All Episodes
Previous Next
March 26, 2011 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
24:29
1877 An Introduction to Virtue Part 4
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, it's Steph from Freedom Aid Radio.
You're doing very well. It is March the 24th, 2011.
This is An Introduction to Ethics Part 4.
We're just going to keep piling these things up like flapjacks until we've reached satiety in sugar, if not substance.
So there are two aspects that I'd like to talk about to the question, why be ethical?
Why? Why? Why bother being virtuous?
Which I think is a very good question because a lot of people seem to answer in the extremely negatory and those who answer in the pository tend to be rather exploited because people use their ethical standards to control and manipulate them and rob from them.
Oh, you care about the poor.
Give me your taxes. So why be good in a rational framework?
Why? Well, first thing I'd like to talk about, to frame the two answers that I have for that, one is social and the other is psychological, is to say expressly and openly, without a hint of shame, that these both involve an argument from a fact.
Oh, yes, I can feel it crawling up my leg too.
Let's just let it have its way with us, shall we?
And why, oh why, am I allowing the sinister, slithery, antennae-armed, creepy-crawly called the argument from a fact into a pure and pristine, logical, crystalline, ethical system?
Well, because virtue is different from UPB. UPB. Is not subject to arguments from effect because it's self-contained logic.
Whereas ethics, as I've been arguing that it's relational and so on, it is entirely subject.
Not completely defined by it, but it's subjected to and shaped by the argument from effect, which is why you should not have higher ethical standards than those you're currently involved with.
That's an argument from effect.
So it behooves me, since I have spent lo these many years railing against the argument of fact, to explain how it fits into this framework.
Well, UBB is physics.
I like to use these analogies, right?
UBB is physics. And physics is not subject to the argument from effect.
The truth or falsehood of a physics theory is not subject to an argument from effect.
So quantum physics is not...
Proven or disproven, or made more or less valid by whether people like it or not, whether it makes sense to them, whether it violates their sensibilities.
The Manhattan Project, at least the theory behind the Manhattan Project, Did not become false if we don't like nuclear weapons, right?
So physics is not subject to the argument from effect.
It is an argument from first principles in science with obviously logic as its first standard and empirical verification as its second.
So that's UPB. UPB is not conditional upon its effects.
So people say, well, UPB means no initiation of force and property rights, which means no state.
Well, sorry, but that's just the way it is.
That's the way that the theory in an ironclad way shakes out.
State equals invalid according to UPB. And people may not like that, but that doesn't matter.
Because it is not subject to the argument from effect.
Because it's a self-contained logical argument.
Now... Ethics is different.
I mean, positive ethics, things you should do, things which are of value to do.
Positive ethics is different, in the same way that engineering is different from physics.
In physics, the truth or falsehood of a statement is contained relative to its logical coherence, and to some degree it's fitting with existing or compatible theories, and of course the empirical testing.
It doesn't matter what anyone thinks.
It doesn't matter what external standards there are to the equation and its evidence or to the theory and its evidence.
The fact that religious people don't like the theory of evolution doesn't make it any more or less true.
Well, I guess it makes it a little more true.
Actually, for me, anyway. So, the parallel for ethics in the realm of the sciences, right?
UPP is physics.
Ethics is engineering.
Engineering is significantly subjected to the argument from effect or to the effects of what it's trying to do.
So I'll sort of give you an example.
What is a good bridge?
In engineering. There's no clear answer.
Because it's relative.
It's relative to the requirements.
It's relative to the required longevity.
And it's relative to cost constraints.
It's relative to constraints in materials available.
It's relative to labor skills.
Lots of things are relative in the realm of engineering.
So they built bridges during the invasion of France In 1944, they would build these ridiculously shaky bridges just to get things across, get troops across, sometimes even get tanks across, because the Germans may have blown up the bridges.
Those bridges were not, of course, designed to last for very long.
Weeks, maybe, at the most.
They were pontoon bridges, some of them.
I'm just crazy. They'd go in and build a bridge in six hours.
Was that a good bridge? Well, I think when you're being shelled, you want it to be relatively quick.
So, that's a good bridge.
Would that be a good bridge for joining some island to the mainland with lots of commuters and trucks?
No. That would not be a good bridge.
Right? So, a good theory in science is, is it logical and does it conform to the evidence?
That's it. That's it.
There's no other right standard.
Right? But is it a good bridge in the engineering world?
Well, let's say I want you to build a bridge out of Balsa Wood.
And I say, is that good?
Well, there's no way to know.
If I'm really finicky and hire Frank Lloyd Wright to build my bridge for Balsa Wood for my Model Z train set, well, yeah.
For my toy trains, that's fine.
Balsa Wood would be good. If it's for...
Truck deliveries to the Hoover Dam?
No, not so good. Right, so what is a good bridge?
What is a good building? A good building is one that is appropriate to the cost, the constraints, the materials, the requirements, and so on.
Does it make sense to build an earthquake-proof building in a non-earthquake zone?
No. It's over-engineered.
It's not a sensible use.
It's not a good building because it's too expensive.
Does it make any sense to do the opposite?
No, then it's a bad building. It's cheaper, but it's a much, much greater risk of falling down.
So I think you sort of get the point, and you can think of this in terms of software or electrical engineering or anything like that.
You don't want to over-engineer.
You don't want to under-engineer.
You don't want to build it too strong.
Because that's expensive. You don't want to build it too weak.
You don't want to build it so that it will never wear out, because that also is probably going to be too expensive, if it's even possible.
You don't want to build it there so it wears out too quickly.
So it's very complex.
It's relational, right?
What is a good bridge? Well, it's relative to a number of constraints.
What is good behavior?
What is virtue? It's relative to a number of constraints, relational and otherwise, that we've been talking about over this past three years.
Point for a podcast.
I don't know. Point for. Let's see how far we go.
So I really, really want to make that case.
That it works on so many levels, this metaphor, right?
Because engineering is applied physics.
And the application of physics to particular circumstances, which, I mean, engineers always have to take into account physics.
You can't just ignore physics, otherwise you can't be an engineer.
But it's just the starting point.
It's the necessary but not sufficient.
Like, of course, a good bridge has to conform to basic physics.
But after that, I mean, that's a given.
I mean, why would you, right? And, of course, a theory of virtue has to conform with non-aggression and property rights.
I mean, that to me is just a given.
But, unfortunately, it's not as given as I'd like it to be, but it is a given once you've studied this stuff for a while.
But engineering is applied physics.
And engineering bows to physics, right?
Physics is the starting point for engineering.
Therefore, you can't have... An engineering project that violates the basic laws of physics.
I mean, I guess you can, but what's the point?
I mean, that would just be ridiculous.
Nobody would. I mean, that would be the actions of a crazy person.
But you go far beyond physics to take into account.
Tensile strength and requirements and costs and all the location and all these other kinds of things.
So it's sort of a necessary given to start with physics, but you go way beyond it in terms of what makes a good bridge.
Can't violate physics, but it's just the starting point.
In the same way, Ethics can't violate UPB. Can't violate UPB in the same way that an engineer can't violate the laws of physics.
But it's just a bare-bones starting point.
And frankly, it is pretty much the starting point of everyone who you'll ever debate with.
Because the people you'll debate with will be debating with you and not putting a gun to your ribs, right?
So they're starting off and they will, as I've talked about in a podcast before, they accept self-ownership and ownership of the effects of one's actions because they know it's you making a particular argument.
So that is the starting point for everyone who's debating.
is is UPB but of course ethics goes way beyond that in the same way that engineering goes way beyond physics anyway I think I've made the case probably in my own repetitive way more than once so I want to put that framework in and to say that the two aspects of why be ethical that I'll talk about here are both arguments from effect and I have no problem with that I think it would be crazy otherwise So the first reason why be ethical, why? Is because it gets you goodies, right?
So just to take an example, if I fly to the US and I want to rent a car, I just go slap down a piece of plastic and they give me a car and I drive off with it.
And why do they do that?
Because I have been virtuous in my prior economic dealings.
I pay off my debts, I I don't overspend.
I return things when I borrow them and so on.
So I have a good credit rating, credit card and all that kind of stuff.
So I could do that.
That's handy. That's good.
That's helpful. So from an economic standpoint to...
Go and do the right thing.
Consistently do the right thing gets you access to far more economic resources and cooperation and collaboration than if you were kind of skeevy and just did things on the fly and didn't return half the stuff.
Just think of your friends, right? If you borrow and never pay them back, they're going to lend to you, which makes your life more difficult if you ever need that kind of money.
And, you know, we all need a little help from our friends from time to time.
So from an economic standpoint, not stealing stuff from work is good because it keeps you employed and you get far more, I would assume, from being employed in the long run than from being fired and not having a reference and all that kind of bad stuff.
So I think that's very important.
From an economic standpoint, there's great value in economic cooperation, which of course is one of the basics of a free society, of how it would enforce these kinds of things.
Now, on a related but not different note, there is a lot of familial cooperation that you get through virtue.
So when Christina and Izzy and I are out sometimes, we'll see, actually almost always, we'll see grandparents taking care of kids.
Because I guess the grandparents have retired, the kids are working, their kids are working, and their grandkids need help.
And this can go on for a long time.
I mean, from the age of 5 to 12 or 14 or whatever, or maybe even earlier.
So it can go on for 10 or more years.
And that's free.
I assume it's free. That is free.
Accessible, available, and monopolistic, right?
Because you assume that these grandparents aren't farming themselves out to other kids.
So you have a great availability of childcare.
If, you know, families have been good to each other and, you know, there is, of course, I assume, the rational expectation that when your parents get old, you'll take care of them and so on, right?
When you cooperate with your family and you do the right thing by your family and they do the right thing by you, you get access to a huge amount of resources, of taking care of each other, especially when your parents retire, of emergency help and so on.
You just get a huge amount. Of goodies through that stuff.
And I don't mean this in any cynical way whatsoever.
I mean, it's genuinely, right?
Some friends of ours were talking about how they went on vacation and the only way they could go for dinner is they brought a set of grandparents with them so that they could go to eat and then the grandparents could take care of the kids and then vice versa.
Because if you've got kids, particularly when they're very young, restaurants are your mortal enemy.
Nutrition is a distant cousin.
So that's another way that you gain these goodies.
Now the friends that we have, they have a grandparent living in the house.
I mean, live in! Babysitting is a derivative way, a diminished way to put it, but built in child care.
Live in child care. Exclusive child care.
And that's all kinds of good stuff, right?
So virtue, dealing well with people, being good to them, having them be good back to you, gains you a huge amount of resources.
And, you know, I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea.
You can think about this in probably six different ways from Sunday.
So, those economic goodies are one reason why.
Economic and exchange goodies are one significant reason to be good.
Now, the other reason to be good is much more psychological.
And it goes something like this.
The first question to ask is, well, why do we have an unconscious?
And I don't mean the unconscious that sort of regulates our kidneys and breathing and spleen and thyroid or whatever the hell it does.
I don't mean that kind of stuff.
I mean, all animals have that.
I mean the unconscious where...
How contradictory thoughts and feelings, unacceptable thoughts and feelings, self-rejected or rejected for the sake of social survival thoughts and feelings go, you know, why do we bury the opposites in our mind?
Because they're so unacceptable to society as a whole.
You have to hide, in many ways, if you're a clear and rational thinker, you spend a good deal of time not being very open about what you believe for various reasons that we've gone into before.
I believe that the great unease in human life arises not from a contradiction between values and behavior because I think we can all do that as long as we're honest about it.
It's not accepted hypocrisy, so to speak, that messes us up.
It's when we think that we're good We don't act in a way that is good, and then we tell ourselves lies about it.
But that, to me, is what's really, really unhealthy.
So, I mean, I have kept silent at times when values are being discussed for a variety of reasons, which aren't particularly important or relevant, but I've kept silent when ideas are being discussed that I disagree with.
But I don't say to myself, I am a good person for doing that.
I don't say to myself, I'm a bad person for doing that.
I just accept that that's what I did.
I may have some reason for doing it that I know ahead of time, or I may do it and surprise myself, in which case I'll just try and figure it out afterwards.
And usually there was a good reason for being silent at that time.
And look, I'm not saying this is common.
It happens maybe once a year, but it does happen on occasion.
But I don't lie to myself about that.
And even if I find that there was some ignoble reason, you know, I can't even remember an example, but if I find there's some ignoble reason, then I say, okay, well, I acted ignobly, and that's interesting.
I wonder why, and I'll see if I can figure that out.
And so, I don't lie to myself about situations where I'm not meeting my values, right?
I either accept that I didn't meet my values or I have to adjust my values to take into account the new empirical information that I didn't meet them.
And I'm sorry I can't think of any particularly concrete examples.
It probably doesn't...
It probably sounds like, well, I'm just so damn virtuous that I can't think of any, but I'm sure it's not that.
I'm just a little tired, so I can't think of any.
But if I do, I will certainly let you know.
And so... As Nietzsche says, you know, I did this, says memory.
I could not have done this, says vanity.
And in a slow vanquishing of memory, vanity wins and the history is erased.
And that is something that, to me, is what is really, really toxic.
And that is the rancid unconscious that typically exists in popular mythology that the unconscious is sort of where you put all of your nasty, ugly aspects of yourself and so on.
Well, that is really unhealthy.
And to act in a consistently ethical manner is to have a good relationship with yourself, to not have to bury hypocritical, ignoble, or negative actions in your unconscious because you can be honest about yourself.
Now, if you're consistently failing to meet your ethical standards, then you have a problem, right?
And I think that's, to me, I mean, it may sound like a bit of an odd metaphor, but to me, inconsistency with values on occasion is immaterial.
I mean, I hate the idea of perfection.
That is just a modern medieval whip to flagellate yourself with.
Not in a good, cool whip kind of way, but...
Wait, where was I? Hang on.
Alright, let's start that again, shall we?
But no, I really dislike the idea of perfection.
It's like saying that never drinking any alcohol is the only...
I mean, I guess that's an Islamic thing, right?
But that to me is just silly.
Occasional lapses in judgment or virtue, meh, who cares?
Who cares? As long as you're honest about them, as long as I'm honest about them, I don't think they have any particular power to do you harm.
Any more than a beer a month is going to axe your liver.
It just doesn't count.
It doesn't matter. And I think that actually it's immoral to focus on virtue because then what happens is you lend yourself dangerously, you trail yourself dangerously along the cliff edge of self-attack for failing to meet particular standards of virtue and behavior and blah, blah, blah. And I think that is really unhealthy.
Self-attack doesn't bring anything positive to the table.
That is just historical self-flagellation.
And perfection is a great weapon of self attackers.
And I think it is a very, very toxic and unhealthy thing.
And certainly if the goal of life is happiness, then self attack ain't gonna do it.
Ain't gonna do it. Yeah, my self attackers, when I self attack, I was asked to the attackers, it's like, well, where were you before this happened?
I mean, I'm always open to hearing advice from people, from aspects of myself.
So where were you before I did X? Now you're flagellating me afterwards.
It's like, well, if you didn't speak up beforehand, don't blame me for your silence.
Don't attack me for your silence.
Forget that. Back off, buddies.
But I think that is a very important aspect of virtue.
I mean, don't obviously strive for perfection.
But recognize that If you behave in a way that is generally consistent with your values, and I'm curious and forgive about yourself if and when you have lapses, and use those lapses as ways of exploring more about ethics, right?
The problem with rules, of course, is if you fail to meet them, you self-condemn and you don't learn anything else, and that to me is really tragic.
All lapses are opportunities for learning, and it's sort of like you have a rule called things fall down, right?
Someone shows you a helium balloon and you get all messed up.
It's like, no, no, no, no. Keep looking.
Learn about the helium balloon.
Learn about lighter than air.
Learn about upwards pressure.
Because you'll learn a lot more about the world by looking at the helium balloon than you will just by rejecting the evidence or thinking that your theory is stupid and getting mad at yourself or not understanding that.
No, just be curious. Say, whoa, something went up.
What's up with that? Let's go check it out.
You could learn a heck of a lot more, right?
So the And quote, exceptions to your rules are probably just evidence of deeper and richer rules or deeper and richer interactions that you can imbibe and enjoy.
And I've almost always found that to be the case.
If I act in a way that is contrary to my rules, it's always worth examining that to find out if there are better, wiser, quote, rules that you can follow that Work with the exception or that the exception is trying to point you towards.
Because virtue is complex, particularly as I talked about in podcast two, in a non-virtuous world.
So virtue... Acting in a way that is consistent with your values does not require you to lie to yourself, does not require you to feel that unease of contradictory behavior, does not require you to push things into your unconscious with the inevitable result.
Of things like projection, right?
So, if you act in a way that is ignoble and dishonest, but you claim that you're noble and you're honest, that bad behavior, that self-attack, that in a sense you should be exploring, but are not, that is always going to end up lashing out at someone else in your life.
And so you don't gain anything by pushing it into the unconscious.
All that happens is you lose control of it.
It lashes out at other people and it alienates you from anybody decent in your life over the long run.
It just doesn't work at all.
So that would be my sort of second major argument.
First you get lots of goodies, social goodies, friendship goodies, lending goodies, you know, car rentals in wherever you're going.
You get all those kinds of good things.
And secondly, and I would say even more importantly, the effect of inconsistent, immoral behavior, if you're not honest about it.
If you're honest about it, it's something to explore, it's something to learn from, it's something to gain from.
A mistake that is not explored can never be a gateway to a deeper understanding.
An error that is repressed or shut down or projected onto somebody else can never be the explosive James Bond eject hatch to a higher floating parachute of wisdom or an avenue to really bad metaphors that don't hang together in any way, shape, or form. So that's my argument.
They are both arguments from effect.
But since the effect that we're aiming for is happiness and a mere compliance with UPP ain't going to get you there, I think it's a valid approach.
Thank you so much for listening and thank you so much for all of your support.
Please drop by freedomainradio.com forward slash donate.
Throw a few shekels into the philosopher's bowl and he will be happy.
▲
Export Selection