valid, right?
Correct. That's UPB. You have a standard called logical consistency, which I completely agree with, right?
And you're saying if...
UPB doesn't meet this standard called logical consistency, which is universal and objective.
But the logical standard is UPB. Because you're saying it's universally not valid if it's inconsistent, if it's self-contradictory.
right?
So you're saying prove UPB according to the UPB of logical consistency.
Oh, I know it's tough.
I know it's tough, and I know it's tough for everyone, and it blew my mind, right?
I'm still not there. I know, I know, I know you're not alone, right?
It's really tough. Well, let me try to explain the context in my mind, right?
Because eventually what we're going to try to get, because I want to understand how this applies to constructing a rational morality, right?
So eventually we want to apply it to test cases like, you know, thou shall not murder.
No, UPB doesn't do that.
UPB doesn't say murder is wrong, because murder is not wrong.
Murder is an action, right?
I can be a surgeon and stab a guy.
I can be a mugger and stab a guy.
Both of those are just actions.
UPB will never say murder is wrong.
That language relies on gods and countries, governments, guns, prisons, culture, and all that crap, and it's all nonsense.
UPB will never say murder is wrong.
So what does it have to say on that topic?
UPB will say that any theory that says murder is universally preferable behavior leads to insurmountable logical contradictions, and therefore is false.
Okay, I agree with that.
Okay, but that's different from murder is wrong.
Correct. Right, so it's sort of like saying, will science tell you whether throwing a rock is correct or incorrect?
Well, science can't do that, right?
I agree. Science can say that a rock cannot fall up and down at the same time, right?
And anyone who says that rocks will fall up and down at the same time, and that's my theory of physics, is wrong, right?
Sure. Okay, but in your book...
Wait, wait, wait. I want to go back to the book, but let's just establish that, right?
I agree. So, UPP can't say murder is wrong, because then people say, well, self-defense, oh, it's the initiation, it all gets too complicated and it doesn't really mean anything, right?
And murder is not innately wrong.
There is no ethics in murder.
It doesn't, like, there's blood in murder, objectively, right?
Assuming you're not stabbing a dried-out corpse or something, a mummy, right?
So there's blood in murder.
And there's death in murder.
That's objective, right? But there's no right or wrong in murder.
There's no ethics that cling to it like a penumbra, like an aura, like a sweat, right?
Well, you know I agree with that.
I know. I agree with you.
Because there's no ethics in reality.
Just like there's no scientific method in reality.
When you use numbers to design a bridge as an engineer, you don't embed the numbers in the bridge, right?
They don't actually exist in the bridge.
They're all in your head, but that doesn't make them subjective, right?
Okay, so UPB is not morality.
It doesn't tell you what's right and wrong, but as a framework, it does allow you...
No, no. You can't say UPB is not morality.
I don't know where you got that from what I just said.
Morality is a subset of UPB. Because UPB says logical consistency and evidence, that applies to science, to mathematics, to logic itself, right?
And there's a subsection of UPB called ethics, right?
Which says, if you say that...
Like, UPB won't stop a thief from coming into your house and stealing your iPod, right?
But, if someone says there's no such thing as property rights, then UPB can demolish that theory like a neutron bomb.
Right. And I've worked through those arguments, obviously.
I just want to be clear about that.
Okay, so...
As I was saying before, then UPB can be used to test the truth or falseness of moral theories, which are theories of universally preferable behavior.
Right. Right?
Is that correct? Okay.
And that's when we finally get to use the example of murder and run through the test case as you do in your book.
Right? Yeah. Okay.
So you run through the test case of it's universally preferable to murder, and obviously there are logical inconsistencies in that it can't be done, so therefore that's true.
But then you, do you make the jump then to then saying, well then it must be that it's universally preferable to not murder?
It seems like you make that jump.
You test the test case.
It's universally preferable to murder.
Prove that wrong. And then say, well, therefore, the opposite.
Because if A is wrong, then not A must be right.
And therefore, it's universally preferable to murder.
You could say that it's universally preferable to not murder, but that doesn't mean very much, right?
Because you could be not murdering while you're stealing, right?
So it just becomes kind of confusing.
I generally prefer to look at the negative, right?
And say, well, this theory doesn't work, right?
But to say, well, is universally preferable to not murder?
Well, what if you're raping?
What if you're stealing? It gets murky that way.
Although I know what you're talking about in the book, but I'm just trying to really focus on limiting those examples to the most common, right?
Assault murder rape theft right the four big biggies of human iniquity so I just wanted to sort of clarify that point because otherwise we get into the the blended ethics of various situations, but so I just wanted to point that out, but please continue Okay, I would add wedgies as the fifth category category?
Well, yeah, I can see that.
I can see that.
But remember, if you're falling out of a building and someone grabs your underwear and it's the only thing they can grab because you've been doing a True News podcast and you forgot to change your pants or forgot to put pants on, then that wedgie becomes universally good.
Oh my god, I think I feel an essay coming on.
Sorry. Sure.
Sure. I won't spend too much time on wedgies.
Okay. Do you see what I'm struggling with?
Well, let's figure out where we've come so far, right?
So we've got that you simply cannot reject anyone else's truth statement without reference to UPB. You can't.
You can't say anyone is wrong without UPB. There are people who may reject UPB. I would actually call them human vegetables, right?
On life support with brains the size of walnuts.
But... The moment that somebody says to you, UPB is incorrect, you should drop UPB, you should do this, you should do that, then they're using UPB. They're saying there's a universal standard of truth, your theory doesn't, you can't use UPB to demolish UPB. It's like trying to disprove logic syllogistically.
If you succeed, you've failed, right?
Okay, so if I agree that there is objective truth, and I agree that it must be arrived at, it must be logically consistent and backed by empirical evidence, then I agree with UPB. Okay.
And therefore, theories which propose...
Right, so UPP doesn't say you can't be irrational, right?
UPP doesn't say it's morally wrong to do a rain dance and think that you're affecting the weather, right?
All UPP says is rain dancing does not affect the weather.
And if you say rain dancing does affect the weather, then you're wrong, unless you're Zeus.
There is a Zeus exception to UPP. A Thor.
No Zeus. So all it says is that, in the same way that if you say the earth rests on turtles all the way down, you're wrong, right?
Sure. But you can do it.
People can be as crazy, nutty, irrational as they want.
People can do rain dances to affect the weather and people can stab each other, right?
But anyone who's stabbing is UPB or stabbing is good or they're just, the theory is wrong, right?
Well, I was able to demolish the rain dancing and turtles arguments just using logic and the scientific method long before I read about UPB. What's interesting to me about UPB is you're attempting to tackle the subjects that are traditionally called morality using UPB. That's new.
That's interesting. That has value, if I can understand how to do it.
You were already, I would say, deploying a moral argument when you were dismissing rain dancing as an effective way to control weather.
Because you were saying...
That truth is more valuable than error, right?
That evidence is more valuable than irrational assertion, right?
Actually, no, I don't think I was.
I wasn't saying that it's wrong to be irrational, or I was simply saying that dancing is not going to make rain, but I never said that it's wrong to believe it.
That's what I'm saying, though. If you're saying dancing does not change the rain, you're saying there's no evidence, right?
And therefore, if there's no evidence, we should not believe it.
There's not even a theoretical argument as to how dancing could affect the rain.
And therefore, anyone who says dancing does affect the rain, that person is in error objectively, right?
Yes. So that already is saying we should be accurate, we should be honest, we should accept evidence.
That's already UPB. Didn't you just get an ought from an is?
No. I'm saying that they're in error, but when did I say that it's wrong to be in error, or that they should want to be correct?
Oh, nobody says they should want to be correct, but do you believe that truth is preferable to error?
It is to me. It's not objective, though, you're saying.
No, how can you say that a preference for truth is objective?
Well, because the truth is objective.
Because the truth is an accurate statement about objective reality, right?
Absolutely, yes. That's what the truth is.
Objectivity because it is an accurate description of that which actually is, right?
Absolutely. If I say the world is round, that is not a subjective statement because we can measure the earth, right?
Absolutely. But where does that imply that therefore it's good to be true or it's good to be correct or rational?
Well, if someone says the world is banana-shaped, are they right or wrong?
They are incorrect.
Okay. I want to use correct and incorrect because right and wrong has dual meaning.
Yeah, yeah, you're right. Double meaning, right? So someone who says the earth is banana-shaped is incorrect, right?
Correct. And that is not subjective.
Correct. Okay.
So if someone says the earth is banana-shaped and you prove to that person that the earth is round...
And they continue to say that the Earth is banana-shaped.
They are continuing voluntarily in an error that has been proven false, right?
Correct. And they're lying, because they're saying the Earth is banana-shaped when it has been clearly demonstrated that it is round, right?
Yes. And they're wrong, objectively, to say that the world is banana-shaped.
Yes, they're objectively incorrect in saying so.
And if they say it is objectively true that the earth is banana-shaped, they are objectively talking out of their ass, right?
Absolutely. That's a good technical term.
Right. So I think that we're in agreement.
They can say anything they want.
It's just wrong. People can say there's no such thing as property rights and murder is the most wonderful good and everybody should do it.
They're just wrong. I know that.
And I prefer to be right, or I prefer to be correct, but they might not.
Of course they might not.
But if they say that something is correct when it's not correct, they are objectively, universally, absolutely wrong.
And yeah, they can absolutely, but I'll tell you, no human being, no human being that I've ever met can say there's no evidence, there's no reasoning, It is completely the opposite of truth, and I still believe it.
Even the most religious people will talk about revelation in the Bible.
They'll cling to some evidence.
The amount of power that is in UPB, to me, is terrifying and only to be used for good, right?
That's UPB as well, right? Once you prove to people...
So people believe that prayer affects the outcome of medical situations, right?
Some people claim they do, yes.
No, some people really do, right?
But we have no reason to disprove it when they say something consistent.
No reason to disbelieve it, right?
And study after study has proven there's zero effect on medical procedures, right?
The results of medical situations based on prayer, right?
Of course. How could it be otherwise?
Well, it would be otherwise if there was a God, right?
And he listened to prayers and it would affect people's health, right?
Right. But that's not possible.
Well, I believe that's not possible, for sure.
So when people say, when you provide them the evidence, they don't say, yes, there's absolutely no evidence, but I still believe it.
What they say is, well, that is biased, that is slanted, these people get their funding from such and such a place.
They'll always find some way to weasel the evidence, right?
Sure. This is also known as agnosticism, right?
I went through that. I'm sure.
Well, nihilism agnosticism, right?
They're two unholy cousins of the Appalachians.
But so when people believe stuff, they will always try to bring reason and evidence to it, right?
I mean, mind-blowingly, like...
Spaghetti sandwich, tortuous explanations of how we know there's Jesus because why would people have martyred themselves if they hadn't seen remarkable stuff?
That's how we know the miracles. Amazing stuff, right?
Right. It's ex post facto rationalization.
It's attempting to cloak a belief.
I've never heard of the guys who killed themselves to go fly on a comet, right?
Oh, well, that must mean the comet is really a god because they killed themselves because Lord knows there aren't suicidal people on the planet who get addicted to religion, right?
Right. No, I've heard those arguments.
But I still want to try to understand, how do we get to universally preferable behavior?
Universally preferable behavior is not a law of physics.
It is not a law of gravity, right?
It's exactly like the scientific method.
It's like saying, well, how do we get to the validity of science?
Well, science is valid because it is a methodology for accurately describing reality.
And if you want to say something true about reality, you have to use science, right?
You can't just make shit.
I mean, you can, but then you're just not saying anything that's true about reality.
I agree. So, if you want to say something that's true, reason and evidence is the way to go.
And, of course, people will make up all kinds of crazy shit, right?
But it's just not true.
So there's a big conditional, right?
And we need the conditional because you can't get an ought from an is, right?
The fact that the scientific method exists does not mean that people ought to use it without any context, right?
I mean, Lord knows I don't use the scientific method to do a dream analysis, right?
Right, but how do we get to it's universally preferable to not murder?
How do we get there? We just went over this.
UPB... Does not say it is universally preferable to not murder any more than science says it's universally correct to throw a rock.
Then how can I objectively be upset at someone who tries to murder me?
Well, we can get into the psychology of this another time, but let's just stay on the UPB. UPB will say anyone who says murder is preferable, is universally preferable, That that theory is false, incorrect.
It is turtles all the way down.
It is prayer. Actually, it's 2 plus 2 is blue.
It's not even a comprehensible statement because it can never be enacted and it fails the coma test and blah, blah, blah, right?
So if people want to say something valid about preferable behavior, they have to use UPB. Their theories have to be logically consistent and inactable, right?
And I want to do that.
I want to use UPB to make truthful statements about universally preferable behavior.
Right. Now, if somebody says, I don't want to use UPB to describe universally preferable behavior, then what they're saying is, I want to say something theoretically and universally true about the universe, and I don't want to use science.
I want to use prayer, peyote dust, mescaline, and a rabbit's foot.
But the result is not going to be anything that is at all related to truth about the universe, because they're not using science, right?
So if somebody tries to correct you according to a universal standard, and that standard is not rational, is not universal, is not objective, they simply can't correct you any more than a shamanistic witch doctor high on peyote can correct Stephen Hawking about black holes by saying, I don't think they're fluffy.
Okay, but let's say I'm talking to someone and we both agreed to use logic and empirical evidence.
And now we want to explore ethics.
So we're taking the topic of murder as an example because it's a pretty easy one.
And let's say I want to test the theory that it's preferable to not murder.
So how do I actually do that?
Well, the examples are given in the book, right?
You start the way that most economics does, right?
Economics started with A guy on an island, or two guys on an island, right?
The Robinson Crusoe's examples are rife throughout economics, right?
This is just an example. But you start with the simplest things that you can, right?
And you test the theory in the least complex, and this is what science does all the time, strip out the extraneous variables, strip out the complications, right?
And you start with the most simple example that you can, right?
And you see, if the theory holds with the most simple example, then it's worth exploring and adding complex layers, right?
But if the theory does not hold even with the most simple example, then it's an invalid theory, right?
Sure. And so that's why in the book, I got two guys in a room, right?
And we say, okay, let's test murderous UPB. And see if it works.
And if it doesn't work with the two guys in the room, if it falls into incomprehensibility, contradiction, and universal fail, then we know it's an invalid theory.
Adding more layers of complication doesn't make it right.
Well, I'm not trying to complicate it.
I'm totally down with the simple. So let's say we go through the example of murder is preferable and we disprove it.
I'm totally good with that. How do we then prove that not murder is preferable?
Well, There's a number of ways to do it, but tell me why that's important.
I mean, isn't proven—I mean, look at the distance that we've come, right?
From there's no such thing as ethics to murder is wrong.
Now, you can say—and then what I would suggest is go on to property rights or go on to rape or go on to theft or assault or whatever, right?
Well, we can get to those next.
Because then you've done an incredible series of things, right?
That you have validated the most common moral instincts of mankind according to objective reason, right?
But I don't see that we have yet.
That's my problem. I still don't see how to prove murder is wrong using you, PB. Okay.
Let me ask you this.
Illogic is not a good way to validate a theory, right?
Correct. The opposite of illogic is logic, right?
Correct. So if illogic is a bad way, it's the exact opposite way to validate a theory, then the exact opposite of that is most likely to be a valid thing to do.
So if illogic is a bad way to validate theories, then logic is probably a very good way to validate theories, right?
Sure. So this idea that if we have said that something is...
Universally not preferable, right?
Okay. Then the exact opposite of that action is not going to be in the same category, right?
That would be impossible, logically.
I didn't follow that last part.
Okay. If the initiation of the use of force is evil, then the non-initiation of the use of force also cannot be evil.
Because they're opposite.
Then you're saying an action and its opposite are both in the same category of negative, right?
Right, second law of logic.
Right, right. So, if we say that murder is wrong, and I know I'm going back into more traditional moral language, but just so we can be succinct.
If I say that murder is wrong, then the opposite of murder cannot also be wrong, right?
Correct. So, there we go.
Boy, that feels anticlimactic, doesn't it?
Okay, so I was going to use a second example of eating donuts.
Come on, throw me a kibble here, brother.
I mean, are you satisfied to the explanation?
Well, that's why I want to bring the second example in to verify understanding of the first one.
I remain unconvinced.
Let me explain why with the second example.
Okay, so let's say we want to test the theory that it is universally preferable to eat donuts.
Well, that fails because of the same reason murder fails, because of the coma test, because everyone can't be doing it all at the same time.
Okay, let's say I want to test the theory that it's universally preferable to eat donuts.
Well, that fails for the same reason that murder fails, because we can't always be doing it all the time.
No, no, no, no, that doesn't fail for the same reason that murder fails.
No, no. And I will refer you to the example because someone raised this question pretty early on in the UPB conversation, which is it's universally preferable to not eat fish on Friday.
That can be universally followed and a guy who is in a coma is not eating fish on Friday and blah, blah, blah, right?
So that's in the book. I don't want to run through every argument in the book, but you can refer to that in the book.
It's in the last quarter, I think.
And that donuts is not a UPB rule, right?
That's like saying I have a UPB rule of physics.
I have a physics theory that only applies to green rocks, right?
Well, if it's universal, it has to apply to all matter, right?
So you can't make a UPB rule up about a specific, right?
I understand that. So the donuts thing doesn't work.
It's not UPB compliant.
Because it's too specific.
Yeah, because it's like saying I have a theory of gravity that only applies to bees.
Well, no, it can't only apply to bees because it's a theory of gravity, right?
So if you have a theory of UBB, you can't have it only apply to donuts, right?
Okay, well, what if we generalize it to eating?
Well, you have to then prove how eating and the opposite of eating fall into, you know, opposing categories and so on, right?
You have to say what is specific.
That's like saying, well, it applies to all—I have a theory of gravity that applies to all insects, right?
Well, that doesn't work either, right?
It has to be a universal thing, right?
It's like you can't have a mathematical formula that says it only works for numbers one through four, right?
So you're saying that the act of murder is a more universal concept than the act of eating?
Absolutely. Yeah, because murder is an initiation of force that results in death, right?
That is a universal descriptor, right?
And the principle survives the test of universality, right?
And eating, of course, does not impose any behavior on anyone else, right?
It is not something which imposes any kind of consequences on anyone else.
Stealing food does, eating doesn't, right?
So ethics is about interaction.
It's not a solo project, so to speak.
That's more akin to APA, right?
Integrity, honesty, and so on.
But eating does not fall into the category of ethics because it does not directly involve somebody else.
Unless you're eating them, right?
In which case, we have to go further.
Okay. I was not aware of that limitation, that limiting principle.
I don't know. It's not a limiting principle.
It is an acceptance of what universality means, right?
If I say I have a theory of physics that is universal, I can't say, but it only applies to bees, right?
Or insects or asteroids, right?
It applies to all matter, right?
No, but the statement that ethics is only about interactions with multiple people, not about what you do on your own time by yourself, I didn't realize that that was the case, which would make murder a valid topic and eating not.
So how about this? Sorry, that's not for the book as well, right?
Okay, why don't I reread the book and try to understand it on my own one more time, more carefully, and then if I still have questions, I'll come back with a more organized set of questions.
First of all, your questions have been fantastic.
I tell you that your questions are bang on the money, stone genius, in my opinion.
Well, thank you. That's useful validation.
I hugely appreciate what you're doing. I hugely appreciate the topic.
Because UPB, frankly, is a motherfucker of a theory, to be colloquial.
It really is. It really is.
And, dear God, wouldn't it be retarded of us if it wasn't?
I mean, if ethics wasn't the hardest goddamn problem in philosophy, wouldn't it be ridiculous that we hadn't sorted it out yet?
Look, maybe I haven't sorted it out at all.
Right? But we do know that the solution is going to be horrible, right?
I mean, in the same way that the solution to tying together strong and weak atomic forces and quantum theory and Newtonian physics and Einstein, whatever it is that joins all of these forces together, right, gravity and electricity and all, it's going to be a horrible theory, right? It has to be, because it would be kind of retarded.
And science is only 200 years old, really, right?
Whereas the science of ethics, the approach to ethics is thousands of years old.
So it better be a horrible theory and really, really hard to understand.
Otherwise, we would be the most retarded species on the planet and millions of people would have died in vain because of a lack of ethics.
So the fact that the theory is horrible, it doesn't mean that it's right, of course, but it means that it's probably on the right track.
Because everybody knows that it's wrong.
Like everybody, as I say in the book, everybody can catch a rock you throw.
Almost nobody can describe it.
in scientific terms, right?
And we all know that these are not good things, right?
But proving it, I hope it's a horrible task.
Because if it wasn't, man, if it was just like 2 plus 2 is 4, it's like how could we have missed that as a species for 3,000 years, right?
I agree.
But it may start that way and it may be that way now.
But my hope and my goal is to try to get it down to like a single page with a really pretty chart that I could explain in five minutes to a normal person and have them understand it.
Because if we can't do that as communicators, we don't have much reason to be optimistic.
Well, yeah. So that's what I want to try to do.
First of all, I don't know that...
We all understand this in terms of science, right?
It's not a failure of intelligence that makes UPB so hard.
I think that we just have a lot of static about ethics in our heads.
But it's our responsibility as communicators to get these down to the smallest, most elegant, most easily understood fashion.
Absolutely. And if you can, I mean, if you can do a logic tree that's, I mean, I started doing a logic tree for UPB, but it turned out to be UPB, the book, right?
So absolutely, if there is, and I've actually got the outlines of a presentation that takes theories, Supporting the universal value of murder or false, starting from why logic is valid, right? But I agree.
Hey, if you can come up with a better way of communicating and talking about it, you know, I kiss the hem of your garment.
Absolutely. I've certainly taken a good swing at it in a number of podcasts and books, but it's a tough topic, but I'm totally open to other ways of talking about it.
I've got to try, right?
And the first step is understanding it myself.
Completely, from end to end.
And once more, A, I totally appreciate and applaud your interest in ethics.
I mean, especially coming from the black asteroid of nihilism.
I can't tell you just how much I admire and respect that.
If the only thing that comes out of UPB... Is people say, well, that's stupid.
But they say, but it was a damn good effort.
He put a dent in the wall, and so I'm going to take another run at it.
That, to me, would be a fantastic outcome for UPB. Maybe it completely flames out in some way that I've never figured out yet.
I don't think it does, but let's say it does.
It means that we are looking at a way of building a system of ethics from the ground up.
Because if we can't get the system of ethics up, we can't get rid of the government, and we cannot get rid of religion.
And we can't make parenting better.
Because we just have to have willpower.
Wherever we have bullshit, we just have to have willpower and we have to have aggression and we have to have force and we have to have punishment and we have to have control.
And so it is my genuine hope that UPB works.
I think it does. Let's say it doesn't.
It just stimulates someone far smarter than me to come up with a better theory.
Great! Maybe you can come up with a way of communicating it that irons out all of the fuzz, right?
But... I totally applaud.
This is the most essential thing for society.
The most essential thing for our own lives is RTR, in my opinion.
But the most essential thing for making the planet a better place is to prove ethics.
Because without that, we just end up with governments and churches and bullying and fear and control and guilt and shame and all that kind of finger-wagging kindergarten bullshit that doesn't Actually make the world a better place, but generally tends to keep it in a pretty bad place.
So I hugely, hugely appreciate what you're talking about, the interest that you're showing in it.
And as I said before, your questions were just stone genius.
So fantastic. Well, thank you.
All right. Next caller, I guess.
Maybe. As long as the next caller is a guy with some etc.
▲
Export Selection