All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 23, 2012 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
31:23
2288 An Introduction to Rational Ethics - Part 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello, it's Stefan Molyneux from FreeDomainRadio, FreeDomainRadio.com, the donation-based show.
Toss a few shekels over the wall, gov, if you find the ideas valuable and useful.
And true, hopefully.
Supported, at least.
So, the dichotomy between how things are and how they ought to be is the difference between description and prescription.
So, if you see a man rape a woman and you say, this man raped that woman, that is a description.
If you see lots of men raping lots of women, then you can say, lots of men rape lots of women.
That is a description.
And moral skeptics, which is a perfectly valid and healthy thing to be, moral skeptics say, well, you can say that there is a true or false description.
That is a tree.
That is a cloud.
That is true.
That is false.
There is a valid description, a true and false description of things.
But the moment you go from description to prescription...
You're in trouble, mate!
You are not dotting your I's and crossing your T's when it comes to philosophy.
Nowhere is it inscribed in human nature, in atoms, in the equations of physics that We ought not rape.
And just for those who occasionally say, dude, you talk about rape a lot.
Well, it's because it's the one unambiguous crime.
It's the one crime that cannot be self-defense or stealing something back or whatever, right?
Murder might be in self-defense, theft might be stealing something back and so on.
But rape is the one unambiguous crime.
There's no possibility that it can be good.
Under no circumstances could it be moral.
It does not lend itself to ambiguity.
So, there's nothing in the world that says you ought not rape.
So, where do you get it from?
Well, you would say people generally have a moral horror of rape.
Rape has been banned in almost every civilized society, bloody, bloody, bloody.
But so what?
That only works with people who weren't going to rape anyway.
I mean, if you have a moral horror of raping, then you're not going to rape.
So nobody has to worry about that.
If you have a moral horror of murder, as most people do, you're not going to murder.
So don't worry about it.
Even in battle, prior to the Vietnam War, most soldiers, the vast majority of soldiers threw their weapons away, hid, never fired at the enemy.
One of the reasons soldiers are so screwed up now is that the army figured that out and figured out how to change it by breaking the minds of soldiers through a much harsher form of basic training.
So if it was in human nature to have a moral horror of raping, there'd be no such thing as rape.
But you cannot reliably find any universal that is not violated.
Oh, human beings like to lie.
I live.
Well, some people commit suicides.
Human beings like to eat.
Some people have anorexia.
Human beings are lazy.
Some human beings are Olympic athletes.
I mean, whatever you come up with, you'll find exceptions.
People don't like to rape.
Lots of people do like to rape.
People don't like to murder.
Lots of people like to murder.
People don't like to steal.
Assault.
Lots of people like to steal and assault.
Enough that it's an issue that we're talking about.
So, it's not inscribed anywhere.
It's not written down anywhere.
It's not part of essential human nature.
There's moral conscience that Adam Smith and others talk about or what Socrates referred to as his demon, his daemon, his conscience.
Well, Moral lecturing has been like diets for thin people, exercise regimes for the fit.
Well, the problem is a lot of people without a conscience, so they're not troubled by that and they're fine with doing these terrible things.
So, given that it's not written down anywhere, and although a lot of people are repulsed by these kinds of evils, lots of people also, tragically, are quite excited and happy about them.
Love them to death.
So, what are you going to do?
How are you going to solve that problem?
A man rapes.
Ooh, a man shouldn't rape.
Nobody should rape.
Well, wait, wait, wait.
You've gone a lot further there than is embedded in reality.
There are no oughts in reality.
We don't say the rock ought to fall down.
We say the rock does fall down.
We don't say animals ought to evolve.
Animals do evolve.
We don't say fire ought to be hot.
Fire is hot.
The wind ought not to blow.
The wind is blowing or not.
So where do you get the shoulds?
Give me the goods on shoulds, baby.
Give me a snort of ought.
Oh no, I better stop now while I'm not even close to being ahead.
Give me the wanna on shoulda.
So the question, of course, why?
Why?
Ought we not to rape?
Or murder?
Or assault?
Or steal?
Or slander?
Or lie?
Well, the clear reality is we don't.
But that's not the end of the story.
If you question people deeply, which is one of the reasons why people don't like being questioned deeply, but if you question people deeply, you will very quickly understand that they have principles that underlie their behavior.
I mean, even the most predatory have principles that underlie their behavior.
The most predatory will say, well, it's a dog-eat-dog world.
If you don't have respect, you've got nothing.
Get them before they get you.
Everything else is bullshit.
You take what you want, and you do not apologize to anyone, and anyone who believes otherwise is a weakling, who's trying to control you by making you feel, ooh, guilty.
And if you're weak enough to fall for that, then you ought to lie with them in the gutter and obey their lily-livered albino commandments of grey-faced, beseeching, whining and pleading.
The world is composed of those who take and those who are taken from.
If you want to be on the side of those who are taken from, you have my pity and my sympathy and my target.
Everybody tries to screw everybody else.
You're either ahead of the curve or behind the curve, but there's nothing in the middle.
Everybody justifies themselves according to a principle or a series of principles.
This is how we're built.
This is how the brain works.
The brain works through universalization.
You understand this language that I'm using because of universalization.
The computer runs on universalization.
The code, the TCP, IP packets fly around the world based upon universalization.
We can't help but universalize.
Racists have their universalizations.
Sadists have their universalizations.
Masochists have their universalizations.
Those into democracy, totalitarianism, communism, all have their universalizations.
Universalizations are the most essential fact of human consciousness and really what defines human consciousness from everything else.
The lion will eat the gazelle, but the lion does not have to invent a world where the gazelle had it coming.
And if you talk to people who are evil, they have justifications.
If that guy is stupid enough to not have an alarm system in this kind of neighborhood, he deserves to get stolen from.
I'm giving him a lesson.
Yeah, we took something from them, but they've got insurance.
They can write it all off.
The guy I punched had it coming.
Any idiot could see I was in a foul mood that night, and he just kept needling me.
I killed those children to save them from a world run by Satan.
Everybody has justifications, and those justifications are universal.
And even those who don't explicitly define their principles as universal will object to irrational principles that claim universality.
So if you say to somebody, That America should be isolationist in foreign policy and interventionist in foreign policy at the same time, almost everyone will say, in fact, everyone will say, just try it, everyone will say, wait, wait, which is it?
It's like that old Cheers episode.
Fraser starts reading from Tale of Two Cities.
It was the best of times.
It was the worst of times.
I think Cliff said, wait, wait, wait.
Which was it?
The ironic and ambivalent mind versus the concrete and literal mind.
If you say, America should increase the size of its government while simultaneously decreasing the size of its government, people will say, what?
What are you talking about?
America should simultaneously decrease its spending on the military while increasing its military presence and obligations.
America should cut its spending while increasing its spending at the same time.
And people will say, well, that doesn't work.
See, everyone...
Has an innate understanding of universality.
I mean, it's functional, but language, right?
Even tell a very unintelligent person to mop the floor and wash the ceiling at the same time.
They'll say, wait, which one?
Which one should I do first?
No, do them both at the same time.
With only one mop.
Or you say to someone...
I need you to run me a hot and cold bath in the same bathtub at the same time.
I want you to bring me an iced hot coffee.
Sorry, which one is it?
Our innate understanding of contradiction is very clear.
Say to Adolf Hitler, craziest of the crazy, most evil of the most evil, I need you to invade Poland and France simultaneously with the same army.
They would just look at you like, opposite directions.
You cannot have the same army.
Go east and west at the same time.
So everybody rejects contradiction.
And again, if you doubt it, just pull these out and see how far they fly.
Both Shakespeare and Dickens are the very best writers in the English language.
The world is round and banana-shaped at the same time.
Stars are the glinting I-beams of gods and massive distance of nuclear reactions at the same time.
Fireflies are the lost spirits of fairies and bugs with luminescent asses at the same time.
Two and two make both four and five simultaneous.
I mean, you get it, right?
If you propose contradiction to people, people will seize upon them and immediately will be bothered by them and will generally expose and require them to be fixed or solved.
Just hand in a math problem in grade three saying that this equation resolves to both four and five at the same time.
I'll say, well, It may be neither, but it can't be both.
So the moment that you propose any kind of universally preferable behavior, people ought not to rape.
People will either analyze that, hopefully in the UPB format style, which is nobody should rape is not A correct way of saying, or a precise way of saying what UPB talks about, or the standard that UPB requires.
The standard that UPB requires would be something like this.
Rape cannot be universally preferable behavior.
Because if it is universally preferable, there is no such thing as rape, and therefore rape cannot be achieved.
Rape requires one person to want the sex and the other person to not want the sex.
Rape cannot be universally preferable behavior because if everybody wants rape, there is no such thing as rape and therefore rape cannot be achieved.
So, rape cannot be universally preferential.
For rape to exist as a moral category, some people must want it and some people must really not want it.
Not be neutral about it, but really not want it.
Neutral about it is bad in different sex.
Rape is forced sexual activity directly against somebody's will.
So, rape cannot be universally preferable behavior because for rape to exist, some people must want it and some people must not.
So, it cannot be universally preferred or preferable.
Murder cannot be universally preferable behavior because murder is killing somebody specifically against their wishes.
If it is with their wishes, it's a kind of euthanasia or a suicide pact or something like that.
It's still an interesting moral category, but not an identical moral category.
Theft cannot be universally preferable behavior because you must not want someone to take your property in order for it to be theft.
If I leave something out on my front lawn saying, take me, and somebody takes it, I can't charge them with theft because clearly I'm fine with them taking it Assault.
Cannot be universally preferable behavior because it's only assault if somebody does not want to be assaulted.
Otherwise, it's some seriously kinky shit.
It's some sadomasochistic crap.
It's something in a dungeon with hot wax and fire-dipped ferrets or whatever the hell goes on in those places.
But it is not assault.
Any more than surgery or stabbing if you agree to it.
If you agree to surgery, then it's not stabbing, right?
Surgery.
Rape, murder, theft, assault cannot be universally preferable behavior.
Taxation cannot be universally preferable behavior because taxation is the moral right to take from other people by force.
If everybody has that moral right, then taxation is a universal good, a universal value, then everyone can tax and nobody doesn't want to be taxed because it's a universal value for everyone.
Or, even if we say taxing is only one way, then you say, Steph, I tax you 10,000.
And I say, well, I tax you 10,000.
And we just repeat that back and forth, and nothing ever gets done.
So, the great thing about UPB, one of the many great things about UPB, is that it perfectly, explicitly, and specifically validates the major moral instincts of the good majority of mankind.
You cannot have a moral rule which says everybody must impose or can impose or should impose their will on everyone else.
It doesn't work.
Because if everyone should impose their will on everyone else, then no one should resist the imposition of anyone's will because everyone should.
Or there's a stalemate.
If we say, everyone should impose their will on everyone else, well, if you want to take something from me and you're imposing your will on that, and I say, well, you can't take it from me, and therefore I can impose my will on you and so on, and then nothing gets done.
Because our will imposition cancels each other out as a universal.
So if everyone can impose their will on everyone else, then no one can impose their will on everyone else.
And of course, it's not universal.
If I say my will is to give you $10,000, am I imposing my will on you if I give you $10,000?
Well, no.
So you probably want the $10,000, right?
Not a bad thing to have.
Donations, welcome.
Not necessarily in the preceding amounts.
Although, I wouldn't mind.
So, if we both want it, then I'm not imposing your will, therefore it can't be universal.
Because in order for it to be universal, one person has to want something, the other person doesn't.
But then why should the person who wants to impose something, why should that principle hold out or win over the other person who doesn't?
So, if I will that I want to tweak your nose, and you will that I don't want to tweak your nose, and everyone gets to impose their will on everyone else, well then, it can't be universalized.
Maybe you want me to tweak your nose, in which case I'm not imposing it, or maybe you don't, in which case your desire to not have it done cancels out my desire to have it done because everyone gets to impose their will and therefore nobody can impose, only one person can impose their will at any given time and therefore it can't be universal.
So, again, you could go on and on with these kinds of examples.
But...
Any proposition for universally preferable human behavior must be universal.
It's right there in the first word of the book.
The book's title.
Universally preferable behavior.
And it's not descriptive.
It's not a description of what people do prefer.
It's, can it pass the logical test of consistency to propose that X is universally preferable human behavior?
And then, of course, the response generally wants people to understand the power of that argument.
And isn't it ridiculously simple?
I mean, it's embarrassing.
Like, the theory of relativity, that's some complicated shit.
I mean, that takes some seriously wrinkled frontal lobes and some seriously electrocuted hair to understand.
But this rape, murder, theft, assault, I mean, it's ridiculously simple.
Once you get it, I mean, we don't get it because it's like doing math with people yelling random numbers in your ear.
We put so much propaganda about ethics that, I mean, you get this is so simple.
Any ethical standard you propose, can it pass the test of universality, of preferability, and is it behavior?
It has to be behavior because behavior can be universalized.
Thought cannot because it cannot be verified.
If you say it is universally preferable that everyone think of Jesus all the time, you say to people, you're thinking of Jesus?
Yep, you can't verify it.
So it can't be universal.
It can't be universal if you can't verify it.
It's not empirical.
It's not objective.
Thoughts are not objective.
Thoughts are unverifiable.
So that's why it's behavior.
Behavior is something that can be verified, proven.
You know, it's like thinking of lying with another woman is like lying with another woman.
Well, no, because one of them actually can be verified.
And one of them, oh, I wasn't thinking of that.
Okay.
Can't be verified.
It's not objective.
Can't be universalized.
Doesn't fall in the realm of philosophy.
Now, then people will say, of course, but there's no such thing as universally preferable behavior.
Ooh, do you remember that last show we just did?
Remember that there's no such thing as universal.
It doesn't work, right?
Because what you're saying is it is universally preferable that nobody affirm universal preferences.
Nobody ought to talk about oughts.
Everyone should refrain from talking about what everyone should refrain from talking about.
No worky!
Brain futz!
Biscuit barrel.
Reboot.
Logic fail.
Like, bring down a city grid logic fail.
It's like when really mean people tell you that you ought to be considerate.
To them, right?
Consideration is a universal value, but somehow they've never managed to display it to you.
That kind of thing.
Old philosophy is like in a car wash when you get that rainbow crap, can't see through.
New philosophy is like that rinsing agent and the dryer and the wiper.
Look, a view, a clear view.
I was blind, but I could see.
Was blind, but now I see.
People say they're trying to put aesthetics into the realm of ethics, right?
So, aesthetics is like It's preferred behavior, but it's not universal, right?
So that's like, you know, maybe kind of politeness or being on time or whatever, keeping your word in non-financial or contractual situations.
It's nice, you know, telling the truth as a whole, you know, it's nice, but it's not universal.
It can't be universalized.
So being on time can't be universalized.
You have to have a commitment, you have to go there, and so on, right?
Or you have to be late, and so on.
Being on time can't be universalized.
And also, being on time requires a voluntary positive obligation, both to meet someone at that time.
And voluntary positive obligations can't be universalized.
You just can't make them to everyone, and you can't have an obligation to everyone, and all that kind of stuff, right?
And of course, it's ridiculously avoidable.
I mean, if someone's always being late, you just...
Don't agree to meet them anymore or, you know, come an hour later because they're always an hour late or whatever.
It's eminently avoidable and ethics really has to do with that, which is not avoidable.
And voluntary stuff is avoidable, like being on time, like being around rude people.
I mean, just don't be around rude people, right?
If they won't change.
This is eminently avoidable.
I mean, lots of rational reasons as to why this is all the case, but Right, so there's aesthetically preferable actions, or what I call APA. Universally preferable behavior, which is ethics.
And neutral behaviors, like going for a walk, good or evil.
Well, it doesn't really fall into the category, right?
It's like saying, the wind, is it money?
Well, it's not even really in the category called money.
Clearly going for a walk can't be universalized.
It's not preferable.
People in wheelchairs can't achieve it.
And it is behavior.
I guess that's the only category that fits.
So, if you propose universally preferable behavior and people say you shouldn't, then they've accepted it.
You shouldn't use words.
Words are incomprehensible.
Then why are you telling me, using words, that words are incomprehensible?
Calling you up on the cell phone.
You shouldn't use cell phones.
They don't work.
They never work.
Why are you calling me on a cell phone to tell me that cell phones don't work?
There's no such thing as universally preferable behavior.
Why are you giving me universally preferable behavior called I should not claim that there's such a thing as universally preferable behavior?
You just did.
Logic fail.
Logic fail.
Danger, Will Robinson.
Rational explosion.
Implosion.
Yay, verily.
You can't deny universally preferable behavior.
I mean, a possible response would be to simply stare at the person.
Rape cannot be UPB. The moment you respond to it with a true or false statement, that's interesting.
I guess you could say that.
That's not denying it.
It's not affirming it.
But at least you're not doing a massive logic fail.
Fascinating.
Ah, Mr.
Spock.
You say, rape cannot be UPB. Do you agree?
Well, if you say yes or no, you just affirmed UPB. At the moment you affirm UPB, you affirm that rape cannot be UPB. And you cannot deny UPB without affirming that rape cannot be UPB, that murder cannot be UPB, that assault cannot be UPB, and that theft cannot be UPB. You simply can't, can't, can't do it.
I know I'm repeating it.
It's really important you understand this.
First, you have to accept that rape cannot be UPB. Forget that.
Forget that there's no such thing as UPB. Forget that for a moment.
Do you understand that rape cannot be UPB? Theft, murder, assault.
It cannot be UPB. Because one person has to want it, the other person has to not want it.
Therefore, it cannot be universally preferable behavior, these things.
Now, respect for property rights can be UPB, because people can respect property rights.
All people at all times can respect property rights.
Ah, but people don't.
It's not universally preferred, it's universally preferable.
Is it possible for everybody to respect everybody else's property rights at the same time?
Well, yeah, of course it is.
Is it possible for everybody to steal from each other at the same time?
No, it is impossible because stealing means some people must not want to have things taken from them.
So some people must have it as a universal negative and other people must have it as the universal positive for stealing to occur.
Or rape, or murder, or assault.
Do you understand that?
Do you understand that it is logically impossible for rape, murder, theft, and assault to be universally preferable behaviors?
Don't call them ethics.
Don't call them...
Do you understand that logically, technically, syllogistically, it is not possible for these behaviors to be universally preferable?
Now, people get all kinds of static around this stuff, right?
Well, but people don't, and there's no such thing as UPB. But just try and get them to get that, to understand that.
When you cross that Rubicon, when you cross over that morally nihilistic void and hatred and all the puppet strings of your masters and you actually get and affirm and understand a principle as simple as murder cannot be UPB,
rape cannot be UPB, theft assault cannot be UPB. If you just get that simple logical affirmation, so simple, My daughter has understood UPP at about three and a quarter, three and a third years.
She got it and could explain it back.
Can we at least get to the moral understanding?
Not of a Kierkegaard, not of a Hobbes, not of a Nietzsche, not of a Rand, just of a three-year-old.
That's all I'm asking.
Can you get what a three-year-old can get?
Can you understand what a three-year-old can understand?
This is not an insult, because we've got so much propaganda against it.
But can you understand?
Rape, theft, murder, assault cannot be universally preferable behavior.
It is a self-contradictory, monstrous clusterfrag of self-attacking, self-eating, broken-up syllogisms, and radical illogic.
Once you get that, once you get that, the magic four corners of UPB, rape, theft, assault, and murder.
Can't be UPB. Can't possibly be UPB. And it only takes a moment to grasp that once you get past the propaganda.
Once you get that, government can't be UPB. Government is a violation of universality.
Some people have positive rights, other people have bans.
Government must tax, you cannot tax.
Government must counterfeit, you cannot counterfeit.
Government can initiate force, you must not initiate force.
Government can violate property rights, you must not violate property rights.
Universality, broken.
Government, invalidated.
Once you get the sheer, elegant, beautiful simplicity of UPB, it is a foundation and a shield and a sword that will render you invulnerable.
To relativism, to nihilism, to all the machinations of psychopathic manipulative evil.
It is the greatest power that philosophy can provide you.
It is a deep certainty about ethics, about virtue.
It's the greatest gift that I can give you.
It's the greatest gift that philosophy can give you.
It is deep, relaxed certainty About the nature of ethics.
About the rationalism of virtue.
What it will reveal to you, it's like putting on the ring and seeing the Nazgul, right?
It reveals to you the state of contemporary culture, which can be a tad horrifying, more than a tad.
But it's well worth it just to get that certainty about ethics.
Ah!
Beautiful, yummy, tasty barbecue of all prior delusions, roasted up, covered with a marinade of pure philosophy, and served up as a scrumptious hors d'oeuvre of the finest buffet of future peace, reason, and truth.
I hope you will do more than sample.
▲
Export Selection