All Episodes
Previous Next
March 12, 2011 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
19:09
1867 An Introduction to Virtue - Part 1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, it's Steph.
Hope you're doing well.
This is an introduction to virtue.
Yes, it could well be said that this is a somewhat overdue topic in the realm of free domain radio and I would actually agree with that to a large degree.
So let's attempt to remedy that and hopefully squeeze some sense into this question of virtue.
Now, the world is so fracked up when it comes to ethics that at the moment Really what we have to do is clear away the rubble, right?
It's sort of like you're looking at a bombed out city in World War II where everything's precarious and currently on fire and falling over and so on.
And you say, well, what are we going to build here?
And it's like, well, I don't know.
But first thing we should do is probably, you know, put out all these fires.
I think that would be a useful start.
And then maybe we can stop all this water from spraying all over the place and mop up some of the crap and get rid of some of the bodies and, you know, all that sort of stuff.
Take down some of these tottering houses and blah blah blah, right?
And that to me is sort of where I see the world.
So I've really focused on...
UPB, which is necessary but not sufficient for virtue.
UPB is all thou shalt nots, right?
You know, don't steal, don't assault, don't murder, don't kill, don't rape.
No, no, no, no, no.
That is UPB in a nutshell.
It's thou shalt nots. And I think those are good.
And look, if we lived in a world where people respected property rights and didn't ever attack or kill each other and there was no war, I mean, you know, that's a pretty damn far way along.
The road to goodness.
And so that's really, really what I've been focused on.
And I hope that makes some kind of sense based on, you know, where the world is and what's been going on.
But there is, of course, the question, well, how the hell did we get there?
And that is a fine question.
That is a fine question.
And the way that we get there is through virtue, right?
The elimination of vice requires the application of virtue.
And it doesn't just require the application of virtue, like, you know, just making abstract arguments and so on, though I think that's a good and useful thing to do.
But virtue...
Is not abstaining from a negative, but expressing, creating, acting out on a positive.
And that is very important.
It's a very, very important thing to do.
And there's no other way that we're going to achieve virtue, except, I would argue, through that process.
So, what do I mean by virtue?
Well... Virtue is a fascinating phenomenon.
Let's just take a virtue like courage.
Courage is acting with integrity when you face the risk or the certainty of negative consequences for that action, right?
Acting with integrity.
Despite a foreknowledge that you're going to face significant negative repercussions for that.
I mean, if you're only going to face positive repercussions for your virtue, then it's hard to say that you need a lot of courage.
Do you need a lot of courage to cheer on your sports team when they're playing a home game?
I would probably say no.
That you do not need a lot of courage for that situation.
Do you need a lot of courage to intervene in a situation of public child abuse?
Yeah! Hell yeah!
You need a lot of courage.
Do you need a lot of courage if you are...
Think of a situation here that makes some kind of sense.
Do you need a lot of courage If you're at an NAACP meeting and some white oaf stands up and says something racist, does it take a lot of courage to condemn that person, knowing that everybody except that one person is going to agree with you?
Well, I would say no. In fact, I would say no, it does not take a lot of courage to do that.
It doesn't mean that it's a bad thing to do.
Yeah, condemn the racist by all means.
But it doesn't take a huge amount of courage to do that.
Courage rises proportionately.
With the degree of social acceptance of your perspective, of your argument, right?
So when I talk about adult relationships being voluntary and abuse being unacceptable and so on, well, of course, everybody agrees with those things in isolation or they agree with all those things in particular circumstances like spousal abuse or whatever.
But when it comes to adult victims of child abuse, well, it's early days for that, for sure.
But that's an important thing to know.
So it takes courage.
It takes courage to do that because the criticisms that can be leveled can be significant and difficult.
So that, I think, is an example of a positive virtue.
But what's fascinating about virtue is that it is designed to eliminate itself.
Or if it is successful, it ceases to be necessary.
And that's very interesting.
So think of something like health.
The purpose of a doctor is to make you or keep you healthy, but not to eliminate health.
The purpose of a financial advisor is to make or keep you wealthy, not to eliminate wealth.
But the purpose of courage is to eliminate the need for courage.
That's a very interesting thing to think about.
So, if you intervene in a situation of child abuse, public child abuse, good for you, heroic, massively magnificent, dangerous, difficult.
But, if everyone did it, it would no longer be necessary, right?
Because nobody would be abusing their children.
Because people would self-intervene, right?
So, that's the great challenge.
And what's complex about courage?
So respecting property rights doesn't eliminate the need to respect property rights.
But courage, if universally enacted as a virtue, eliminates the need for courage.
So, I mean, it obviously took a huge amount of courage in the 19th century, mid-19th century, say, to be an abolitionist in certain places in the world.
Huge amounts of courage. But it does not take a lot of courage.
In fact, to be an abolitionist now takes no courage.
In fact, it would take courage to advocate slavery, because that's evil and mental, right?
So that's the interesting thing about it, is that the courage to advocate against slavery.
Magnificent, brain-spanning, universe-detonating courage that it took in the early days to do it.
Well, the purpose of that is to create a world wherein the courage to advocate the end of slavery is no longer needed or necessary or relevant.
See? Virtue is only tough at the beginning.
Virtue aims to eliminate itself.
Standing up for women's rights.
Very difficult in 1900.
How tough is it in 2011?
Well, it's considerably easier.
And hopefully, as time goes forward, it will be considerably easier still.
So virtue aims to eliminate itself.
Virtue is successful when it is no longer necessary.
When it is no longer necessary.
And that is one of the most fascinating things about virtue.
And that's why it seems like such a huge mountain to climb when you're down at the bottom looking way, way up at the peaks.
And then when you climb it, it's a flat savanna.
It's a prairie. It's a welt, as they say in Africa.
And that's what's confusing about it.
It took a lot of courage to be anti-racist.
I mean, people got killed for registering black voters in the 50s and 60s in the South.
How much courage does it take to be against racism now versus, you know, 50, 60 years ago?
Well, It's a lot less.
In fact, again, I would sort of argue the opposite would be much harder to pursue, which is not to say hard is good, being racist is bad, but it would be harder to be racist now than it would have been to be racist in the past.
And there's a weird kind of tipping point, right?
And as I've sort of been talking about lately, it's really important to know where you are on this tipping point.
It's a big tipping point.
You think of sort of walking up a seesaw, you know, those seesaws you play when you're a kid.
You're walking up, you're just walking up, right?
But then you sort of get to the middle and it begins to tip and suddenly you're walking down, right?
Well, when it comes to extending and expanding virtues that we accept already, it goes that one step further, that one step deeper, that one step wider, that one step more universal where it's really hard for people.
And so, when you're at the beginning of promulgating a universal value, a universal virtue, especially one that people already accept a universal but haven't thought of applying, right?
So, in the US, all men are created equal.
Well, you apply that to slaves and there's no slavery.
You apply that to state, to the state, and you get anarchy.
All men are created equal. Therefore, all men have the same rights, so to speak, and therefore no man should be able to initiate force, therefore you can't have taxation, you can't have slavery, right?
So when people cheer, all men are created equal, they like it as a slogan, but they do not like it so much.
When you say, the results of this slogan are, the consistent application of the virtues that you believe should be consistently applied is the following.
Well, people don't like that so much, right?
Because then they have no defense except rage.
So if you say to somebody, I'm going to put forward a virtue that you disagree with, In its definition, in its essence, in its axioms, then they'll just say, well, no, that's bullshit.
I don't believe that. Right?
So you, I don't know, just go to someone and say, murder is good.
Or they're just going to say, come on, what are you doing?
This isn't even a debate.
Give me a break, right? They're just going to, they can throw the baby out with the bathwater, because whatever.
They reject the whole thing.
Reject on the whole thing. But if you go to someone and you say the logical consequences If the virtues you already accept are X, then they really are caught.
And they really, really dislike it.
And in fact, they will dislike it more than any other thing.
If you believe X... Right, so you go up to some woman who thinks that men are inferior.
And you say, well, the logical consequence is that women should boss men around in relationships.
Well, she's going to say, yeah, okay, that's good.
Yeah, men are idiots, right? Men are pigs, whatever.
Or as Al Franken used to say, there's a rumor around that there's a feminist doctrine that says all heterosexual sex is rape.
Well, that's a myth. I've only ever met one woman my whole life who believes this, and I happen to have been married to her for 20 years.
But don't you? So, you say, well, the logical result of extending your universal values to true universality is X. And they say, well, that's great, right?
But, as we all know, right, so people say, well, you shouldn't use violence to solve problems.
Kindergarten 101, right?
Don't push. Use your words, not your fists, right?
Shouldn't use violence to solve problems.
Say, okay, well, the result of not using violence to solve problems means no state.
State is an agency that initiates use of force.
Supposedly. Imaginatively.
Fallaciously. To solve problems, which actually in the long run only makes them worse.
Right? So then people are kind of caught, right?
Which is why you invent this parallel universe, right?
It's violent. It's voluntary.
It's violent. It's voluntary. You can flip back and forth between the two.
It's the same thing with the UPP debates.
Everything is relative. That's an absolute statement.
Well, that's absolute, but it's absolute that everything is relative.
You know, you just go back and forth.
People just switch. It's like looking at...
Cards. You flip one side.
There's the ace. There's the pattern.
There's the ace. There's the pattern. They just flip it around.
Right? So you say, well, using violence to solve social problems is wrong.
Okay? Then no state.
No, no, no. Because that's not violence.
That's a social contract. Okay?
Then everyone can put in that social contract, which nullifies it completely, because everyone can tax everyone else and eliminate any obligation.
Well, blah, blah, blah.
You vote. You can move. Right?
They just invent all of these other things to avoid violence.
The logical extension, the logical reality of the premises they already accept.
That's really hard for people. I, you know, in my naivete of youth, I thought, and this was a kind of narcissism, I would say, on my part, I find logical arguments irresistible.
And so, I kind of assumed that people would find logical arguments irresistible.
You know, because it's so easy to mistake the world for yourself.
And that's something that...
Hello, Mr. Doggy. That's something that is easy to, right?
So when I hear a logical argument, even though I may dislike it intensely, I kind of have to...
You have to bow to it.
It is the Lord and Master that walks the Earth.
And so I thought, okay, well, if I come up with logical enough arguments, then people will do what I do, which is, okay, okay, well, I may dislike it, but that's, of course, you know, I'm not going to throw out logic.
I claim to respect reason and evidence.
Reason and evidence conclusively proves or establishes X. Therefore, even though I dislike it, I have to accept X. Ah, well, you know, I don't have the magic wand.
At least I don't have a big enough magic wand, because it's, you know, it's cold out.
I don't have this big enough magic wand to wave away reason and evidence, but so many people in the world do.
It seems to be the vast majority of people, and I didn't really get this until I did more studying on the bomb and the brain stuff and found an ideology is the scar tissue that forms over early trauma.
And has no interest in serving truth, reason, evidence, philosophy, or any of those things.
It only serves to cover up and justify abuse that was experienced very early in life.
Ah, you know, you live, you learn.
When I made the arguments for voluntary adult relationships.
Okay, well, people accept that with marriages, which is a voluntary, chosen relationship.
Surely they will accept that with adult children and parents, where it's an involuntary, unchosen relationship.
But no, a lot of people can just wave that away if they want.
That's part of their learning.
So, virtue is...
A characteristic or aspect that seeks to eliminate itself.
Success for the shop called Virtue is going out of business.
Success in the supply called Virtue is the elimination of demand.
Don't need it, don't want it anymore because it's no longer necessary.
And that's a very interesting thing.
It's not the same with UPB. It's not the same with a whole host of other things.
The purpose of truth is not to eliminate truth, but the purpose of courage is to eliminate the need for courage.
The purpose of integrity is to eliminate the need for integrity.
I mean, I don't mean to eliminate the need for integrity like you should never have it, but integrity, like all virtues are only virtues because they're difficult, right?
I mean, it's not like...
I mean, courage is a virtue, but if you're with the majority, being a despised minority, and that can be a rational thing to be doing, then you don't need courage anymore.
And that is something that makes the advancement of ethics or virtue in the species so difficult.
Because it's a very hard thing.
It's a very hard thing to do to begin with.
You face a lot of hostility and persecution.
Because when you pull apart people's ideology, they re-experience their early trauma, and they react as predictably as you would imagine to that kind of situation.
And so it's really hard to begin with.
And those of us who've been involved in this conversation for several years, for half a decade now, I think, Well, we know how hard it is, and those of us who've been involved in this kind of conversation for many, many years or decades know how hard it is.
Know the progress is made, but it's slow and it's difficult and it's painful and it's grudging and all that sort of stuff.
It does seem very daunting.
It feels like you're climbing up a smooth glass wall using only your fingertips and some crampons attached to your elbows and teeth!
But that, of course, is how it always has to be at the beginning of things.
As the ideas spread, as the universality digs its way, as it always does, it spreads like a...
You know, universality is like a big hot air balloon full of water.
Dropping it on a flat surface.
It's just going to spread. It has to.
It's inevitable. Because universality is irresistible.
Because people can only justify their ideology based on the principles of universality.
That it's not just an opinion, but it's the truth.
Which means that they can't resist, and I mean this intergenerationally, they can't resist universality in the long run.
So it does extend itself.
But it does take a hell of a lot of courage.
To go against the social flow of, quote, universal prejudice to begin with.
But the purpose, of course, of virtue is, as I've said, to eliminate itself, to eliminate the need for courage, to eliminate the need for integrity, because it doesn't take a lot of integrity to go with the flow.
And so the goal of philosophy is to make the flow rational, so going with the flow is no longer wrong, it's no longer erroneous.
So when your society is rational and sensible, Philosophical.
Then going with the flow is not frightening.
In fact, going against the flow would be frightening.
And that really is the purpose of virtue.
To eliminate the necessity for virtue.
Which, again, seems like a huge daunting task when you're just starting out in a particular conversation.
But things do change.
Things do improve. Things do get more rational.
▲
Export Selection