Full doc: http://cdn.freedomainradio.com/FDR_4287_UPB_destroyed_debate.txtDenouncing UPBI always start off any serious and fruitful debates with this question:“I accept that all ideas I propose could be incorrect, and the reverse, that everything I think to be incorrect could be correct. I seek truth, so if I am proven incorrect I will gladly change. I do not take any stake in the outcome of this debate. I ask you to do the same. Do you accept?”P= PremiseC= ConclusionP1: “Preferences” are required for life, thought and debating.P2: Debating requires that both parties hold truth to be both objective and universally preferable.C: Thus, the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (aka UPB)UPB 5 PROOFS REFUTEDProof 1P1: The concept UPB must be true.P2: Arguing against the truth of UPB demonstrates UPB.C: Thus, no argument against UPB can be true.P2 is false; If I state a preference for truth over falsehood when debating UPB, that does not mean that I have preference for truth over falsehood in all things. For example, if I were in a situation where I needed to choose between knowing the truth and permanently decreasing the well-being of all life, or to not know the truth but to permanently increase the well-being of all life, I would choose falsehood over truth because I value well-being over truth. Even if I did have a preference for truth over falsehood, it would not be a universal preference, because all other people do not share my preference for truth over falsehood. While I may value truth over falsehood, when it comes to the question of being reunited with dead loved-ones when we die, another person might value falsehood over truth as a result of valuing comfort over truth. What we value personally is not universal.UPB has asserted that “moral values exist because we hold the belief that moral values exist” which is not the same as demonstrating that moral values actually exist. For example, if all people believe that the moon is made of cheese, that wouldn’t make it so.Proof 2P1: All organisms require UPB to live.P2: man is a living organism.C1: Therefore all men are alive due to the practice of UPB C2: Thus any argument made against UPB requires an acceptance and practice of UPB.C3: So, no argument against UPB can be true.P1 is circular reasoning since it is also implicitly included within C1. This is stating, “that because all living organisms require UPB to live, all living organisms cannot argue against UPB because they are alive.”Here is a comparison to show this error: Risos asks, “How do you know the bible is divinely inspired?”, William reponds, “because it says in the 3rd chapter of 2 timothy, that ‘all scripture is given by divine inspiration of God”.OrRisos asks, “How do you know all organisms require UPB to live?”, Stefen responds, “ organisms are alive because they practice UPB.”Since P1 is circular with C1, all other points are unsupported. Also, notice that C1 states “practice” of UPB, while C2 states “acceptance and practice”, which is also unsupported even if the argument were sound, it still wouldn’t be valid. Thus, it is a formal fallacy; a non sequitur, since it does not follow from the premises.Proof 3P1: For a scientific theory to be true, it must be supported by empirical observation.P2: If UPB is true, humans should believe in UPB.P3: All men believe in UPBC: Therefore evidence exists to oppose the idea that UPB is not true.▶️ Donate Now: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate▶️ Sign Up For Our Newsletter: http://www.fdrurl.com/newsletterYour support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate▶️ 1. Donate: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate▶️ 2. Newsletter Sign-Up: http://www.fdrurl.com/newsletter▶️ 3. On YouTube: Subscribe, Click Notification Bell▶️ 4. Subscribe to the Freedomain Podcast: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com▶️ 5. Follow Freedomain on Alternative Platforms🔴 Bitchute: http://bitchute.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Minds: http://minds.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Steemit: http://steemit.com/@stefan.molyneux🔴 Gab: http://gab.ai/stefanmolyneux🔴 Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Facebook: http://facebook.com/stefan.molyneux🔴 Instagram: http://instagram.com/stefanmolyneux
So, many years ago, gosh, 10 years ago or so now, I put out a theory of ethics, rational proof of secular ethics, and it's called Universally Preferable Behavior, and you can find it at freedomainradio.com forward slash free.
It's called Universally Preferable Behavior, a rational proof of secular ethics.
You can get it on Kindle.
You can get it as an audiobook like MP3.
You can read it on PDF, and it's all available there.
And Luke here is a caller, a listener, who went through the text in great detail, which I hugely appreciate, and found some aspects of it, if not the entire argument, wanting, if not downright fallacious.
So he has very kindly agreed to come and set me straight about my theory of ethics, which is very kind of him, and what I very much appreciate.
I like to make sure I get things right.
So Luke, thank you so much for taking the time today.
Thanks for having me on the show.
So, there are in the book five proofs.
Now, I did revise that a little bit later and say there were evidence for rather than certain proofs of, but nonetheless they should still stand the test of logic.
But did you want to start with an introduction about The book and your intellectual history and why you found this work so involving to work at repudiating what it is I've done.
Yeah, sure.
So I've been interested in philosophy for quite some time, starting at the beginning of high school.
I'm 18 now.
What interests me so much about it is how it can be used to live the fullest life possible.
And like nothing else, really has that capability.
Even in psychology, without logic, we don't know what's true and what's not.
And that, I think, is a unique aspect of philosophy.
Excellent.
Now, with regards to metaphysics and epistemology, which is a study of reality and the study of knowledge, would it be fair to say that you and I would be in the same area regarding an objective, universal, rational universe that is... rational universe that is...
We can achieve knowledge of it through reason and evidence.
Thank you.
Yes.
Okay, good, good.
Because, you know, if one of us was a mystic, it'd be kind of a shorter conversation, or at least a different one.
And so, did you want to also, I mean, I did write the Art of the Argument, which people can pick up at theartoftheargument.com, but did you want to go over a little bit about the sort of premise and conclusion methodology that we'll be deploying today?
Yeah, sure.
So, just presenting the arguments.
No, just the structure or so, because a lot of people haven't done this sort of premises and conclusions, inductive versus deductive reasoning and so on.
Just a very brief intro, so that people are on the same page when we start delving into the content.
Yeah, okay.
So, in philosophy, most arguments can be reduced into what is called a categorical syllogism.
Categorical meaning things are separated into categories, and syllogism meaning it is in three terms, I believe.
I don't think it can have more terms than three if it's to be called a categorical syllogism.
You try to break it down to its component parts.
So if you can get it down to three, that's very, very much better for dividing and conquering the problems.
Okay.
So there are two different aspects of a categorical syllogism.
There is validity, which deals with the argument's form, that is how The parts of the argument contribute to the conclusion.
And there is the soundness of the argument, which is the actual truth of each premise, which is a statement, usually two statements, made to lead to a specific conclusion.
Combining those two statements, preferably.
Otherwise, it would be committing a fallacy.
Right, so just so you can have a logically sound structure which produces a false result.
So if you said, all men are redheads, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is a redhead, well, that would be a logical statement, but it would still be incorrect, because not all men are redheads.
So, in terms of, you have to check the premises as well as the form of the argument to know whether you're going to get to the right place.
Is that a fair way to put it?
Yeah.
Okay.
All right.
Good.
Okay, so now that people understand that, let's have a look at the arguments that you have, right?
So, I think the fundamental one that you have is I say that to argue against universally preferable behaviors is to rely on or display universally preferable behaviors.
Therefore, it's a self-detonating argument.
Yes.
All right.
So, the first proof is that the concept of UPB must be true.
Arguing against the truth of UPB demonstrates UPB.
That's to argue against UPB.
There's no argument against UPB can be true.
Now, if you say that something is false, you are not making a subjective statement.
Like if you say, I like the color blue, you're making a subjective statement.
Statement and if you're making a statement that is outside your subjective preferences if you're making an objective claim Then of course you are making an objective statement and therefore because it is an objective statement.
It must conform to with empirical evidence in an objective universe, and it also must conform with reason.
And whether we put one first or the other depends upon the circumstances, but very much ideally, it should be both.
And the analogy is sort of like an engineer who's designing a bridge.
You don't build the bridge to see if it stays up.
What you do is you look at the engineer's work, you check the tensile strength, you check the calculations, you check the girdering, you check whatever, and you make sure it falls into the parameters of what is needed.
If that's the case, you can go ahead and build it.
So there are some times when you will look at the rationality first, and there are other times when you will look at the empirical evidence first.
So if you and I are standing in a field and I say, oh look, there's a tree, you have to look and see if there's a tree.
Then empirical evidence comes first to test the validity of my statement.
So again, if there's anything you disagree with, This is fairly standard philosophy, but if there's anything, Luke, of course, that you disagree with, feel free to yell in my ear at any time, interrupt me as you see fit.
So, to me, if you're saying that a statement is false, There are a number of arguments or premises embedded within that statement.
So if you say a statement is false, you're saying that it is objectively false.
It is not just false for you if I say I like blue and you say you like red.
The statement I like blue is true for me and it would be false for you and the statement I like red is true for you and would be false.
To me.
But if you're making a statement of objectivity, that my argument is wrong, then you're saying that there is an objective truth.
You're saying that statements that claim objective truth should actually conform to the standards required for the achievement of objective truth, and it is universally preferable that objectively true statements follow reason and evidence.
It is universally preferable that we say true things rather than false things, and these things are all absolutes, which is why when I say you argue, if you argue against... Let me interrupt you there.
Sorry, go ahead.
Hold on.
Okay, so it seems like you just added on that because that somehow universally we have a preference for truth, but that I don't think that's the case.
Well, no.
See, universally preferable, not universally preferred.
There are lots of people who prefer lies over truth.
But if you say, Steph, your argument is false, then you're saying that it's universally preferable that we say true things.
So if you are saying that my argument is false, you are also saying that it's universally preferable for my argument to be true.
Is that a fair thing to say or would you disagree?
I would disagree because I don't think truth is universally preferable.
For instance, if I could make a choice between permanently decreasing the well-being of organisms but knowing the truth, or I could choose not knowing the truth but permanently increasing the well-being of organisms, I would choose falsehood over truth because I value well-being over truth.
But you're... First of all, that's an impossible standard, right?
There is no possibility that this would ever be presented to you in reality, right?
Well, it's a thought experiment.
It's not that... Yeah, but thought experiments do have to exist within reality, right?
Well, I think that everything is real, but things might not exist as you think they do.
So, like, if I'm having a hallucination and I see An oasis, but it's not actually there.
Well, it existed in my mind, but it's not actually in the material world.
Yes.
Well, the oasis, the mirage, it exists as a vision.
It doesn't just exist within your mind because you're actually seeing the mirage.
It's like the light bouncing between different heated layers of the atmosphere.
So you are seeing something that looks like water.
It doesn't only exist in your mind.
mind, like when you're dreaming at night, what you're dreaming of does not exist even as erroneous sense data in the real world, right?
Correct.
So, even if we throw aside the fact that your thought experiment is impossible, which to me is like, I think philosophy should deal with what is possible and what can happen.
The impossibility seems like kind of a waste of time.
It's sort of like saying, well if gravity were reversed, what would my What would my engineered bridge look like?
And it's like, I guess you could do it as kind of, but it would never actually show up in the real world.
But even if we throw that aside, it doesn't apply to what it is that we're talking about here.
Because to argue against me, to say that my formulation, my argument is false, you are telling me that I am objectively wrong.
And you are telling me that I, being objectively wrong, should change my opinion to what is true, right?
Because you're arguing with me.
This other thing where there's some, you could take a falsehood in order to improve the whatever it is of organisms and so on, that's not the same as debating me, right?
So when you're debating me, we both have to agree that truth is universally preferable to error, for you and I, right?
Not that everyone, under all circumstances, will choose the truth, because we know that's not the case.
And if it was the case, we wouldn't need philosophy.
But when you're debating with me, you are using universally preferable behavior.
Well, if it's just between me and you, then it's not universal.
Yes, it is.
Because you're saying that I'm objectively wrong.
Not that I'm subjectively wrong.
Oh, you think you like blue, but really you like green.
Right?
You're saying that I am objectively and universally incorrect, right?
Oh, okay.
I think we, I think I have some confusion about how universal is being used.
So I think it would relate to, um, under circumstances, not relating to people.
So for instance, like if I was on Mars, it would still be objectively true that I like blue, but if, but it's not universally preferable among all people that it either should be preferred or is best preferred or for whatever reason.
So it's the premise too, right?
Arguing against the truth of UPB demonstrates UPB.
Right, so when you're talking about this, I want truth and will help organisms flourish or something like that, that is not in the state of arguing against UPB.
Now, when you're having a conversation with me about UPB, you are in the state of arguing against UPB, and that's where this argument falls into, which is premise two, which is this here.
Arguing against the truth of UPB demonstrates UPB.
Now, you can come up with scenarios where you're not arguing against the truth of UPB, but accepting some impossible option that like flourish getting organisms to flourish rather than accepting the truth but that doesn't fall into the category of arguing against the truth of UPB as we're doing now right okay
so can you think of a circumstance under which you are telling someone that he is objectively wrong without using universally preferable behavior wrong as an incorrect or wrong as a morality No, just incorrect.
OK.
If someone is telling me that a fire hydrant is a giraffe, then I can demonstrate that it's not by showing a picture of a giraffe, and it's not the same thing. then I can demonstrate that it's not by showing a Therefore, it isn't a giraffe.
Right.
Now, if somebody does claim that a fire hydrant is a giraffe, they're violating the law of identity, non-contradiction, you name it, right?
And so, if somebody says a fire hydrant is a giraffe, and you correct them, you're correcting them according to universally preferable behavior.
universally preferable behavior is, if you are making a statement about reality, that statement should accurately reflect the nature of reality.
Well, I wouldn't say should, but...
No, if you're correcting someone, it should.
Because the moment you correct someone, you're saying that your statement is deviating from the truth.
And you're claiming it as a truth statement, and it's invalid for you to claim a truth statement that isn't true.
Objectively.
Universally.
Now, you can choose not to correct someone.
For sure.
But the moment you actually take the step of correcting someone, You are saying that they are objectively wrong according to universal standards.
And that's UPB.
So that would just be in accordance with reality, with reason, in other words.
Sure, absolutely.
It is universally preferable behavior.
when claiming a truth statement to actually have it be true.
It's not subjectively preferable.
Like if somebody says a fire hydrant is a giraffe, you don't sit there and say, oh, it's interesting that you think that, right?
I mean, you could say that if you want, right?
I mean, you could say, I agree, if you're also insane or a liar or something like that.
But the moment you say, no, a fire hydrant is not a giraffe, you're making a categorical statement about objective and universal reality and saying that they are wrong in what it is that they're saying.
And they're not wrong because they're stating a subjective preference.
If you say, I like frilled collars, can you really say to someone they're wrong?
I mean, not really, and who cares?
They're not making an objective statement.
I like, I prefer, it is pleasant for me if... I like rainy nights on a beach.
You know, these are all subjective statements and not subject to UPB.
But the moment somebody steps out of the circle of subjectivity, and makes a universal truth claim, then they are making a statement that falls into the realm of philosophy of UPB.
All right, that makes sense.
All right.
So proof two, we've got all organisms require UPB to live.
Now, what this means, of course, is that there's no possibility That either you or I would be alive to have this debate if we had not followed certain universally preferable behaviors.
In other words, eating, drinking, getting rest, going to the washroom, whatever it is, right?
There's no possibility if we had never eaten or if we hadn't eaten for the past month, there's no possibility whatsoever that we would be alive to even have this discussion.
So, since All animals require this, like from single-celled organisms all the way to the blue whale.
They all require universally preferable behavior in order to live, right?
Not just to be born, but to grow and flourish and stay alive.
So all organisms require UPB to live.
Man is a living organism.
Therefore, all men are alive due to the practice of universally preferable behavior.
Liquid, nutrition, whatever it is, right?
And so any argument made against UPB requires an acceptance and practice of UPB, a continual acceptance and practice of UPB.
So no argument against UPB, since the person is only alive because they followed UPB, it's not valid.
Like you can't say, I'm only alive because of UPB, but UPB is invalid or false, because you've been following it in order to stay alive.
Alright, that makes sense.
I think UPB might just be No, because UPB has an ethical dimension that goes far beyond the sciences, and the sciences would say in accordance with reason and reality, right?
So, proof three.
So for a scientific theory to be true, it must be supported by empirical observation.
And I'm using true in the layperson sense because, you know, sound valid and it just gets confusing for people.
So just, you know, you can have a scientific theory, like the theory of general relativity, but in order for it to be found to be true, you have to see light waves bending around an eclipse through gravity and you have to see time slowing down as acceleration increases and so on.
So you can have A valid theory is something that is rational and doesn't contradict any immediate sense data, but if it makes claims, then you need to validate those claims empirically.
So for a scientific theory to be true, it must be supported by empirical observation.
If UPB is true, humans should believe in UPB.
Now all living men believe in UPB from a biological, I'm talking from a moral standpoint, but just from a biological standpoint.
Everyone who is alive has accepted the universal objective requirements of life.
Again, nutrition, liquid, rest, whatever it is, right?
So, if all human beings believe in UPB, and that is empirical evidence that UPB is considered to be valid, then arguing against it is to say, that the very existence of billions and billions of human beings in this world, all of whom are following UPB, somehow invalidates UPB, which can't really be the case.
Are you still with me?
Yeah, I would like to point something out.
Please, yeah.
In your Death of Reason video, that Not following what is in accordance with reality can actually be an evolutionary advantage.
Sure, of course.
I mean, if you have a tribe that will kill you if you don't believe in the lies of the tribe, then, evolutionarily speaking, you will accept the lies of the tribe in order to survive, physically, for sure.
So wouldn't that be against UPB?
No, because, as I said, it is the survival that counts, right?
I mean, just about everyone accepts the lies of the tribe in order to survive.
Again, there are some exceptions.
This is why this is evidence for UPB.
But no one who violated that is alive.
Like, no one who violated the lies of the tribe and was killed for it is alive to debate UPB in the present, right?
So when somebody is alive and debating UPB with you.
What that means is that they have done whatever it takes to survive in order to debate UPB with you.
Now, if that is not along with the lives of the tribe, in order to stay alive, they have done that.
They have done whatever is necessary to stay alive, right?
So it's kind of hard to say, well, you know, I've slept, I've eaten, I've drunk water, I've exercised, all the things that are necessary to stay alive and I've learned how to read and how to write, like all the things, I have a language skill, whatever it is, like all the things that are necessary for someone to stand in front of you and debate.
they can't then say, "Well, UPB is invalid because the only reason that they're alive to do it is they followed certain universally preferable behaviors." Even if those universally preferable behaviors are denying UPB in order to survive, they've still done that in order to live.
But are those tribespeople alive due to the practice of UPB?
Everyone is alive due to the practice of UPB because life requires objective resources to survive.
You need a certain temperature, you need food, you need liquid and so on, right?
And you need to be alive.
Somebody has to have had sex and raised you and there's no possibility of life.
arising like the daughter of Zeus from the forehead of a god.
So everyone who's alive is alive because they have followed universally preferable behaviors.
Because if you act randomly, you die very quickly.
I mean, even breathing, right?
I mean, you can duct tape over your mouth and nose if you want and you can die within two minutes, right?
So everyone who's drawing breath is following the universally preferable behavior required to stay alive, which is to breathe.
All right.
I get that.
All right.
So, let's go here.
So, choices in the world are almost infinite, as we know.
Now, most humans, and certainly all humans who are alive, have made similar choices.
Not all together, but certain key ones.
So, everyone who's alive is choosing to breathe, has eaten, has drunk, has rested, has learned to... And anyone who's debating with you has learned language and hopefully reading and all that.
So, given that choices are almost infinite, but everyone who was alive has made virtually identical choices in nourishment and rest, so not all choices can be equal, and everyone has to accept that not all choices are equal.
So, if you're choosing to debate with me, there's a whole series of objective steps and requirements that you have fulfilled in order to do that, right?
Not just at least we have a connection over the computer and all of that.
So, if human beings acted purely randomly, then the arguments against universally preferable behavior would be much stronger.
but anybody who's debating with you has acted in accordance with universally preferable behaviors just to get to the point where they're able to have this debate with you.
Yeah, I agree.
Okay.
Okay.
Alright.
So, another proof, and this is sort of more evidence for, right?
So organisms succeed by acting on UBB.
So, a lion that refuses to hunt will die, assuming he's not being fed by the other lions, right?
So, organisms succeed by acting on UPB.
Man is the most successful organism at the moment.
Man's mind is his most distinctive organ.
Therefore, man's mind must have acted on the basis of UPB.
Because if you're the most successful creature, and the one thing that differentiates you from all other creatures is your rational, conscious mind, then UPB must have something to do with the organ that has made you the most successful.
And therefore it's not just man in terms of just eating and shitting and having sex and getting something to drink because there are billions of organisms around the world that do all of that from like mammals to reptiles to you name it, right?
And so It must be more than just physical requirements for UPB that is distinctive to man's mind.
Because we're the most successful organism, our mind is the most distinct organ in All of nature, there's nothing else that compares to the human mind.
You know, like a fish is smaller than a whale, but they're both animals that live in the ocean.
They have fins, one has lungs, one has gills and so on.
So a whale versus like a porpoise or a shark versus a guppy, there are differences of degree, not of kind.
Whereas the human mind is unrivaled and unreplicated.
It's not like we're just twice as smart as apes.
Like, I mean, we're just way off the charts as far as all of that goes.
And so, since our mind is our most distinctive organ, and since we are the most successful species, it must be more than just the physical requirements of UPB that has granted us such success.
It must be the relationship of UPB and the mind that has given us such empirical success.
Alright, I have a problem with premise two.
By what standard Is man successful or the most successful organism?
Man is the most successful organism because we can live anywhere in the world because we have science and engineering and concepts and so we can live anywhere in the world as far as I know we're really the only species that can do that including bacteria, right?
I'm sorry?
So can bacteria and they have more numbers.
Well no, but bacteria can't survive the Arctic, can they?
I'm sure there's some kind that live in the Arctic.
I mean, if they do live in the Arctic, can they survive unaided the tropics as well?
Can they survive in space?
We can, right?
Can they survive both at the top of a mountain and mile underwater.
We can, right?
So, in terms of just our scope and our range and the increase in our numbers and so on, whether it's sustainable, well, that's a whole other question to do with fiat currency and debt and all.
Like, right now, every human life in the world is, what, $30,000 in debt based upon money creation and unfunded liabilities, but that's all government and that comes into the morality of universally preferable behavior.
But as far as success goes, yeah, we We have grown in numbers, we have grown in competence, we have grown in mastery, we have grown in scope of livability, more so than any other creature.
Now, you know, if we all nuke each other, sure, there'll still be cockroaches.
And that will be a failure, though, of ethics, not a failure of humanity, which I guess is somewhat related, but not identical.
I would like to go back to the second premise again.
Looking at an article here, scientists have detected living bacteria from outer space in samples collected on the exterior of the ISS during spacewalks.
Living?
Yes, living bacteria.
Really?
How fascinating.
Living bacteria?
So wait, are you saying that there's proof of extraterrestrial life?
Single-celled, yeah.
They are surviving high radiation, no food source, no oxygen.
Yep.
Does that make sense to you?
If you can give me the link, I'll have a look.
I'm sure you're right.
I'm just a little confused.
Doesn't invalidate the whole argument, but nonetheless, right?
Yeah, I'll send it to you.
Yeah, thank you.
Is it in?
Oh, there we go.
All right.
Let's have a look.
This is very interesting.
All right, what do we have here?
Extraterrestrial bacteria from outer space.
Wow.
Let's see here.
Scientists have detected living bacteria from outer space.
What does that mean, that they have it in quotes?
In samples collected from the exterior of the ISS during spacewalks.
These spacewalks were conducted by cosmonauts who collected material from the Russian part of the ISS using cotton swabs.
Absent.
That is, they have come from outer space and settled along the external surface.
They are being studied so far.
They pose no danger.
How interesting.
So then, I guess you, I mean, it's not a moving goalpost, because certainly the bacteria can't get into space from the surface.
Human beings can.
Secondly, human beings can survive in space.
They can also survive at the bottom of the ocean.
It would be interesting to see if these bacteria could adapt to that as well.
There are actually bacteria that can survive in hydrothermal vents at the bottom of the ocean.
Sure, I fully accept that, but not necessarily the same that can survive in space.
Well, yeah, sure.
Whereas we can do both.
And just in general, like if you had the choice to come back as a bacteria or a human being, like in your next life, if such a thing were possible, I think most of us would choose a human being.
All right, I found something that can live...
Both in extreme cold, extremely toxic environments, and extremely hot environments.
And they're called tardigrades, also called water bears.
They are eight-legged, segmented micro-animals.
Yes, but they still can't propel themselves to various environments the way that human beings can, right?
They can't change the environment to produce their own comfort, which human beings, they can survive, like they've adapted, I guess, to survive in a wide variety of environments, but they don't have the human capacity to alter the environment to suit their own biological needs, right?
I mean, using technology.
Well, then the premise would be ...need to be revised to humans are the most successful organism with technology.
Well, sure.
I mean, we use technology.
That's like saying beavers are successful and they build dams.
It's like, well, it's the nature of the beaver to build a dam, and it's the nature of human beings to adapt the environment to suit biological preferences, like air conditioning and heating and shelter and so on, right?
I mean, you can't have humanity without technology, at least in the modern world, going all the way back to, you know, that 2001 Space Odyssey moment when someone figured out how to use a rock to hit something.
And I'm not just making an arbitrary distinction here.
No, no, it's perfectly fair what you're doing.
It's great.
I think that the success is vague and that allows the conclusions to be strengthened.
Sorry, say that again?
I think that the term success is used ambiguously and the conclusions gain some sort of traction from that.
Oh yeah, so you'd like premise two to be more detailed?
Yes.
Yeah, I think that's a perfectly fair criticism, because successful can say, well, you know, what is it, 98% of the biomass on the planet, or 90% of the biomass on the planet is insects.
Way more successful than people that have been around longer.
So yeah, I think that's fair.
But you know, saying that there's one ambiguous, like you came on real strong.
With this critique, right?
So, you say the points I've raised are enough to disprove UPB entirely, right?
And, you know, you say it's strange, you are a very articulate and educated person, but at least in these arguments you drop the ball.
So, I mean, you came on pretty strong, which is fine, you know, if you're very confident, right?
But now, after we've gone through a whole bunch of proofs, you have, like, okay, the wording of this could be improved, which, you know, I'm fine with and I agree with.
But it's not quite where you started from in terms of basically calling me an idiot and saying I got obvious things wrong, right?
Yeah.
I think it stemmed from a misunderstanding of the nature of UPB as a sort of...
I mean, I'll have to scan through it to see what I actually got wrong.
I mean, it's an interesting life lesson, which is why...
I mean, I love debating UPB, Luke.
I mean, it's fantastic, but it's an interesting life lesson because We both have a similar approach to things and it's very interesting to me because, look, I'm fully aware that, and this was the very beginning of UPB, the very beginning of UPB was something like this, the book.
So I said, philosophers have been wrestling with the question of ethics.
And we're not theologians, so we can't just say God told us.
I mean, we are philosophers, which means we don't get supernatural support for our arguments.
And philosophers have been wrestling with the problem of secular ethics for thousands and thousands of years.
And some of the most brilliant geniuses on the planet have devoted themselves to this task.
And I'm coming along, some guy out of the IT world as an entrepreneur, I'm stepping in to the central spotlight and saying, I got it!
I got it!
Ladies and gentlemen, I have cracked the code.
I have got the E equals MC squared philosophy, which is a rational proof of secular ethics.
And I said, listen, the odds of that being true?
are so tiny they can scarcely be calculated.
The odds that just some guy on the internet has cracked the greatest and solved the greatest problem philosophers have been wrestling with.
For thousands of years.
The odds of that occurring is so tiny that I invite everyone's skepticism.
Which is why when you wrote in and said, dude, you faffed it up completely.
You got it totally wrong.
And you've been working at this for decades.
You published this book ten years ago.
You have had dozens of debates on UPB.
But you're still totally wrong.
Now, don't get me wrong.
I appreciate that confidence.
I really do.
I think that's fantastic.
It didn't pay off this time, right?
Which is, you know, fine.
But I encourage that kind of confidence.
But if you are going to be that confident, you really should work on being totally right.
Now, saying, I don't understand this, or this doesn't make any sense to me, is perfectly valid.
But if you're going to, you know, step up and say to me, Steph, you're completely wrong.
You messed up completely.
It's pretty obvious, you know, these, these, whatever, right?
That is, that's a big claim to make.
And listen, I've made that claim with regards to others before.
I mean, I've said it about Ayn Rand, I've said it about Aristotle, I've said it about Plato, I've said it about Hume, I've said it about a wide variety, I've said it about Descartes.
And so, if you're going to step up to the top dogs and say you're totally wrong, I'm just saying, You've got to be right about it.
And this is fine.
This is just a conversation and all that.
But if you do it, I don't know, like in print or you do it in some way that is easy to trace back to you, is very readily identifiable, it's hard to do that twice, if that makes sense, because the next time you come up and tell someone that they're totally wrong and so on, it's going to be less easy for people to accept that that might be the case.
And you really want to make sure you keep that weaponry in full abeyance until you've got it really locked on the target, if that makes any sense.
Well, I think that if they wouldn't be convinced by an argument that is correct, simply because I presented an incorrect argument before, then I don't think I'm the rational one in that circumstance.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
It's not that you've presented an incorrect argument before, it's that you've been fully confident and wrong.
That's the problem.
The problem is not being wrong.
Good lord, I mean, I've revised arguments and, you know, we just... You had a good criticism of one of the five supporting proofs for UPB, which, you know, the successful organism thing.
It's a great criticism.
I really, really appreciate it.
I would, of course, nobody would ever say, no sane person would ever say, well I can't listen to Steph again because it turns out he had to revise one of the arguments to make it more clear, and that's fine, right?
But when you are publicly very confident that you're right and the other person is completely wrong...
That's the challenge, right?
And listen, I'm saying this is like an annoying kind of coaching thing because look, you're a brilliant guy and you care about philosophy and I hugely respect that.
I respect your brilliance.
I respect your writing skills.
I respect your analysis skills.
I respect the criticisms that you have of UPB and it's why I'm having this conversation.
And as you are, I hate to pull the age card, but as you are a young man, and could in some cultures be my grandson, my suggestion, my coaching, is if you want to go for people, you've got to make sure that you're in the right.
Because if you go for people and miss, It's really hard to regain credibility.
Not because you've made a mistake, but because you've been 100% certain that you're right and you turn out to be wrong.
Which means that you're overconfident or you don't have, you know, humility is the hallmark of the philosopher, right?
It's the hallmark of the scientist, right?
Because the theologian comes along and says, well, it's God who did this and we have ethics because of these ten commandments and we have this rule.
And they don't have to go through the rigorous process that philosophers and scientists do because they have supernatural backup to their pronouncements.
And so, to be humble is is very important and if you're going to take a run at my theory, which is wonderful and great and I appreciate the revision that you have pointed out, that's good, but if you come across as scornful and contemptuous and then it turns out that you're wrong, it's not Gonna be so easy the next time, if that makes sense.
Whereas if you're humble and you allow yourself to be instructed as I am, right?
I didn't come here and said, my God, this is so offensive what you wrote to me.
You know, like, this is, you're telling me I'm completely wrong and, you know, I didn't say that.
I'm like, hey, I'm willing to be instructed.
I'm willing to be, uh, to be, to be schooled.
And you did school me on one of the phrases, which is fantastic.
It's much more powerful.
You know Socrates.
I mean, I'm sure you've read Plato's stuff, right?
So, Socrates, his approach is It's the Columbo thing, which is an old TV show where Columbo basically says, I don't understand, explain it to me like I'm three years old.
And that's what Socrates does.
He says, oh, you know what justice is, you know what truth is.
I've had so much trouble with these concepts and these issues, I am thrilled that somebody knows what's going on.
So please, sit down and tell me everything there is about justice and truth and all of this.
And he patiently asks the questions.
and allows the other person to unravel themselves.
He doesn't come up to the sophists and say, you guys are idiots who got things completely wrong and I think you're dull as dishwater.
Because if he's right, it's overkill, and if he's wrong, You know, I don't know if this makes any sense to you or even remotely useful, but I want to give you a tip or two just because I wouldn't even say you have enormous potential because that's kind of condescending.
Your manifestation of intelligence is fantastic.
Like, I have this new studio and I'm staring into this camera through this light ring and it's still far less bright than staring into your brain, Luke, which is fantastic.
And that's just my wee tip.
Thank you.
Alright.
Is there anything else that you wanted to talk about?
Because we've really talked about universally preferable behavior as a larger context than ethics, right?
Because we're talking about that which keeps human beings alive.
Now, you can stay alive by stealing from people.
Because all you need is resources, you don't necessarily need honorably gained resources.
I mean, if you're a thief and you steal, you can stay alive that way, which is following the biological UPB that you need resources, but it's certainly not following the moral or ethical UPB.
And so, you do have a comment here.
Let me just find it, which I thought was good, and something that is very, very tough.
So, you say the points I have raised are enough to disprove UPB entirely, which turns out to not be the case.
You say I have found that there is no way to avoid the is-ought guillotine when it comes to morality.
Now, given that I've talked a bit and you understand this stuff very well, Luke, I wonder if you can step the audience through the challenge of the is-ought dichotomy.
Yeah, I've looked into that very thoroughly.
So the is-ought guillotine, or Hume's fallacy is a tendency for people to make moral judgments about things in reality.
So taking facts about reality, things that are or is in this case, and making them into sort of moral obligations or things that we should do based on either if they are pleasurable or even from like a biblical standpoint, well, the Bible says it's Good, therefore we should do it.
Yeah, and so my understanding of this, and correct me where I go astray of course, my understanding of this is we say human beings require oxygen to live.
That's a fact in reality.
And then people say therefore human beings must never be deprived of oxygen and that's how we know strangling a guy is immoral.
Now there's nothing in the fact that human beings require oxygen That implies any moral rule or standard whatsoever.
So if some guy goes and strangles some woman, well, he has deprived her of oxygen and she dies.
And people say, well, that's wrong.
And that the is-ought dichotomy is saying, well, it certainly is factual that she required oxygen.
It certainly is factual that he deprived her of oxygen.
But there's nothing in reality that says he absolutely should not do that.
Does that make sense to you?
Yes, that's correct.
And so people then say, well, the consequence is bad for her.
Okay?
And the consequence to the zebra is bad if the lion catches it, but we don't say that the lion is a murderer, right?
So there's nothing in the nature of reality that compels any kind of ethics, which is why I had a conversation about this with Dennis Prager a couple years ago, which is why when religion comes into the fray, we say, Well, what is moral?
Well, God's instructions, Ten Commandments, Jesus' example, and so on, right?
That's where the ethics come from.
They don't come from reality.
They come from divinity.
They come from God.
But you need something outside of reality to inject moral absolutes into reality, because within reality, there are no moral absolutes.
We are animals striving to survive and compete for resources, nature red in tooth and claw and all that kind of stuff.
And you can say, and this is sort of, this is an argument from a variety of people from Locke to Hume to you name it, but you can say, well, it's better for society as a whole if we enforce property rights and we don't let people kill each other and rape each other because that destabilizes things and blah-de-blah-de-blah.
And you can say, okay, so what you're saying is it's beneficial to some people if these laws are enforced.
But then what you're saying is there's no objective morality.
There's just the benefits which accrue to people.
Now, if the thief, who's lazy, doesn't want to work and is able to steal, Like, let's say he's able to steal the car, sell it for enough money to live on for a year, right?
So, stealing the car takes him 20 minutes, selling it takes him an hour or two, he gets cash or whatever, and then he can live for a year.
So, half a day's work, he can live for a year.
Well, that's beneficial to him, right?
You say, oh, well, it's negative for the guy whose car it is.
It's like, well, why should the needs of the guy whose car it is inevitably and universally supersede the needs or the preferences of the guy who's stealing the car.
And we all know it feels wrong, and I'm not advocating for stealing cars, but it's a tougher problem to solve than people think it is, which is why religious morality has been the mainstay of how we organize ethics in the world, because nobody can find in physics an objective, universal, moral reason why The guy shouldn't steal the car.
It's bad for society because no cars will be made if every car gets stolen.
But for him...
For him, it's better.
Like, the cuckoo takes its egg and puts it in somebody else's, like, another bird's nest, right?
And you say, well, but if every species did that, then nobody would feed it.
But the whole point is not every species does do that, so it's fine, evolutionarily speaking, for the cuckoo to do that, to take its egg, deposit it in another bird's nest, and have it fed and raised by other birds.
Well, it can't be universalized, so what?
It works for the cuckoo, which is why it's a successful evolutionary strategy.
And the thief knows that not everyone is going to steal cars and that there will probably always be enough cars to steal and so on, so why is it objectively, universally wrong and bad?
For the guy to steal the car.
From a pure animal standpoint, he's pursuing a very successful evolutionary strategy.
So, that to me is one of the cores of the Is-Or dichotomy and it is a vacuum within ethics that invites in religious at edicts.
Because the religious people can answer this very easily.
God's laws.
God's commandments.
That's where ethics come from.
It's bigger and more powerful than mere physics and mere temporal sensual reality.
That's where ethics come from, is divinity.
And it's an answer.
It's not a philosophical answer.
It's a theological answer.
And for me, it was always unsatisfying, which is not an argument, but it's... If you have to make up universal consciousness, contradictory beings like omniscient and omnipotent, and you have to create whole other dimensions, and, like, if you have to do all of that to get ethics, Occam's razor would say, "I think he might have missed something along the way, you know?
I'm right in another dimension" is not quite the same as being right.
I wrote this whole book called "Against the Gods" about all of this.
But it's really, as a philosopher, it frankly bugged the living crap out of me for decades.
And I don't believe that the Ayn Rand, the objectivist answer is any better, where it's always the greatest good for mankind and so on.
No, no, no.
It's great for some people to steal.
Look at how many resources the Clintons have accumulated.
They went from being dead broke to having a hundred million dollars in very short order.
And that's enough money for 50 generations of Clintons, right?
So, and look at Barack Obama.
He's made a fortune.
Michelle Obama's book has been selling millions and millions of copies.
She's making a fortune.
It's like, yes, but you know, you can have all these libertarian objections to how they got the money and so on.
It's like, yeah, well.
You can say all of that, but they still have all the money, right?
And that's better than the people who can't afford to have kids because they don't have any money, and they can have as many kids as they want, and their kids can have as much money as they want, they'll never want the resources, or healthcare, or food, or shelter, or anything like that.
Evolutionarily speaking, they've won.
And, you know, it's not as easy a problem to solve as people think.
Is that a fair way to sum the issue?
Yeah.
Um, I actually argue against morality in favor of, uh, I argue that people don't even need morality in order to live rationally.
Um, to live in accordance with what, so if I steal a car from someone, it doesn't immediately cause me any problems unless I get caught.
Um, but ultimately if everybody did that, or Because that encourages violence in society, that encourages taking others' items in society.
And I wouldn't want that done to me, so why would I do it to them?
No, that's just Kant's categorical imperative, which is, judge your action as if the principle of your action became a universal rule.
And the answer is, why?
What if I don't want to do that?
I'm not saying any moral obligation to do this.
I'm just saying that in order for a peaceful society to exist, which would be preferable by I think most people, it must have the people living in that society must agree to not Encourage violence.
And those forms of violence would be included within UPV, but not in the moral sense, but in the causal sense.
So instead of it being a moral obligation to not steal, not murder, those things would be discouraged just because they aren't logical.
If one wants to live in a peaceful society.
But why would anyone want to live in a peaceful society?
I mean, if you can live for a year on one day's work of stealing and selling a car, that's ridiculously efficient, right?
Correct, until someone steals your car.
Well, um... So?
The odds... Like, if you stealing cars...
Your income is virtually guaranteed.
Now, the odds of someone coming and stealing your car are much lower.
Because you know you're going to go and steal a car, 100%.
The odds of someone stealing your car are very low.
And, because you're a car thief, you're going to be very careful about your car.
So you're going to put a lock on it, on the wheel, or you're going to get one of those cars that without the key you can't turn the, you know, or you're going to get a car alarm, or you're going to park it in a locked garage.
Like, there's so many things that you can do to protect your property if you're a thief.
That the odds of you being stolen from are very small relative to the odds of you stealing, which are very high.
So, it's still a very positive scenario.
And listen, you know this, man.
We're built for war.
We're built for combat as human beings.
We are a warlike species, and if you look at most of human history, I don't care which continent you go to, if you look at most of human history, it's a history of unrelenting warfare.
Whether it's civil war, whether it's Indonesian war, interfaith wars, interracial wars, intercountry wars, we are just a bloodthirsty savage species.
And, you know, I can't help but escape the thought from time to time that people in Europe are just bored of peace.
That's why they have these crazy immigration policies that are going to lead to complete disaster.
People are very warlike.
So saying, well, we just want to live all in peace and reason I think goes against everything that we're evolved for and everything that, like, it's sort of like you need nutrition because human beings want to eat sugar and they want to eat carbs and they like stuff which may not be that good for them, right?
Now we're evolved to want sugar because, and we're evolved to like bright things because that got us eating fruit which kept scurvy at bay and other things and so on, right?
So we're evolved to want Sugar, and we're evolved to want fat, we're evolved to want salt, and all these things may not be good for you in excess, right?
And so in the same way, we're evolved to fight, to want resources without working for them, which is basically what warrior combat is, right?
If you, you know, if some stupid farmer in the neighborhood goes and stacks up 200 loaves of bread for the winter, well that takes him all year, back-breaking labor, dawn till dusk.
You know, to ride in and take that with a sword, it's an hour's work.
And you say, ah, yes, but then there won't be anything next year.
And it's like, well, there's always more people to pillage because there's, you know, I mean, that's generally how human society and human history has worked.
So we are drawn towards violence in the same way that we're drawn towards sugar.
And so we need nutrition to keep us away from sugar.
We need philosophy to keep us away from violence.
So the idea that we're all just going to want to live in this peaceful and serene and happy society is a pipe dream.
And I think the reason it's a pipe dream is that the more people who become reasonable and peaceful, the more valuable it becomes to be a thief.
Because if you live in a society where lots of stuff gets stolen all the time, what happens?
Well, all you have to do is go to a convenience store in the ghetto to see what happens.
What happens is There's security guards, there's bars on all the windows, there's, you know, beepy stuff if you try and take stuff out of the store without permission, there's a gun behind the counter, there are closed-circuit television cameras with direct feeds to the police station, you name it, right?
So there are massive countermeasures against theft in a highly thieving society.
So as theft increases, the cost of thieving becomes greater and greater and greater.
And so, then what happens is criminals make countermeasures, like the Ferguson effect, right?
So criminals, when there's an over-policing that's making an over-policing, when there's enough policing that criminality is no longer as profitable as it used to be, what thieves do is they gin up, often because, you know, there are racial elements involved, they gin up race issues and so on to the point where the police are now afraid to arrest people, and it's just this cat and mouse game that goes on with criminals and cops.
And so, if more and more people become convinced that you should never steal and thieving goes way down, then people don't put bars in the window.
They don't bother locking their cars.
They don't lock their front doors and they don't have security cameras.
They don't bother because it's not worth it.
And so what happens then is the profits of thieving goes up to the point that this is equilibrium that's matched in society.
And this is kind of how we've evolved.
So you're saying that as incentives to steal go up, Stealing will still go down.
Right?
So as more and more people get peaceful, it's easier and easier to steal.
And more profitable to steal, because there's less risk, there's, you know, nobody has guard dogs and, you know, blow darts or shotguns on their lap or anything like that.
And so that's the problem.
As society gets more peaceful, the profits and ease of thieving goes up and people respond to incentives.
I'm sorry, you were about to say.
Go ahead.
I mean peaceful as in not initiating violence against others, not Not defending yourself.
I don't mean pacifist, I mean... No, but we were talking about stealing cars, as the example.
Yeah.
So as fewer and fewer people steal cars, more and more people leave their cars unlocked, more and more people, or fewer and fewer people want to pay for car alarms and locks on the wheels or on the steering wheel or anything like that, and so it becomes easier and easier to steal cars.
And so that's the problem, is that as society gets less thieving, the profitability of thieving goes up, which is why there's this equilibrium that's often... And if there are too many thieves, then people just take so many countermeasures that becoming a thief becomes way too dangerous and way too difficult.
And then people will say, oh, forget it, I'll just get a job, right?
And so there is this equilibrium, sadly, that's set up in society as a whole.
Yeah, I agree.
And that's what would happen in a free market economy.
I'm sorry, what?
That's what would happen in a free market economy.
I'm not sure where that comes from.
Okay.
Sorry, that's just bringing in whole economics and social organization now as well.
I'm talking about current society, but go ahead.
Okay.
I don't know if this is relevant, so I don't want to open a whole other can of worms.
I think we should resolve the one that we're on right now.
Yeah, I mean the real simple answer is that in free market society...
There's no taxation.
And taxation is the greatest thievery that goes on.
And so you've dealt with the very major, major issue.
And you can protect yourself against private criminals, but you cannot protect yourself against tax collection departments.
So you've dealt with the major issue, which is state theft of property through the legitimization of taxation.
I'll deal with the private criminals if the government isn't taking half my income to begin with.
So, the solution to the is-ought dichotomy is to shift the requirements for the solution to the is-ought dichotomy is to shift the requirements for universality, not take them away from nature because there are no requirements for universality
There are no requirements for ethics in nature, it's not built into the fabric of reality, there are no moral atoms, there's no divine punishment in the philosophical world and so on, so you have to work without theology to get your ethics.
And this is why, at the very beginning of our conversation, Luke, I was careful at the beginning to say the very act of debating constitutes an acceptance of universally preferable behavior.
And so now, universality is no longer baked into reality, because it can't be.
Universality is no longer derived from religion, because that's not philosophical.
Universality is embedded in the act of arguing, in the act of debating.
And that the moment someone comes along and says, you're wrong, they have accepted universally preferable behavior.
Now, if they have accepted universally preferable behavior, then all theories of universally preferable behavior must be, of course, universal.
They must be able to be preferred, which is why I pushed back against the example you gave against denying truth to enhance The success rate of all living organisms, because you can't prefer that.
That's not a rational choice in the universe.
And it has to be based on behavior.
And the reasons for all that I go into in the book, and I don't want to sort of read the book, sort of start to end.
But the moment that somebody starts debating with you, Luke, there are so many things that they've accepted.
They've accepted the validity of the senses.
Not the perfection of the senses, but the validity of the senses, right?
Because they're using your ears to speak their argument.
They're using text to write it out and you've got to see that with your eyes.
So they accept the validity of the senses.
They also accept that there's a universal reality that we inhabit that we communicate through, right?
Sound waves and visuals and writing and so on, right?
So they've accepted all of that.
They have accepted that reason is how disputes should be resolved, because they're not hitting you with a club.
They have accepted that truth and universality and consistency are infinitely preferable.
to subjectivity masquerading as objectivity and falsehood masquerading as truth.
So there's so much that's embedded in somebody who just comes up and starts debating, which is why at the beginning of our debate I was talking about we'll do the metaphysics, we'll do the epistemology.
I wasn't going to do the ethics because we've got to establish UPB as a whole before we start to get into it in the realm of ethics.
And so they have also accepted self-ownership.
And that we own the effects of our actions, right?
Because if I say to you, Luke, I disagree with you, I'm saying that you, Luke, are responsible for the arguments that you have produced, which is why, and you say the same thing, if you say, Steph, you're wrong about UPB, you call me up, not My cousin.
And say, you're wrong about UPB.
My cousin would say, I can't write that book.
Why are you calling me?
Right?
You have to call this.
So I'm responsible for the creation and publication of UPB.
You're responsible for the email that you sent to me.
So we accept self-ownership and we accept that we're both responsible for the effects of our actions.
That's in the very process of debating at all.
Right?
Now, once we accept all of that, We have self-ownership.
We're responsible for the effects of our actions, and all claims must be universalized.
Then we can start to look at ethics.
And people can't say, well, no, ethics is purely subjective.
Because they've already accepted self-ownership and owning the effects of one's actions.
And so...
Given that violence is something that occurs in human society, the question is does it fall in the realm of ethics?
Now, individual violence that is unjustified, like if somebody's just completely insane, we don't morally judge them as evil, we judge them as dangerous or like a predator or like a mountain lion that's rabid and we might lock them up, but not as a moral crime, just as a prevention of future destruction.
So the four major bans in moral systems, the ban on murder, on theft, on rape, and on assault, where do they fit in the UPP category?
Now theft, of course, very, very clear.
That you cannot have a theory that says theft is universally preferable behavior.
You can't.
Because theft is the taking of someone's property without permission and against their will, right?
If I lend you something, I can't claim that you stole it from me.
I can't validly claim that you stole it from me.
If I put something out front of my house with a sign saying, free, take me, and someone takes it, I can't call the cops and say, they stole from me, right?
I mean, I can, but the cops will see the sign and just laugh at me and maybe charge me with a false report or something.
And so, Theft is when you take something against someone's will and against someone's permission.
Now, if theft is universally preferable behavior, then everybody must want to both steal and be stolen from at the same time.
But if you want to be stolen from, you can't be stolen from.
In other words, if I want you to take my property, it's not theft.
So, a theory of property ownership that says stealing is universally preferable behavior can't be sustained at all.
Because you cannot want someone to steal from you.
You cannot want someone to assault you.
Can I interject there?
had surgery on my neck once, I wanted the guy to stab me in the neck.
I really did.
I really, really wanted him to.
So I can't just sit there and say, wow, this guy stabbed me in the neck.
It's assault, right?
Because I wanted him to.
It's not assault.
If you voluntarily go into a boxing ring and you start fighting with someone, you can't then say, oh, Z-O-M-G, I got assaulted.
You kind of accepted that as a risk and reality.
Can I interject there?
Yeah, go ahead.
So the definition of assault is to make a physical attack on.
Against the will of the person.
good.
It doesn't say that.
What doesn't?
The definition of assault.
What definition of assault?
Merriam-Webster.
Well, attack, though... I mean, how does it deal with the problem of boxing?
That's my question, because, you know, nobody ever gets charged for assault in a boxing ring, right?
Assuming they're obeying the rules.
Well, yeah, because as a society, we differentiate Those which are consensual and those which aren't.
Right.
Some guy stabs me in the neck.
It's attempted murder.
A surgeon cuts me in the neck to take something out.
That's saving my life, right?
One is very much against my will.
One is I'm actually paying him to do it.
Yeah.
So assault can't, like if you make assault universally preferable behavior, then everyone must want to both assault and be assaulted at the same time.
But if you want to be assaulted, it's not assault.
The entire moral category evaporates if it becomes universalized.
Whereas two people can both not assault each other at the same time, right?
Two people can both not steal from each other at the same time.
It can be universalized.
Theoretically, all human beings could not steal from each other at the same time, or not rape, or not assault, right?
Same thing with rape.
If you want sexual contact, that's desire, that's lovemaking, or whatever you want to call it, but it's not rape.
It's only when you don't want sexual penetration, and the sexual penetration occurs usually under threat of force, that's rape.
So you can't universalize rape.
Because if you say rape is universally preferable behavior, then everybody should want to be raped.
But if you want to have sexual contact, it's not rape.
The whole moral category evaporates.
And these kinds of contradictions are how we know rape, theft, assault, and murder... Can't be.
Like, they have to be banned, because you can't universalize them.
Now someone can come along and say, "I don't care about your theories, I'm going to go Alright.
Of course.
Of course they can.
But we don't face much danger from individual criminals.
We face danger.
We face danger from invalid moral theories.
It's the moral theories that kill us, not individual criminals.
The incidence of murder is very, very low, at least in white countries or East Asian countries, they're very, very low.
But you think of something like the draft or the government's power of taxation to fund war and that's what gets us killed.
It's these false moral theories that are a great danger in humanity, not individual criminals.
That's why I said, you know, if the government's not taking half my money at gunpoint and selling off my daughter's future to foreign banksters for the sake of buying votes from idiots in the here and now, yeah, I'll take my chance with a private criminal.
The public criminals are the dangerous ones and they're the ones that are supported and validated by these crazy moral theories.
I think morality stems from the idea that humans have free will or that they are not predetermined by the laws of the universe so somehow they have an exception from those laws.
Yes, humans must have free will for there to be ethics.
And for those who want the arguments for free will or against determinism, I will refer you to my book, recently released, called Essential Philosophy, which you can get at freedomainradio.com.
It's free for the audiobook and free for the...
Text Kindle's very very cheap, and I hope you'll check it out I'm very very pleased with it and I wanted to create something of beauty rather than continue it continually analyzing error I wanted to create something of positivity so for the arguments for free will and against determinism I will refer you to that book.
I don't want to replicate them here because it seems a bit redundant All right, I'd like to see what you think about this so I assert that free will is self-contradictory as it would require the ability to make decisions not affected by any rule or influence whatsoever
But the only way to make a decision is by rule and influence, which must not be within one's own control, at least initially.
I'm sorry, I'm a little confused here, because you wrote to me, you said, it's strange, you are a very articulate and educated person, but at least in these arguments you drop the ball.
But why would you insult me, so to speak, if I don't have free will?
I mean, you wouldn't insult a boulder that fell down a cliff and landed in a place that was inconvenient to you.
You wouldn't say, boy, you really faffed up that fall, didn't you?
Right?
I mean, in your email to me, and this is just one of many things that you said, which implied that I was completely... The actual title of your document is denouncing UPB.
And you go, this is false, you know, and you're wrong about this, and this is incorrect, and you dropped the ball on this, and so you seem to be giving me a fair amount of responsibility and free will in that I should have done better, or I'm doing bad, or maybe I have nefarious intents.
I'm a little confused about if you don't believe I have free will, why would you speak about me negatively for making mistakes?
You don't speak, you don't yell at the weather and call it stupid, do you?
Well, no, so I wouldn't call that stupid because it isn't human and I can't... Wait, what's stupid?
The weather or a boulder falling down a cliff.
Right.
Because I can't change it with my words, but I can change humans with my words.
No, but that doesn't solve the problem.
You can get voice dictation software and you can change what's on your computer screen with your words too.
You can blow ripples on a lake, very small ones I assume, but you can change the behavior of a lake.
You can pick up a rock and throw it from one place to another.
You can alter things all over the place in the world, in the universe, through your choices and your will.
But why would the moral condemnation or the intellectual condemnation or contempt, why would it be singular to me if I'm just the same as all these other things and have no free will?
I mean, you wouldn't yell at a lawnmower for lawnmowing incorrectly.
You wouldn't yell at a robot, right?
Because it wouldn't make any sense.
But if I'm a robot and you have contempt for me for what I'm doing intellectually, why would it be different if I'm the same as everything else?
Because something can be causally responsible, but not morally responsible.
No.
Let's use the responsibility the wrong way.
Would you say that if a boulder falls on your car, would you say that the boulder is responsible?
Yes.
Really?
So you're using the term responsibility for human moral choices and inevitable laws of physics.
Do you think that might be stretching the word a little bit too far?
I don't think so.
Okay, well then, we're just talking about semantics.
I mean, I would not use the same word because I would want to differentiate moral choice from the inevitable laws of physics of a rock bouncing down a hill.
Now, if somebody pushed the rock down the hill, aiming it at my car, I would say they were responsible.
But I wouldn't put, and I might put them on the stand for destroying my car in a court case, but I wouldn't put the rock on a stand and say, why did you choose to smash my car?
Why?
Because it's a rock, right?
So that's no free will.
So I can't give it any causal responsibility.
But the guy who chooses to push the rock down and smash my car, yeah, I can give him causal responsibility and get mad at him and throw him in jail, right?
Yes.
So the human being is different from the rock in some manner, right?
You wouldn't put the rock on the stand, you'd put the human being on the stand, right?
Yes, in the same way that grass is different from a rock.
Oh, so then you're saying if somebody choked someone to death by stuffing a fistful of grass in their mouth, you'd put the grass on the stand, not the person.
No, I'm not saying that.
Okay, so human beings are still different from grass!
And rocks!
Because the only person who ends up on the stand is a human being, right?
Yeah.
You don't put the knife... If someone stabs someone to death, you don't put the knife on the stand, right?
Throw the knife in prison, right?
Yeah, because it wouldn't be affected negatively by that.
It's not a living thing.
Right.
Right.
And if somebody unleashed a virus on someone, a virus is a living-ish thing, right?
If somebody unleashed a virus or bacteria on someone and killed them, you wouldn't put the virus or the bacteria on the stand, you'd put the human being, right?
Yes.
Right.
So human beings are unique.
Unique for what?
Well, you didn't talk to my book.
You didn't talk to my pet.
You didn't talk to my daughter.
You didn't talk to my cousin.
You talked to me about the book that I had created, right?
You wrote the email to me.
You didn't debate with the computer that housed the book.
You didn't debate with the printing press that publishes the print version, right?
The only living entity that you would debate this topic with would be me, right?
Yes.
I mean, as the author of the book, right?
Yes.
And you would never debate the book, and you would never debate the cat that was sitting on the book, and you would never debate a printing press, and you would never debate a computer, right?
It would be crazy.
So if you would only ever debate a human being, you can't say that human beings are the same as everything else, right?
Well, I wouldn't... Well, literally, they aren't the same as everything else, but I wouldn't say that they're different in such a way that makes them able to choose freely.
But you treat them as unique.
You treat human beings as absolutely unique.
Because you only debate with human beings, right?
So human beings have to have something that's completely different from everything else in the universe because you only debate with human beings.
Yes.
Only humans that I know of are capable of debate.
Right.
So then if you're going to treat a category of entity like human beings as absolutely unique, you can't then say that they're the same as everything else when it comes to free will, right?
It doesn't prove free will, but you can't say, I will only ever debate human beings and then put human beings in the category of everything else.
Right?
Because I can't put three apples in front of you and say they're exactly the same and then say to eat these two apples is wonderful and nutritious, to eat this apple is insane and dangerous.
If I say they're all the same.
Right?
So I can't put, if I say these two apples are great to eat, this apple is insane and horrible and evil to eat.
I can't then say, well, these apples are all the same.
So if I'm treating one apple as unique, I can't put it in the same category as the other apples.
I can't say all the apples are the same, and then treat one as completely unique.
So you can't say, well, human beings are composed of matter and energy, and matter and energy doesn't have free will, and therefore, because then you wouldn't be able to differentiate debates between human beings and everything else that was composed of matter and energy, or everything else that was alive.
So if you're going to treat human beings as unique, you can't then pull them in the same category as everything else.
Yeah, I agree.
OK.
Right.
So that just opens up the possibility for that.
But again, I've gone into this in more detail in the book.
So anyway, I'm going to close it off here.
But I really, first of all, I really appreciate the email.
I thought it was very assertive.
And you know, and you had a great point about the ambiguity of the word successful.
I appreciate that.
And I really did enjoy the conversation.
I hope you'll stay in touch and you are going to bring, I think, some great things to the world.
My friend, you have a very top tier Thank you very much Stephan.
