July 23, 2012 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:10:18
2177 Peaceful Parenting and Universal Ethics - From Freedomain Radio
|
Time
Text
So you've got some UBB questions.
Let's have them.
Yes.
Okay.
Here's kind of how those calls went.
Just to give you an idea of where...
Sorry, which calls are you talking about?
The ones with, I think, Cash.
And there was another one with this girl who had called in, and it just kind of got frustrating several Sundays at shows ago.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
Last year.
I don't know.
Yeah.
But it was basically around the subject of...
Moral neutrality, I think.
If I'm right, let's see, I get the argument that it is logically inconsistent to say that theft is good because, you know, A, you can't deny and accept property rights simultaneously.
You can't have two people in a room saying, like, one saying theft is good, And one saying theft is bad in order for it to be theft.
Otherwise it's...
Yeah, you can't have two people stealing from each other at the same time under the proposition that theft is good, because if it's good, it's not theft.
Right.
So at the moment it becomes good, it is no longer than it's borrowing or lending or whatever, right?
So theft cannot be universally good.
Right.
So not only is it internally consistent, it's not internally consistent, but empirically it just can't be done with two guys in a room.
Right.
And of course, it's something that is not universal through time.
Because anytime you have a specific action, like theft or murder or rape or assault, you know, if I'm going to punch someone and that's a good action, well, does bringing my fist back count is a good action?
Well, no, because I'm not actually punching him.
Maybe I'm, you know, in a moving and I throw a punch and it's a fake punch or whatever, right?
Or maybe I'm just going to stop right short of his nose, in which case it would be a threat, but not actual assault.
So, and the moment I hit his skin with my fist, then it is assault.
But then, so in that moment, right, in that tenth of a second or millionth of a second or however you want to measure it, I'm good.
Beforehand, I'm not good, and then I'm good, and then I'm not good again.
So it's not even universal through time.
And that's why positive actions...
Can't be morally required because positive actions can't be sustained through time, like rape.
I don't care how many handfuls of blue pills I have.
I just can't keep it up, so to speak.
So positive actions can't be UPB because they fail the test of consistency in the moment, they fail the test of logical consistency, and they cannot be sustained through time.
And if they can't be sustained through time, then they fail the test of universality.
And right, and if you punch the guy, you know, and he wants to be punched, then it's not assault, it's not even, it's some crazy rough sex, or...
It's, yeah, it's kinky, fetishistic.
Right.
Good stuff, yeah.
Yeah, the hot wax on the nipples argument.
Okay.
Right.
So, okay, and then on the flip side of that, you have the exact opposite, the non-aggression principle, which is basically a thou shalt not...
And so it can be applied universally and consistently, and it works with two guys in a room because...
Well, two guys in a room can both respect property rights through all time with no logical contradictions.
Right.
They can just sit there and be fine.
Yeah, they can chat.
They can lend each other stuff.
They can give each other stuff, right?
Yeah, so they can achieve and maintain the virtue of respecting property rights in perpetuity, as can the guy in a coma, right?
Because it is a negative, right?
It's not a positive action that defines a good thing there, right?
It's just not stealing stuff, right?
Which you can achieve while you're asleep and all that kind of stuff.
Right, and so the question is, in the middle, that doesn't say, like, just saying that, okay, it's consistent This moral rule is consistent, that thou shalt not aggress against others, is consistent on...
But it doesn't say...
I don't know that it completely validates that it's good, because then there's this area in the middle where I think, if I'm right, if you say that...
The non-aggression principle is neither moral or immoral, or rape is neither moral or immoral, or theft is neither moral or immoral.
That's something that UPB can't test because that isn't a moral theory.
No, no, no, but you wouldn't go with moral, right?
Because moral is begging the question.
We're trying to establish what is moral, so you can't say it's moral or not moral.
What you can say is theft is universally preferable behavior, or theft is not universally preferable behavior.
You can make the case for morality, for sure, but you can't You can't make the case at this point.
That's why I say, you know, murder is not UPB, not murder is evil.
And what that is is a shorthand for saying, when I say murder is not UPB, what I'm saying is that theories which argue that murder is UPB fail the test of, well, fail the three major logical tests.
Well, two logical and one empirical test.
And so it can't be true.
Right.
So murder can't be universally preferable because it's inconsistent.
And murder—not murdering, like, being the good— Yeah, can be UPB. Can be UPB. But it is UPB. But if you say something like—if I'm right, like, if I understand this correctly, UPB only tests moral theories, and it's not a moral theory or has nothing to do with morality to say something is neither moral nor immoral.
Well, no, because there are three theories.
Areas in ethics, generally, right?
So the things which are neutral, like eating ice cream...
Like climbing the stairs or...
Yeah, you know, whatever, having a chat.
Things which are aesthetically preferable, in other words, which are universal but not violently imposed, right?
So, yes, we should be on time, you know?
But you don't get to shoot someone for not being on time.
Right.
Or in the case of climbing the stairs, if there's no elevator...
And you want to get to the third floor, and you don't want to break any windows, then it's universally preferable to climb the stairs.
Well, no, you see, then you can't use universally there, right?
You can say, if you want to climb up and there's only stairs, then you should climb the stairs.
But it's not universally preferable, because there are lots of people who are in wheelchairs, or in comas, or don't have legs, or, you know, whatever.
And of course, there's lots of people who don't.
Want to climb the stairs.
Who don't want to get to that third floor of that building.
Probably a vast majority of people, right?
So, that doesn't fall under UPB. That's just PB. It's preferable behavior, if you want to.
But UPB, again, UPB doesn't just test moral theories, right?
UPB is a big umbrella term, right?
So, if you want to say something true about the physical world, you have to use the scientific method, right?
Ah, right, right.
Right?
So, it's not just moral theories.
So, then, how do you arrive at the non-accretion principle is...
Rape is bad.
How do you go all the way from—rape is definitely not good because it's inconsistent.
So we know it's not good.
But you don't...
Again, this is the...
I just did this speech, so hopefully...
It's kind of fresh in my mind.
Yeah, no, no, no.
No problem at all.
This is important stuff.
I mean, UPB is horribly simple in that it is very simple, but it's really horrible because we've got so much nonsense clamoring in our brains about ethics, right?
Right.
So, rape is bad, or rape is evil, is something that immediately evokes its illegal...
It's immoral.
God will send you to hell.
Like, it evokes all of these, basically, punishments and judgments and so on.
And UPB cannot judge an action.
Oh, as good or evil.
Yeah, I mean, any more than, you know, a rock falls.
Is that a scientific theory?
Well, no, it's just an observation.
Right.
So you can judge all objects fall to Earth at 9.8 meters per second per second, right?
You can judge that because that's universal statements, universal claim.
In fact, that's a subset of a larger claim of gravity where you calculate the 9.8 meters per second per second based upon the mass of the Earth.
And I don't know if that counts.
It probably doesn't count atmospheric friction or whatever.
But, you know, that's the subset of a larger set of gravitational calculations in some inverse square law.
I'm sure it's in there somewhere.
Yeah.
So, UPB can only judge theories which claim to be universal.
Ah.
Because you're testing.
Is it U? Is it P? Do you have a U? Do you have a P? Do you have a B? Now, if you claim to have a U, a P, and a B, then you've got to actually have a U, a P, and a B. But what if the claim is not universal?
Then it really has nothing to say about it.
Like, if it says...
Theft is sometimes good and sometimes bad, and they're not making a universal statement like that.
Well, then they have to justify the demarcation, right?
Ah, right.
Right, so if you're going to claim that something is not universal, then you have to show how it's not universal.
Right, so, I mean, to take an example, if I say, red-headed guys can steal, well, then I have to show why red-headed guys...
Have a different nature, in fact quite an opposite nature, than non-redheaded guys.
In biology, to take an example, and I say this because my daughter is currently completely obsessed with frogs and toys.
If you've got 20 frogs lined up, and they're all green, and one of them has red eyes, and then you say, these are all frogs except for the red-eyed one, which is a mammal.
You say, well, is the red-eyed one cold-blooded?
Well, yeah.
Does it give birth to eggs or live young?
Eggs.
I don't know what the hell else makes an amphibian versus a mammal.
I'm not a biologist.
But if you say, well, the red eyes make it a mammal, you'd have to show...
How either being a mammal means having red eyes, or how red eyes means being a mammal, or you have to drop that arbitrary distinction and say, well, the fact that this is a red-eyed tree frog rather than a common garden green frog or whatever, you'd have to show in biology, if you were to make the proposal, I want to reclassify red-eyed frogs as mammals, what would the biologist say?
Yeah, that doesn't work.
They don't have mammary glands and all that stuff.
Yeah, they don't suckle, they're young, whatever else goes into being a mammal, right?
They don't run for office.
Some reptiles do, but I don't think amphibians.
And basically, people would just say, you don't understand classifications.
If you think that red turns something from an amphibian into a mammal, you don't understand biological classifications because it is not a relevant characteristic.
It's not what Aristotle would call essential.
Characteristic, right?
Right.
And this sort of stemmed out of also the guy's criticism, somewhat insulting criticism that appeared on Mises.
His rebuttal to your rebuttal, one of the questions just sort of stopped me again.
I loved your responses because they really clarified a lot.
But when he asked...
Well, he didn't really ask.
He wasn't that curious.
But he said that you didn't say why – like, why does it have to be – if it's a moral rule, why does it have to be universal?
And, of course, he didn't understand universal, but just, like, this is probably going to be restating the exact same thing that you just explained, but let me just ask it anyways.
Yeah, look, okay, but if someone wants to come up with a rule that's not universal, that's fine.
It's just not moral then.
I mean, morality has to be universal.
Because otherwise, how on earth would you distinguish it from good advice, or aesthetics, or nutrition, or exercise advice, or, you know, if you want to go to the airport and catch a plane, be an hour and a half early?
Right?
As soon as you start putting, if you want to do this, then if you want, right?
As soon as you say it's not universal, Then it's no longer binding.
Like if you're going to say mammal, then you've got a universal category.
If you want to say mammals under two feet tall, or whatever, right?
Then you've set up another category.
It's still a subcategory of mammal.
And so this is why in the book I've got neutral, aesthetically preferable, and UPB. And so if somebody says, well, I want it to be moral, but I don't want it to be universal.
Then they're basically saying, I want to classify these things as mammals, but I want to exclude some of the things which are categorizable as mammals.
Well, which is it?
You can't have it both ways.
Right.
Now, people could say, I want to use the word morality to not be UPB. But then, to me, that just becomes, you know, I want to use the word science to include prayer.
You can do whatever you want, you're just not right.
Right, right.
No, that makes sense.
So, let's say it's a rule.
Let me think of a Christian one because I haven't heard you do this one yet.
It may be the same as the Fish on Fridays one, but I'd love to hear this one.
Sex before marriage is wrong.
Okay, so how would we rephrase that as UPB? It is wrong to have sex before marriage?
It is not universally performed.
It is universally preferable not to have sex before marriage.
Right.
So, it is universally preferable behavior to refrain from sex before marriage.
Right.
Okay.
Is a frog an amphibian before he inseminates the eggs of the female frog?
Okay, how about it's wrong for humans?
No, no, no.
This is an analogy, right?
I mean, yeah, human beings, right?
But a frog, before he inseminates the female's eggs, is an amphibian, right?
Yeah, I would guess so.
I don't know much about frogs.
And he is, right?
And he is, yeah.
And he is an amphibian after he inseminates the female's eggs, right?
Right, right.
So the act of copulation does not change his amphibian-ness.
No.
And if he is born without sexual organs for whatever reason, He is still an amphibian, he's just an infertile amphibian, right?
Because the moment you start saying that the essence of an entity changes in a moment, you've broken universality, right?
So if you have before marriage and then after marriage, you've broken universality because marriage does not change the nature of a human being.
Right, it's just a ceremony and a piece of paper, basically.
Yeah, I mean, it may be very powerful, it may be very meaningful, and so on, but it does not accord with universality.
Unless there is a physical, objective, measurable change in the organism, right?
So again, to return to tadpoles and frogs, right?
Tadpole's got, a frog has three phrases, right?
It's got the egg, it's got the tadpole, and it's got the froggy thing, right?
Now, these are objective, measurable, empirical, right?
They're still all amphibians, I think.
I don't know, the tadpole is probably, I mean, they don't have to surface breathing or whatever, but, you know, or the caterpillar, the chrysalis and the butterfly, right?
Right.
So, if there are objective, measurable changes, empirical changes in the nature of the organism, then you can give them different categories, for sure.
Like, if somebody has a frontal lobotomy, And their IQ is cut from 100 to 40.
Well, here you have an objective measurable change.
If somebody has a brain tumor, which causes them to act in some aggressive manner, then we understand that there's an objective...
Like, we can move them from one category to another.
They're still a human being, but they're a human being with diminished moral capacity.
I mean, I think we all understand that, right?
But marriage changes nothing.
Yeah, but marriage doesn't change.
I mean, that's like entering into a contract does not change the moral nature of a human being in the same way that going from a baby to a 20-year-old does, right?
What about breaking contracts?
That's not moral either, because that's aesthetics, I guess.
No, no.
Breaking contracts is a form of theft.
Oh.
Right?
Because, you know, it's the old, you want an iPad and I want your 500 bucks.
You ship me the 500 bucks, I don't ship you the iPad.
I just stole 500 bucks from you.
That's theft, right?
I'm pretty sure that's completely different than your...
Wait.
Somehow I think I'm conflating two things.
Breaking contracts and a marriage contract not changing.
But a marriage is a contract.
Because there are penalties for breaking it.
I mean, there are...
I mean, I don't know how this would be in a free society, but just sort of the way it's worked historically is, you know, if I have three kids with a woman and then I leave her, then I'm contractually obligated to pay for the children, right?
Like a cell phone contract.
Yeah, you know, you mean...
And the vows that you make are...
We will be together in sickness and health and rich and poor till death us do part.
And I mean, this is...
This is a contract, and verbal contracts are usually as enforceable in law as written contracts, but this is a verbal contract, and there are, you know, specific penalties for breaking that contract.
But it still doesn't change the nature, right?
And that's why I think in good philosophy you can say there are no unchosen positive obligations.
If you choose to enter into a cell phone contract to get married, then you have assumed a responsibility.
And that's by your choice and contract and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
But you can't have someone buy a cell phone contract for you if you don't want it, right?
Right.
But you can choose to adopt a kid or have a kid and keep him and not adopt him out and Yeah, look, I don't have to feed every stray cat in the neighborhood, but if I bring a cat into my house, well, I become the only source of food.
So if I don't, then, right, if I enclose the cat, or if I, you know, then, like, if I lock a guy in my basement against his will, that's kidnapping.
If I then starve him, that's murder.
Right, or if you break the contract, the implicit contract of keeping a child or keeping a dog, then that Would be more, unless you give the child or the dog up to someone who can take care of them.
Yeah, of course, you can transfer.
I mean, again, I don't know about property rights over children.
It's a complicated topic.
But it's just in pets, right?
You can...
You know, when I was a kid, I had a bird, or as a teenager, I had a budgie who was great, and then when I had to go and work up north, I gave the budgie to a friend who, you know, she then took care of the budgie from then on.
So, but I mean, of course, if I just moved out and left the budgie in my storage locker, well, that would be a pretty heinous thing, right, because the budgie would starve, and I would be fully responsible for that, so.
All right.
Let me read my notes and make sure...
No, there's one that we kind of skimmed over that we should get back to, which I think is sort of at the heart of the issue, which is, what if we say that rape is morally neutral?
Okay.
Okay.
Now, something that is morally neutral is an act that is not imposed upon someone else.
Right?
So, the reason why we have ethics is the imposibility of ethics.
Right, so if you run at me with a chainsaw, I can shoot you in the knee and no rational system of law or justice will hold me liable.
Right.
Right, so self-defense is something we can impose on other people.
Violently, if need be.
Right.
Right, if somebody comes to steal my car...
Like, let's say somebody tries to grab my car handle and I drive away and drive over his foot.
No reasonable system of law is going to hold me accountable for the damage to his foot, right?
So I can use violence and harm another human being in the protection of my property.
Right?
So self-defense, the protection of my property and so on, these can all be violently imposed.
And I think we all kind of understand that that's Okay, right?
It's not ideal.
Obviously, we'd rather not have the situation.
But if it does, then that's okay, right?
Yeah.
Yeah, I can accept that.
So, rape being morally neutral...
Well, if we say that rape is morally neutral, then it cannot be imposed upon other people.
But rape, by its very definition, is violently imposing something on someone else, i.e.
your penis.
This may sound like a silly question, but why...
If rape is morally neutral, why can something morally neutral not be imposed?
As I say this, this sounds kind of like a ridiculous question.
No, it's a great question.
It's a great question.
Let's work on it.
Okay, so something that's morally neutral is I'm eating ice cream.
Morally neutral, assuming I didn't steal it and whatever, I didn't make it from the flesh of my enemies or something, right?
So it's morally neutral.
Right.
What would it mean to say, I can impose my will on everyone, and that is a universally preferable behavior?
We can all impose our will on everyone else.
Then that's not morally neutral, then.
Right, and it's also not practically possible.
And it's also not logically possible, because if everyone can impose their will on everyone else, everyone's will cancels each other out.
Yeah, like the taxation thing.
I can tax you.
Yeah, yes.
You tax me $10,000, I tax you $20,000, right?
I mean, it's silly, right?
It's not universal.
It's not possible.
So it's even universally inconsistent.
I mean, it's logically inconsistent to say that rape is morally neutral because you're imposing rape.
You're imposing your will on other human beings and imposing your will violently on other human beings fails UPB. Right.
So if ethics is UPB and violently imposing your will is not UPB and moral neutrality is not violently imposing your will and rape is violently imposing your will, then rape cannot be morally neutral.
Because then we're saying it has nothing to do with universally preferable behavior to violently impose your will on someone else.
Right.
But then we have to create an artificial distinction between the person who's violently imposing his will and his victim.
Because you have to say, for the rapist can violently impose his will, and that's fine, but the woman he's raping cannot violently impose her will.
Right.
Right.
Okay.
Now I see where the problem is.
Because she does not want to be raped.
She does not want to be raped.
Right.
She can't impose her will.
So he wins, and why does he win?
Unless this is some sort of Mad Max Thunderdome.
No, no, but see, even then, if you say, like, the sort of amoral resource maximization argument is, it is fine, it is UPB for the strong to dominate the weak.
If you're bigger and stronger, you get what you want, you take what you want, and that's ethics to me.
That's virtue to me, right?
Well, obviously it sounds a little silly, but that doesn't work from a UPB standpoint, because again, you're saying that the strong are somehow fundamentally different in terms of their character, their nature, their humanity from the weak.
And that's like saying an old frog is a mammal, and a young frog is an amphibian.
No, they're frogs all the way through, right?
Even the dead frog is an ex-frog, right?
If you hadn't nailed him to the log, he'd be pushing up the daisies, right?
Still a frog all the way through.
So a strong human being and a weak human being are still both human beings.
And we cannot reasonably impose arbitrary opposite rules on the strong versus the weak.
They're both still human beings.
What if somebody says, yeah, it's not morally good or morally bad.
Bad.
For the strong to dominate the weak.
Because then you're not putting forward a moral rule.
But this is the argument, then it's an observation.
The strong dominate the weak.
Right?
Right.
The strong dominate the weak.
And you're not really saying anything.
Well, you may be observing, right?
You can certainly make that observation in nature, right?
The lions dominate the antelope.
Right.
Okay.
That's fine.
Then you're not...
You're making an observation.
Right.
You're not really contributing...
But you're not...
This is not...
The preferable part is no longer there, right?
Right.
It is universal behavior, you could say, or it's, you know, commonly observed behavior that the strong dominate the weak.
And really, what can you do with that?
I mean...
Well, I would put that to the empirical test, right?
Because somebody's making an empirical observation.
Right.
Then I would say, okay, well, if the strong dominate the weak, then...
Why are all the old people in society benefiting by passing along a national debt and crack education to the young?
Wow, that's good.
I mean, this is just one of many, many things you could do, right?
If the strong dominate the weak, then why do women get up in the middle of the night to breastfeed their children?
Who's stronger?
Who can do more push-ups?
I tell you, if you have a baby, the weak dominate the strong intensely and immensely, right?
That is true.
And so you find these exceptions, and then you can say, well, then you have to keep refining it, and it just becomes not particularly helpful.
So if somebody's going to make an empirical observation, then you can provide...
I mean, it seems to me that the weak dominate the strong, and that's why historical ethics were invented.
But anyway, that's another...
There's an old Nietzschean argument, right?
But...
Well, if you were to say morality is...
And it's a lot like math, because numbers don't exist, Morale doesn't exist, but it describes and sort of says things about human behavior, so...
Well, I'm sorry, yeah, universals don't exist, but they're not subjective anymore.
The scientific method doesn't exist, but it's not subjective.
Numbers don't exist, but they're not subjective, blah, blah, blah.
Right, so you could say that some people do math badly, and some people don't do math.
But that would just be also an observation sort of like before there was math.
Where am I going with this?
Well, I sort of make the point in the book that there are instinctual ethics.
And they are a good support for rational ethics, right?
If you throw a frisbee, a dog can catch it in his mouth.
But that doesn't make the dog a mathematician, a physicist.
It doesn't mean he's read Newton's work or anything like that, right?
Right.
It just means that he can calculate in his head where the ball's going to land and when he needs to jump and so on.
So he has an instinctual grasp of scientific laws.
But he's not a scientist.
Right.
And so I think we have an instinctual grasp of UPV. I mean, all we are fundamentally is UPB machines, I would argue.
I mean, this is the whole point of developing and using language and all of that is to understand that which is universal, right?
Right.
That way you don't see a new chair you've never seen before and say, what the fuck is that?
I don't know.
Is that a spider?
Is that an airplane hanger?
I have no idea, right?
We're always trying to universalize everything.
And the innate illogic of...
Universalization with exceptions.
It just doesn't make any sense.
All these are chairs except for that blue chair.
Hey, wait, you just used the word chair again.
Right?
Or that giant ball people are using nowadays.
Yeah, something like that.
So instinctually we get don't assault, don't murder, don't rape, don't steal.
same reason the dog can catch the ball right right because it just it it accords with universality deep within our brains but and i sort of make this argument very briefly because i just did an hour on this in vancouver but oh sorry about that yeah no no moral rules were basically i would argue were invented so that people who weren't in the government and in the priesthood wouldn't steal cheat lie and murder right right
it's the reduced competition for the evil guys that's why they invent ethics to convince other people to be productive while they get to be thieves and call it something different, taxation.
Right.
That makes sense.
And – but this is why when we extend universality to truly have it be universal, right?
Right.
Then it's very scary for us emotionally because most people who tried to do that in history got killed.
Or my own history, actually.
Yeah, I mean, you know, there's a… Talk it back.
Yeah, there's a film, Tree of Life.
I don't know if you've… I saw it.
Yeah, I mean, okay, so aside from the CGI drug trip in the middle, it was sort of an interesting film.
And I was sort of watching it out of the corner of my eye while I was doing something else for a variety of reasons.
But if I remember rightly, there's a scene in it where the dad says to the kid, if you don't have anything interesting to say, just shut up.
And then the kid shuts up.
And then a minute or two later, his dad's talking and his dad says, he says to his dad, Dad, I'm not interested in what you have to say, so you should shut up.
I remember that.
And what happens?
Bam!
Bam!
The father explodes in rage and assaults the child.
Right.
Do you remember?
Yep, I remember that.
See, they were all at the table.
Yeah, they're all at the table eating dinner, right?
Yeah.
So this is an example of the child saying, okay, let's universalize this thing which you say is universal.
And what happens when you take somebody in authority and universalize that which they've openly told you is universal?
And you say, oh, okay, well, this includes you then.
Bam!
Attack, assault, right?
Yeah, don't tell that to a cop.
Yeah.
And so this, I mean, at an emotional level, because, I mean, you know, a theory has to explain something that is a constantly repeated phenomenon, and there's a lot of stress and tension around UPP. Right, right.
And it's because anybody who tried to extend universality, for the most part in history, got themselves killed or driven out of the tribe or ostracized, you know, all the same thing pretty much in our history.
Right.
Yeah, and I think what really helped me to get it the most or just sort of deep down was to understand how it played out in my history and what would happen when I tried to universalize a rule or just listening to your parenting podcast and hearing about Isabella, which, oh, that brings up the other question, how Isabella would, what did she say to you?
You were in the car.
She says...
Christina says, I don't...
Oh, it's because Mama likes it kind of thing?
Yeah, because...
Wait, what did I have to do with...
No, no, I can't quite remember it exactly.
But...
Oh, say no.
Say no.
No.
Sorry, say it again.
But you always say no, Isabella.
And then she says, but...
Yeah, but you...
You like to say yes, I think she said, right?
Yeah, I was saying, how would you feel if Mama said no all the time?
And she said, but Mama likes to say yes.
Brilliant!
I had trouble unraveling that.
I was waiting for you to unravel that, and you never did.
Oh, sorry.
So, yeah, Isabella was saying no a lot, which is, you know, the right phrase of development or whatever.
So she says no a lot, and I was saying, well, how would you feel if, you know, You wanted to do this this morning and Mama said yes.
You wanted to do this morning.
Daddy said yes.
How would you feel if Mama said no to you all the time?
And she said, but Mama likes to say yes.
Now, I was saying, I was putting forward the proposition that it feels good when other people say yes to you.
Right?
Right.
So this was a universal that I was trying to establish.
And she was saying, Mama says yes because it feels good to her, and I say no because it feels good to me.
Therefore, both of our happiness needs are being achieved.
If it is the happiness goal that you are talking about, Daddy, then Mama and I are both achieving our happiness goals.
When she says yes, she likes it, and when I say no, it makes me happy.
And this is why I was trying a pathetic ass, totally limp-dicked argument from effect.
They never work, right?
Right.
I can't say to Isabella, don't lie because it makes me sad, right?
Right.
You have to say, don't lie.
Because she'll say, it makes me happy, so...
This is not a principle, this is a...
There was a debate, the do unto others as you would have them do unto you arguments, and Walter Block was saying, well, if I'm a masochist, I want you to punch me, and of course, if I'm the strongest guy in the village, then I want a strength contest to determine who gets to rule, or whatever, right?
And I would be happy to have that universalized, but it's still all too subjective for words, right?
So, yeah, and she's constantly working on this question of...
Of universalization.
And so, she's, yeah, I mean, this is, and she's incredibly perceptive, right?
I mean, it's the old, like, so, the other day, I was singing something, and she said, I don't like your singing, Daddy.
And I thought that was a little rude, you know, I mean, you know, because she actually does quite like my singing, but for whatever reason, she said that in the moment, and it had been a kind of constant theme every time I'd sit, I'd start to sing, she said, and so I said, you know, I don't, I don't particularly like it when you say that you don't like my singing because, you know, when you sing, I'm happy to hear you sing because it makes you happy and blah, blah, blah.
So I gave her sort of a little argument.
And she then, she was carrying a little toy snake and there was this long pause.
I started to sing again.
She said, Daddy, my toy snake doesn't like your singing.
It was brilliant.
My snake, I mean, if you want, and because then it invites me to have a debate with her snake.
Right.
Which I did.
But anyway.
But that's...
I mean, this is the kind of...
Okay, so I'm not allowed to say this, but what if my snake says it?
Is that okay?
Is it specific to me or universal?
Does it apply to a snake?
Brilliant.
I mean, this is the best education in philosophy is to have peaceful parenting with your kids.
I wish I had that as a kid.
Oh, yeah.
No, I mean, and it really works.
In the same way that the extraction of promises really works.
I mean, only once did she ever break a promise to me.
So how did you work out that whole universal thing with her, with the snake?
Like, did you talk to her about that, or did she just let that go and laugh, or what happened?
No, I mean, I correctly identified with her that she was trying to get the same thing but pretending her snake was saying it.
I said, you know, come on.
So, your snake, isn't this just you?
And of course, yeah, okay.
I said, nice try.
But see, that's not a moral issue, right?
I mean, this is mildly aesthetically preferable, but I certainly don't want to, you know, you have to like my singing.
I mean, obviously she doesn't.
But, you know, I think it's nice to have a general rule of civility that...
If someone is not blasting Mozart in your ear at full volume, that it's okay for us to have a little fun singing once in a while, and to squelch that down is not really fun for everyone, right?
Because it's the universal principle, right?
So if she can tell me to stop singing, even though it's making me happy because to her it's mildly not pleasant, then this is a universal, right?
This is the Kantian thing, right?
So then I get...
That same, right?
You get to say, oh, I don't...
Yeah, so then I said, okay, so look, if I don't...
So what's the rule here, right?
This is the question you ask, I think, of three-year-olds, right?
What's the rule?
And that's the sort of conversation that we had.
Okay, so is the rule, right?
What's the rule?
Is the rule that if anyone in the family is doing something that the other people find mildly annoying, they can just tell them to stop it and the other person has to stop?
And she considered that, right?
She didn't really like that rule, right?
That can go really far if you want it.
It can, yeah.
But I mean, this is how you work out civilized living arrangements, I think, and it works really well.
So what did she say?
Well, it's tough, right?
And this is a delicate conversation because I don't want to reveal to her the number of times I do things with her that I don't particularly like.
Just because it makes her happy.
Because I don't want her to feel like I'm dragging some cross along the desert.
Right.
Or that she's a burden or anything like that.
Right.
Even though there are times, of course, I think with everyone, but particularly with, you know, do I want to necessarily go to the park and look for frogs again?
Well, no.
That wouldn't be on my list of things to do if I wasn't a parent, right?
But in a way, for you, it's a chosen burden.
But for her, it's kind of unchosen.
Yeah.
Well, yes, but we can't...
I mean, that's not particularly something we can talk about in terms of ethics because that's not really under our control, right?
Whether the fact that it's an unchosen relationship with her is not something that philosophy can solve because it's biology.
Philosophy can't solve aging either, right?
But what you can say, of course, is...
Well, do you remember when you wanted to do X? And I initially said no, and then you really wanted to do X, and I said yes.
How did that make you feel?
That made me feel good.
I was happy to do it.
And I said, as it turned out, I was actually quite happy to do it as well, and I had fun as well.
And so, you know, I'm slowly introducing the concept of trust.
Of trust.
You know, like, trust me when I say, we're going to go to this new place.
And she's like, no, I don't want to.
I want to go to this old place that we've been before.
I say, oh, trust me, this is going to be fun, you know.
And then constantly reminding her that when we do go and it's fun, that she remembers, that I reinforce, that...
Right, and she's still grasping time, so it's...
Yeah, well, look, like everyone who's her age, Her capacity for repetition is inexhaustible because just about everything is new for her, right?
So if we go to a play center, she has a great time.
If we go to the play center the next month, she can do even more because she's bigger, right?
And stronger and more physically coordinated.
And so for her, it's a new play center every time.
For me, it's just another...
I read an article that that very thing is the reason why older people find that time passes faster than younger people.
Because there's no nuance.
Yeah, and there is, right?
So for her, it's all new.
And even going back to the same place a week or two later is a new experience.
It's certainly newer for her than it is for me.
Whereas for me, I would sometimes, not always, but I would sometimes like to go to some place that's new.
And so I have to make the case as to why we should go and...
And then I have the problem.
If she really says no, what do you do, right?
I mean, well, we have to have some sort of compromise.
It's all just things that you work out.
And then if we do go someplace new, which will sometimes be an outright bribe, right?
Come and you can have Popsicle, right?
And if we go someplace new and she has a great time, then I remind her and say, remember how you didn't want to come?
And I said, trust me, it's going to be fun.
Did you have fun?
I really did.
And so I remind her that.
And then if on occasion it's not that much fun, then I say, I'm very sorry.
I asked you to trust me that it was going to be fun.
You're not having fun, so let's go do something that you want.
I mean, at least once every day or two we go through the who was right, right?
So I said this was going to be fun, and you said it wasn't going to be fun.
Who was right?
Daddy, you were right.
And who was wrong?
I was wrong.
And then if she wants to do something that I didn't think, well, whatever, then I say, well, who was right?
Isabella was right.
And who was wrong?
Daddy was wrong.
So this is just the back and forth of building trust and all that kind of stuff.
We don't obviously have a lot of UPB work.
She's not out there strangling cats or anything.
But we do have a lot of aesthetically preferable actions to work out.
And trying to extend her time frame to something a little bit longer.
Trying to help her to understand that Something that she's done before that's fun, it may be even more fun to do something she hasn't done before that's fun.
Or, you know, just music, right?
There's a couple of songs that she just loves, right?
Bring Back Leroy Brown by Queen.
She loves Centerfold by Jay Giles because she doesn't know what it's about.
She loves Rich Girl by Hall& Oates, which has a few words that I'm not overly keen to learn, but, you know, she loves the song and doesn't know what it's about and so on.
And so I say, let's learn a new song.
And she could...
Oh, she loves Real Gone, too, by Cheryl Crow, because it's in the movie Cars.
But I say, let's learn a new song, because, you know, driving someplace, 15th time you're hearing the song, I wouldn't mind a new song.
That's something I don't look forward to if I ever happen to get to that point.
No, but it's completely adorable, like, listening to her, you know, learn words that she doesn't know and struggle with the tune, because some of these songs go pretty fast, right?
I've just got to get, it's the end of the world if you know what it's done by Great Big C, and as soon as she can do that, she's graduated a PhD in language.
But, so, I mean, these are all just, to me, it's like basic social skills and understanding that, you know, because we're having the conversations like, what we do can't only be what you like.
Right.
Right.
And it can't only be what I like.
How much do you like it when daddy goes into a computer store?
Well, not much, right?
And you kind of talked about this in real-time relationship with the DVDs and wanting to watch a DVD that you like, but Christina wanted to watch a DVD that she liked or some show.
Right.
And UPB, I mean, just as a general principle, really helps with that.
Because if you're in a relationship where you get a disproportionate amount of things your way, that relationship has a fuse on it.
Right.
In terms of actually being a relationship, or at least in the quality of it.
And it accumulates, I think, guilt and ill will on both parties if one party is sort of more entitled than the others.
But yeah, so, you know, and I say to her, look, I really want to, I really want to protect, fiercely protect, guard like a lion.
I really want to fiercely protect the fun that I have with you.
Right.
Right.
Because, I mean, like all kids her age, she says, come and play with me.
And then I come and play with me.
I go and play with her and she tells me that I'm doing it wrong.
I mean, that's inevitable, right?
So, you know, last night she wanted to play.
She's got like 20 little plastic frogs.
And she said, come and play with my froggies.
I'd love to come and play with your froggies.
And so I arranged them.
So each one of them was in a square of the carpet.
And she said, that's not fun.
That's not good.
And so she took them away.
I said, okay, well, that's all right.
And then I said, oh, I know what, let's get your choo-choo train.
She got a little choo-choo train and electric switch or whatever.
And so I said, okay, well, we'll put the frogs on the choo-choo train and we'll take them for a ride.
And she's like, I don't like that either.
So I said, well, let's try it.
You know, let's just try it.
And so anyway, we ended up having a blast because, you know, I was heading towards the cupboard and you had to save them before it trashed and all that.
But there are times where she'll just say no, no, no to everything I do, and then I'm like, okay, well, I'll pick up a book.
I'll read something.
And she'll say, come play with me.
And I said, well, but Isabella, if I come play with you and everything that I do is not correct and you won't let me do it, then it's actually not that much fun for me to play with you.
So I will read.
And I'm not actually upset about it.
Actually, usually I would rather read than play with Frankies.
But it's just a way of helping her to understand that mutuality is important.
Play with me doesn't mean do everything that I say.
I mean, that's just a basic...
Because, you know, she's an only kid, right?
There's a basic sort of back and forth that...
And she is actually pretty good with other kids, and she's pretty good at sharing stuff and all that.
So these are just, I think, the general...
But for me, having a sort of familiarity with universal theories is hugely helpful in these negotiations.
And the challenge of having...
You know, needs in a relationship, you know, so often they're like a seesaw.
You know, the seesaws they have in the parks.
If one person's up, the other person's down.
The other person's up, but trying to get them balanced is a real challenge because, you know, things are constantly changing.
Yeah, it happens even in just my friendships.
Like, one of my friends wants to go to this German bar all the time where they have German food.
I hate German food, but I go because he likes it and, you know.
Yeah, no, I mean, German food is...
Well, Germany is not known for its high cuisine.
It's not good for me.
Yeah, German food is just an extension of their aggressive impulses towards other nations.
Well, we can't take them over anymore, but let's stick their bowels up like concrete.
Right.
Yeah, I know.
I had a friend who wanted to...
There was a Hungarian restaurant in Toronto many years.
It may still be there.
And he just loved to go and order a big plate of deep-fried dead animal.
And, like, it just came piled up.
And it's like, oh, man, I can't eat that stuff.
I mean, I was not a vegetarian back then.
But, you know, but it's the kind of thing, right?
But to me, it's honorable to a friendship.
It's important and honorable to a friendship to say, okay, how are we going to work it out so we can find...
How are we going to make this win-win?
Right.
Right.
Or, if it's win-lose, there's nothing wrong with win-lose to me.
I mean, this is part of the whatever, right?
But it just has to be explicit, that's all.
Everything which is implicit in a relationship is like those invisible tripwires that just get you, right?
I mean, so if your friend wants to go to the German restaurant and you're like, oh man, I really don't want to, then if he acknowledges it as a concession, a win-lose...
Not a total win-lose because otherwise you just wouldn't go, right?
You'd rather have your friend's company and eat a bratwurst or two or whatever, right?
Right.
But if he says, look, I appreciate that favor.
I appreciate that favor of you coming with me like I now owe you a little bit or, you know, it's gone 1% my way or something like that.
That hedging.
Yeah, that to me is perfectly fine.
Really?
Yeah, because it's conscious now.
And so if it goes 10% his way, then the next time you say, listen, I'd really like to eat some sushi...
If it's conscious, he's much more likely to say, well, you know, last five times we went to the German restaurant, so I will go to sushi and maybe I'll have sticky rice and peanut sauce or whatever, right?
Because an obligation has been accrued, and I think that once obligations are consciously accrued, with any decent person, things tend to level out.
Right.
But if obligations are unconsciously accrued, then it tends to escalate to the point where there becomes a real problem.
Right, and I've been pretty conscious of the fact that they come over to my place all the time.
We watch movies here, but they're about to finally get their own place.
And, you know, I've got to pay up.
Because I've had the luxury of just sitting around waiting for them to come over, and now it's my turn to kind of go to their place.
Well, and also, I mean, you've had, I assume, you know, unless they all bring in the snacks and stuff, right?
You may have had to...
cough up a little bit more that way and so on.
But, you know, I mean, the obsessive it's got to be equal everyday stuff doesn't work.
I mean, obviously, there are times when one person is more needy, one person has just had a breakup, one person has lost their job, or has got a new job and is very excited about it, and the shift of focus is going to go that way.
Right, the vicissitudes of life.
You've got to trust.
That's the one, I think that's the main issue is trust.
Yeah, I mean, in a sailing ship, you adjust your sails all the time because the wind is constantly changing.
So the fact that, you know, the pendulum swings one way and then the other, to me, that's all natural in a relationship.
But it is something that has to be conscious, that's all.
Because the moment it becomes unconscious, to me, it has a significant danger of becoming exploitive.
In fact, the only reason to keep it unconscious is because there's probably a plan which itself is also unconscious for exploitation.
Right.
Like, if someone says, it is not a concession on your part to come to the restaurant that I like and you don't, well, that's because they're planning on no reciprocity, right?
Whereas if somebody says, listen, I really appreciate you coming to this restaurant.
I love this food.
I'll make it next time we'll go to your place or whatever, right?
Then that, to me, that's conscious, that's honorable, and that's, you know, honest.
But if somebody refuses to admit that it's any kind of sacrifice on your part to go to a restaurant, it's just because they're not planning to reciprocate in any kind of way, and I think that's an important thing to be aware of up front.
Or I could find another German restaurant that serves American food, which I just did, actually.
Well, yes, but that's a practical solution to what may be a systemic problem.
Right.
Right?
I mean, that would be your friend's job, I would assume.
Oh, no, it was me that happened on it, just by accident.
Oh, by accident, yeah.
We have that trust relationship.
And that's great.
And I think conversations about reciprocity are very interesting.
I think that stuff is fascinating.
And I'm always interested.
I love the conversations that Isabella and I have about reciprocity.
And egalitarianism in win-win in the long run, which of course is not the language we use, but I find that stuff just especially fascinating.
And I mean, she gets tired of abstract conversations usually within five to ten minutes, but I'm done talking about this.
I can imagine.
Oh yeah, I know, imagine.
God, I can imagine.
You can turn me off.
But anyway, those are fascinating conversations and they are laying the The groundwork, right, because obviously whether we go to a play center or a butterfly conservatory is not the issue.
What matters is that I'm hopefully teaching her about reciprocity, sensitivity, empathy, win-win, all of the things that I want for her in her relationships throughout her life after I'm long dead gone and pushing up the daisies.
And then she will teach her children, hopefully, and, you know, all this kind of good stuff.
So that is, I mean, those kinds of lessons, to me, they're as important as teaching your children the right words for things, you know?
Right.
Wow.
This has been quite clarifying, I think.
Oh, good, good.
And, yeah, great UPP questions.
Oh, thanks.
I thought they were kind of silly, but...
No, and I'll mention one other just sort of at the end here, if that's okay, which is, and I did talk, when was it, about 14, 15 months ago, I did a topic, a three-part series on virtue.
Because, I mean, what's missing, I mean, I've been rereading the UPB book, and it certainly does need some tweaks, but one of the things that's missing is It's hard to say that simply refraining from evil is the same as virtue.
You know, it's necessary but not sufficient kind of thing.
Right, that's not courage.
Well, yeah, no, courage would be, I think courage would be a virtue.
It's a difficult virtue to define.
It's one of those annoying ancient Roman, like ancient Greek, let's have an adjective instead of an argument kind of thing.
And you can't really be courageous all the time.
I mean, you have to wait for the opportunity to...
To present itself, really.
Yeah, and courage sometimes means running away.
So this is all complicated stuff, but I would say that UPB makes the case for how society should work, right?
In other words, non-aggression principle, and it's, you know, the corollary respect for property rights that's implicit in that.
That's how I want society to work, but you wouldn't really have a good marriage vow called Okay, here's how it's going to go down.
I will not rape you, I will not murder you, I will not steal from you, and I will not assault you.
Love, baby!
Right.
That's not enough to love somebody.
It's not enough to love somebody, because the vast majority of people in the world have done none of those things to me.
But I do not love them, I do not hate them, I simply would have no particular opinion until I met them, perhaps a little more personally.
So, UPB is – because, look, it's about theories of ethics.
And theories of ethics are obviously very good for relationships.
But I hope that people don't have a lot of people in their lives who want to kill them or rape them or whatever, right?
I mean, this is not – so, it doesn't do a lot to – I mean, that's what RTR is more about, right?
It's out of foster honesty and openness and all of that and reciprocity in relationships.
But UPB is really about how society should work.
And doesn't have a whole lot about the personal virtues that would engender not a sort of live and let live thing, but an active love, respect, and positivity thing.
Again, that's more RTR than this series that I did on virtue.
But it's important to say that UPB is simply a critique of the most commonly accepted moral theories.
Of, you know, of taxation and fiat currency monopolies.
And none of those things pass UPB in any way, shape, or form.
But it doesn't say a lot about the positive virtues.
And I mean, I'm fine with that because it's a...
But ethics, of course, means a lot of things, right?
So for the Greeks, virtue meant, you know, living the good life and courage and honor and integrity and all these kinds of things.
And UPB doesn't have much to say about that.
Because for me...
We've just got a whole lot of rubble to clear away before we can start building a house.
And, you know, it'll take three generations to just get UPB even remotely enacted in any broad way along society, so let's wait for all the positive jet-propelled virtues until we've got at least some of the evil doctrines out of the way, which is going to take a long time.
It's like basic arithmetic is to algebra or...
Yeah, you start with the small and we'll have nothing but a life and a half's work.
Dealing with the big problems, right?
I mean, I would be happy if people acted in a virtuous way, but let's at least stop having every U.S. child born half a million dollars in debt.
Let's at least start with that.
And let's start not having wars.
And let's at least start having more competition among currency.
I mean, these things will all take generations.
And so I think the positive virtues is less important because we've got so much work to do.
Just to, you know, it's like doctors in a time of mass plague.
Let's just stop the plague from spreading and start to contain it.
Rather than, you know, how should we exercise and eat to be optimally healthy and win a gold medal?
Let's, you know, stop the bodies piling up in the street.
That, to me, would be a great step forward.
Yeah, and I think you'd cover all that other stuff in RTR. So what's the point in meshing the two together?
Right, but I do think it's valid to say If it is evil to steal, it is not the same as being virtuous to not steal, if that makes sense.
Right.
I mean, it's not...
It depends what...
I mean, and these are all tricky definitions, right?
What is the opposite of evil?
Well, I would be content with the vast majority of people in society just not stealing from me.
I would be very happy if the world simply accepted that.
That to me would be an unbelievable leap forward in human society and philosophy and all of that.
And that would create the conditions necessary for a great flowering of human virtues and so on.
But for a relationship, he's not a jerk is not sufficient.
He doesn't beat me.
I don't think there's a lot of hallmarks.
Thank you for another year of not beating me.
I love you.
Right?
I mean, that's really damning with extremely faint praise.
But I certainly agree that it is not the height of virtue to simply refrain from assaulting people.
And so that, to me, is valid.
And...
But, you know, again, I still think that let's just keep...
What I want for people to do, right?
I just want people to focus on the four main ones that are completely validated by UPB, like the rape, theft, murder, assault ones.
I mean, we got our work cut out for us just getting that stuff across and say, well, how does this apply to IP and abortion?
It's like, no, no, no.
Let's get this stuff across to begin with.
And then, you know, our children's children will have lots of Fun times talking about the other stuff, but let's get these basics across and that's more than enough for us to do.
Right, right.
Um, so that's basically, those were my UPP questions.
Fantastic.
I did want to ask you if you have I sent you a link to a website that was sort of refuting some of the things that I think you've had guests on the show that were global warming skeptics, and I sent a link to a site with a long list of all the things that I've heard some of these skeptics say with the rebuttals.
I have it bookmarked, but I did just read this morning that a Koch-funded scientist has reversed his position and now accepts that the anthropogenic cause of global warming is valid and so on.
I've been looking into that.
And I want to get a pro-global warming guy on the show because I don't want to just provide a one-sided perspective.
And, you know, because there is this fear.
I don't particularly have it, but I know it's fairly common perhaps among others – with others that if anthropogenic global warming is true, then government expansion is inevitable.
Oh, no.
No, I'm totally against that.
Well, no, but the two are definitely linked, right?
I mean, because the vast majority of people are, oh, there's a big global problem.
Let's give the government emergency global powers and all that.
But in reality, of course, the two are separate, of course, right?
I mean, global warming can be entirely true and government power can be entirely...
Wrong as the solution.
So this is almost like this little ward off this thing called global warming in order to avoid expansions in state power.
But I don't think that denying...
If global warming...
I've never taken a final position either way because I'm not an expert.
I certainly have had more...
I think the...
Bjorn Lundberg, the skeptical environmentalist, he was on when I was doing some stuff for Casey Research.
Yeah, he was on and he's down with global warming.
He's down with the anthropogenic cause of it.
And I'm like, hey, great.
And he has, I think, some very good solutions.
His book's called Cool It, very good solutions that would be very cheap, which will have no chance of being adopted because government power will...
Because they're not government solutions.
Yeah, it's not big, expensive government solutions.
That's the problem, is that if...
I've pretty much accepted that global warming is anthropogenic for now.
Until I see some rebuttals to these rebuttals, I'm just kind of—because the rebuttals are just—they're over my head, and I have no expertise to rebut them.
But my fear is that, well, okay, they're right, so here we go.
People are going to call for more government.
And I actually had a conversation with a guy on this website, and he was all excited about the fact that I changed my mind about global warming.
Oh, because now you support carbon credits?
No, no, no, no, no.
And I told him, no, I don't support the solutions, but I accept that this is what's going on.
You've made some very good arguments, and I can't refute them.
Yeah, and look, we certainly don't want to be Christians with evolution, or some Christians with evolution.
Yeah, I don't want to be those guys either.
No, you don't want to be the denial of science guy.
Absolutely not, for sure.
And, I mean, I think that if you've been a libertarian for a while, which is certainly the case with you and I, I mean, for me at least, I've just gone through a whole bunch of environmental scares before, and so my barrier for proof is pretty high.
Right.
That's all.
Just because I've been through at least a dozen of these things before, and they've all proven to be complete and total bullshit.
And so, yeah, my skepticism is high, but, you know, I mean...
I obviously don't have the competence.
I'm not going to get a PhD in atmospheric engineering and go through all the source data for the next 10 years.
I mean, I'm not going to do that.
But yeah, I would like to get somebody on to refute.
So I'll have a look at that book, Mike, you sent me.
Yeah, actually, I gather that he's religious, but I don't think that's relevant.
I'd rather have somebody who wasn't, but that's particularly essential.
Because I don't know the degree to which the brain can be entirely compartmentalized that way.
Right.
I would talk to him, just see what he says.
But I got kind of a hint that he was either religious because of family or just...
I don't know what the deal is.
But one more thing before...
A book recommendation?
For me?
Yeah.
Yeah, please do.
Sam Harris...
I don't know if you've read his book on determinism, but...
Oh, no.
I read it...
Why?
Why?
Why are you doing this to me?
Yes, I know.
I know.
I understand the brain...
the sort of brain-cramping contradiction of the whole thing.
But he made some very good arguments that I haven't heard anybody who talked to you make.
Alright, I will give it a shot.
I've got an Audible book credit.
I'm sure it's out there in audiobook.
And I've certainly enjoyed his other books, and so I will give it a shot.
I wasn't entirely convinced because he makes some assumptions about things being uncontrollably...
He makes some assumptions that if somebody has a bad childhood and they're psychopathic and that there's no way to regain or...
Stop the ball from rolling with your conscious mind and resist impulses.
I got the sense that there's no resisting impulses.
He may be right about that.
There are developmental windows in the evolution of the mind for each individual.
It's very clear that there are those developmental windows in language, right?
So if you miss the language window from, I think, two to five or whatever, you never really learn language very well.
I mean, no matter how much you study later, you just miss that developmental window.
And I think, I mean, it seems to me quite likely that empathy is probably one of those things, because it's what Gabor Maté talks about, that the problem with the brain is that if the brain is broken, it's a broken brain that has to decide to fix a broken brain.
But the brain is broken!
So that's the problem, right?
It's like trying to use a broken wrench to fix a broken bolt.
I'm certainly open to the argument that if people are sufficiently traumatized as children, that brain healing may be, to all intents and purposes, impossible.
That, to me, is not an argument for determinism.
No, and I think a lot of what he says dovetails with your bomb in the brain stuff because People, at least the people around me at work and people I'm not friends with, are largely kind of deterministic in the way they do things and their lack of consciousness about things and their lack of self-awareness.
Yeah, look, I mean, a lack of self-knowledge to me is identical with determinism.
And if you don't know yourself, then you're just going to go off impulse and then justify it afterwards.
And the reason, because reasoning is ex post facto, changing, like if somebody else changes your reasoning, it won't change your behavior.
In fact, you'll probably just go right back to where you started.
So, yeah, I'm fully aware that there are some people who are Essentially, robots.
I mean, that's fine.
But that, to me, is like saying, well, there are fat people in the world and therefore gymnastics is impossible.
Right, exactly.
And that was my kind of response after I got the whole gist of what he was saying.
And I just kind of wanted to read it because I think other people besides me would want to hear your thoughts on it because there might be things I missed and...
Oh, that means I've got to get the print copy and mark it up.
You know, it's the thing with audiobooks.
They're just like, oh, I think I saw something in the water.
Oh, well, water's changed.
On we go.
Your way of watching movies.
My impressions of the book were...
Is that why you didn't like Tangled?
Yeah, I will...
Like Tangled?
The movie Tangled.
I'd heard you didn't like it.
Is that the kids' one?
Yeah.
Oh, I thought it was okay.
I thought it was okay.
So maybe I've warmed to it a bit more, but my daughter's off it now, so I can't remember too much about it.
She's moved on.
I loved it.
But, yeah, I mean, I thought it was okay.
But, yeah, the thing, I didn't like a betangle too much.
I just thought the songs were pretty bad.
I liked a couple of the songs.
I have to admit, it was Mandy Moore, and I'm embarrassed to admit it.
I liked the song.
She's cute, right?
Yeah, she is.
Was that her singing?
Yeah, that was Mandy Moore.
Wow, she's got a nice set of pipes.
Holy...
All right.
Well, thanks.
I appreciate that.
So we've done UPB, some parenting stuff.
We've solved global warming and proved free will.
Hey!
I would say that's a pretty productive 90 minutes.