"Over the last five years Stefan Molyneux has risen to fame, and while I personally enjoy a lot of his content, I maintain that a great many of his assertions are disastrously flawed… and his Universally Preferable Behaviour (otherwise known as UPB) is one of them. What follows is a refutation of the Five Proofs that Molyneux offers, and hence, this is Universally Preferable Behaviour Debunked!As promised within the video, here’s a link to Common Sense Atheism’s review of UPB (of which I found very useful in my research, and I highly recommend). Give him/her some love! http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=75For a detailed explanation of the flaws and fallacies within Molyneux’s Five Proofs, please watch the video, but if you just want a brief announcement of some of the flaws, they are as follows:The First Proof is flawed because:• Premise two is a False Premise.The Second Proof is flawed because:• Premise one is Begging the Question, and;• Premise four unjustifiably smuggles in the word “acceptance”.The Third Proof is flawed because:• Premise two is Begging the Question;• Premise three is a False Premise, and;• Premise four is a False Premise.The Fourth Proof is flawed because:• Premise one is either pedantic or a False Premise;• Premise three commits an Ambiguity Fallacy, and;• Premise four is a Non Sequitur.And finally (thanks for sticking around people!), the Fifth Proof is flawed because:• Premise one is Begging the Question, and;• Premise two is Arbitrarily Assigning Significance"▶️ 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/stefanmolyneuxSource video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLGh0wOXeAU
Hi everybody, it's Stefan Molyneux from Freedom and Home.
Hope you're doing well.
So somebody sent me this video from a YouTube channel called Rationality Rules.
It was published March 15th, 2017.
And this fine young man is refuting or debunking my theory of ethics called universally preferable behavior.
And he says, over the last five years, Stefan Molyneux has risen to fame, and while I personally enjoy a lot of his content, I maintain that a great many of his assertions are disastrously flawed.
Not just flawed, not just wrong, but disastrously flawed.
And his universally preferable behavior, otherwise known as UPP, is one of them.
What follows is a refutation of the five proofs that Molyneux offers, and hence, this is universally preferable behavior debunked.
And you can Have a look at some of the other links I'll link to the video below.
Now, let's hear what this fine young man has to say.
I have the distinct feeling that I'm going to aggravate a few Molyneux fans with this video.
Hmm.
Sorry.
Well, why would you start by Insulting my viewers and listeners, you know?
I put forward an argument.
If the argument is disproven, then I will refine it.
That's how philosophy works.
That's how science works.
That's how any rational approach to life works.
So I don't know why people would be annoyed if you disproved something that I said or helped me refine or better my argument.
I'm not saying that the douchebag meter is off the charts, but it's kind of annoying the way he starts off by saying, well, if my fans are such slavish devotees to my every pronouncement that if I'm contradicted, it's blasphemy.
Come on, man.
It's a philosophy show.
All right.
So let's start again.
I have the distinct feeling that I'm going to aggravate a few Molyneux fans with this video.
But despite the fact that I quite enjoy a lot of Molyneux's work, a bad argument is a bad argument.
And hence, this is universally preferable behaviour debunked. - Alright, I wait for the disassembly.
Throughout history, there have been countless attempts to prove that objective moral values exist, and, of course, most of these attempts have been via the Divine Command Theory of countless religions.
Now, just before we go on, I very specifically say, in UPB, in Universally Preferable Behaviour, it's a free book available at freedomainradio.com forward slash free, I very clearly say that Universal ethics do not exist.
They do not exist in the way that a tree or a rock does.
Like the scientific method doesn't exist.
It's not carved into the nature of atoms or inscribed in physics of the universe.
So it doesn't exist.
Now, just because something doesn't exist doesn't mean that it can't be valid, right?
So a tree exists.
The word tree also exists, but not in the same way.
And if you call a tree a rock, you're objectively wrong.
So I just want to point out, he's not using the terminology that I start with.
But there have also been some attempts by those who don't subscribe to the supernatural, and Mononu's universally preferable behavior, otherwise known as UPB, is one of them.
So for those of you who are unaware or in need of a recap, UPB is to those who accept it, THE definitive answer to ALL moral questions.
And if- What?
I don't know what that means!
I have never ever in my life and neither in the book nor anywhere else ever claimed that UPB is the definitive answer to all moral questions.
In the book, I focus on the four major categories of moral actions that need to be evaluated by any basic rational ethical system.
The first is theft.
The second is assault.
The third is murder.
And the fourth is rape.
So if you have this old Aristotelian argument, he says, look, I don't care what you come up with your ethical system.
But if you come up with an ethical system that could be used to prove that murder is moral and rape is good, you know, you've kind of gone wrong somewhere.
So I don't know what every conceivable moral question is.
And I don't know how UPB can claim to solve every conceivable moral question.
So not a careful reading so far, my friend.
It alone can tell us what is really right and really wrong.
It can tell us what we... Now here's the first strawman.
How interesting.
So, but you can't get an ought from an is, which is a basic... So this is going back to David Hume, a sceptic, a serious sceptic, who said there's nothing in the universe that says how human beings should behave.
And you can't get an ought from an is.
Now, I have a response to that, which is basically, if you can't get an ought from an is, you are getting an ought from an is, which is you ought not talk about getting an ought from an is, like you have already created one.
But that's not a central part of my book or anything like that.
But here, he's got, this is humor, right?
But you can't get an ought from an is.
And then he's got me saying, oh, so you think it's okay to kill babies.
I've never had that exchange that I can recall, and it certainly is not my repudiation of the argument that you can't get a lot from an iss.
So here... I don't know what he's doing, but it's got nothing to do with work that I've done.
Uh, and he's using my stern face.
That's fine.
Ought to value.
Hence, if true, it's a very big deal.
Well, that I agree with.
And it is a very big deal, because it is true.
It's the answer that has avoided humanity's greatest minds for thousands of years, and yet more- Well, no, listen, to be fair, and I talk about this at the very beginning of UPB, that the odds that someone on the internet has claimed the greatest prize of philosophy through the ages are very low.
So yeah, every reason to be skeptical of my claims about the invention or discovery of universal ethics.
That having been said, I don't think it has anything to do with, oh, I'm smarter or wiser or anything like that.
I just live in a world and in a society and in a technological environment where it's worth pursuing these ideas because you're not going to be thought blocked by all the gatekeepers in the known universe.
In the past, I had an ancestor, William Molyneux, great-great-great-grandfather, I think, and he was best friends with the famous British philosopher John Locke.
And they talked about, I've read this in my ancestor's biography, they actually talked about Pursuing universal ethics, but they were being chased around Ireland and England by the king, who wanted to arrest them for various blasphemies and so on.
So it's not that I'm smarter than any philosophers in the past, I may in fact not be nearly as smart, but the reality is I have a freedom to pursue and disseminate arguments that they didn't have.
So it's kind of different.
Let's continue.
Hollenew has found it, the cure to ethical cancer.
Now the syllogistic form of Molyneux's UPB is fairly lengthy, containing many premises that are, in my opinion, not necessarily needed, but I do appreciate that they are indeed very useful for refreshing language and clarifying definitions, and so if you'd like to see the whole argument then here it is on screen, and I've also linked to it in the description.
However, for the purpose of this video, I'm going to focus on the 6th, 7th, and 8th premises, because that's where the crux of the Now, here we go.
So, UPB in a nutshell, this is a summation of the core argument for morality.
And so, the fact that he's ignoring all the others, like I kind of understand this logically, right?
I mean, if you've got a whole series of mathematical steps to prove a particular theorem, and one or two of those assumes that you know, two is the same as four, well then you just focus on, like I understand why he's focusing on this.
You build a bridge, but the middle part is unstable, the bridge is gonna fall probably, so you focus on the unstable part.
I understand all of that.
But this is a summation of the core arguments for morality This is not the entire theory of UPB.
This is sort of like a little reference card.
This is not the whole thing.
So I just kind of wanted to point that out, that I don't mind, of course, that he's doing this, but I haven't watched this video yet.
We're kind of doing it live.
But nonetheless, I mean, I'm happy that he's doing this.
I think it's interesting.
But there's a big book around it that has other arguments to do with 6.
Preferences are required for life, thought, language and debating.
behavior.
7.
But anyway, let's continue.
The argument lies and it goes as follows: 6.
Preferences are required for life, thought, language and debating.
7.
Debating requires that both parties hold truth to be both objective and universally preferable.
I can't recall if I've got quotes around those things.
I don't think I would.
Maybe he's added quotes to this?
I don't know if they're scare quotes.
I never put truth in quotes because I accept and believe in universal truth.
8.
Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behavior, or UPB.
From here, Molyneux goes on to assert that because the very act of debating requires acceptance of UPB, that is, because Premise 7 is valid, the only question to be asked is how theories regarding UPB can be declared as true, which, to be fair, is a legitimate question if only Premise 7 is valid, but it's not, and I'll explain why shortly.
Before that, I want to point out that to his credit, Molyneux both recognises and appreciates that Premise 7 is both the most important and contentious of his argument, and so he graciously offers us five proofs of UPB in the attempt to substantiate it.
And it is these proofs that I'm going to debunk in this video, because it is these proofs that the proponents of UPB predominantly refer to when attempting to justify this premise.
Now, this is a very fair criticism, and I have rewritten some of UPB.
for my new book, Essential Philosophy, which you can find at EssentialPhilosophy.com and these should be supporting arguments rather than full proofs.
That is a better use of language and so that's perfectly fine.
The entire theory of UPB, these are sort of supports, like here's evidence for UPB rather than full proof of UPB and that is a good correction which I got years ago and it's one of the reasons why I rewrote.
UPB made it shorter, more concise and put in some platonic dialogues in essential philosophy.
So this is, yeah, I'm glad he's doing this, but these are not the fundamental arguments for UPB.
They're supports for UPB, reasons why we would say UPB is probably valid.
So, okay, fair enough.
Let's have a look.
So to get straight to it, the first proof that Molyneux offers is the assertion that if I argue against the proposition that universally preferable behavior is valid, I've already shown my preference for truth over falsehood, as well as a preference for correcting those who speak falsely. I've already shown my preference for truth over falsehood, as So, Saying that there is no such thing as universally preferable behavior is like shouting in someone's ear that sound does not exist.
It is innately self-contradictory.
And the syllogistic rendition that he provides us with goes as follows.
One, the proposition is the concept universally preferable behavior must be valid.
2.
Arguing against the validity of universally preferable behavior demonstrates universally preferable behavior.
3.
Therefore, no argument against the validity of universally preferable behavior can be valid.
So what exactly is wrong with Molyneux's first proof?
Well, to put it bluntly, Premise 2 is simply incorrect.
It's a false premise.
If I state a preference for truth over falsehood when debating UPB, this does not mean that I have a preference for truth over falsehood in all things.
For example, if there was a scenario in which I had to choose between knowing the truth but permanently diminishing the well-being of organisms, or not knowing the truth but permanently improving the well-being of organisms, I would choose the latter every time.
Okay, I'm trying to follow this, perhaps because he's a stone genius, but let's see here.
So I say, arguing against the validity of universally preferable behavior demonstrates universally preferable behavior.
Yeah, so this is true, this is valid, this is correct, which is if you say, well, there's no such thing as universally preferable behavior, Steph, so you should stop arguing for universally preferable behavior and you should accept that it's invalid.
You are accepting universally preferable behavior, obviously, right?
Because you are saying the truth is preferable to falsehood, accuracy is preferable to error, we should change our minds to conform with the truth, it's objective, it's universal, it's not my... Like, I'm not going to argue you into saying walnuts are universally preferable to pistachios, right?
Or whatever, right?
I mean, that doesn't make any sense.
And so...
You're talking about objective values, universal truths, and saying that other people, if they wish to say things that are true, must conform to universal standards of truth.
So you can't argue against UPB.
So here, the argument is, arguing against the validity of universally preferable behavior demonstrates universally preferable behavior.
Okay, so this is arguing against universally preferable behavior.
It doesn't say, you must always prefer the truth in all circumstances, no matter what.
There's a very, very important distinction.
There are times when you're going to lie.
Someone breaks into your house, says, where is your dog?
I want to kick your dog, and you won't tell that person where your dog is, or your goldfish or whatever.
I guess dogs would make sound, right?
So yeah, there's times when you're going to not tell the truth, and it could be a very moral thing to do to not tell the truth.
Arguing against the validity of universally preferable behavior demonstrates universally preferable behavior does not mean that everyone must always choose the truth under all circumstances.
It says that you can't argue against universal standards without deploying universal standards.
So, universally preferable behavior can be valid.
This does not mean that I have a preference for truth over falsehood in all things.
Right, a preference for truth over falsehood in all things.
This is not even what I said.
Come on, man.
Come on.
It says, and this is a funny thing, right?
He puts it right up on the screen.
Arguing against the validity of universally preferable behavior demonstrates universally preferable behavior.
So how on earth am I saying that you must prefer the truth in all things?
It specifically limits this to arguing against.
Anyway, so let's go on with what he says.
Arguing against UPT.
This does not mean that I have a preference for truth over falsehood in all things.
And you'll notice this, of course, because he completely reformulates what I said.
Right?
He has the text right up there on the screen.
And then he completely reformulates what I said as if I'm saying that you must always prefer the truth in all things no matter what.
For example, if there was a scenario in which I had to choose between knowing the truth but permanently diminishing the well-being of organisms, or not knowing the truth but permanently improving the well-being of organisms, I would choose the latter every time.
Every time?
I'm sorry, it's just so obvious from the outside, it's probably not obvious from the inside!
He would choose this every single time.
In other words, choosing to deny the truth and enhance the happiness or whatever it was of organisms, you would choose that every single time.
Do you know what that means?
It means that it's universally preferable behavior.
Dude, come on.
Universally preferable behavior.
So let's go back.
I just, you know, this is important, right?
Because he quotes, he quotes this.
Arguing against the validity of UPB demonstrates completely incorrect.
It's a false premise.
If I state a preference for truth over falsehood when debating UPB, this does not mean that I have a preference for truth over falsehood in all things.
Right.
Where did I ever say you must have a preference for truth over falsehood in all things?
It's not been quoted anywhere!
In the text that he's got, the audiobook reading that he's got, the screenshots that he's put up is nothing.
I've never said, you must always choose truth under all circumstances no matter what.
I've never said that.
He's never quoted me.
And so, boom!
Perfect straw man.
And again, he's a smart guy.
I'm glad he went through the book, but dude, you can't keep putting my work up on the screen and then create a standard that I've never ever put forward and then say, ah, he's wrong.
For example, if there was a scenario in which I had to choose between knowing the truth but permanently diminishing the well-being of organisms, or not knowing the truth but permanently improving the well-being of organisms, I would choose the latter every time.
Every time.
Every time.
Universal morality right there.
I mean, it's not a proof, it's just an example.
And you also notice that they always give these examples without any actual manifestations of those examples, right?
So he says, well, if I knew the truth but diminished the well-being of organisms or blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, I don't even know what that means.
Okay, so give me an example wherein human beings are in the long term served by the denial of truth.
You can't, right?
I would choose falsehood over truth because I value well-being over truth.
I value well-being over truth.
I don't really know what to make of that.
I value well-being over truth.
So, if somebody believes something that's false, but they're happy, at least at the moment, believing something that's false, do you not correct them?
Furthermore, and to quote Common Sense Atheism's review of UPB, of which I've linked to in the description and highly recommend, Yeah, maybe I'll do that one too.
I like how he's got a picture that has nothing to do with UPB.
That's me doing my 17-part Intro to Philosophy series about 10 years ago.
Anyway... Even if I did have a preference for truth over falsehood, it would not be a universal preference, because many other people do not share my preference for truth over falsehood.
Now, I deal with this about 10 million different times in the book.
Universally preferable behavior does not mean that everyone automatically prefers that.
It means that universally preferable behavior means that if you're going to make a truth statement, it has to be universal.
And you're demonstrating your preference for truth over falsehood that is universal if you're trying to debate someone and argue someone out of things.
A moral theory must be universally inactable.
It must be universally preferable.
And I go into the proof for all of this in the book.
So the fact that some people don't choose universally preferable behavior is kind of why we need philosophy.
Of course, people don't choose it.
Right.
So if you have, I don't know.
I mean, I'm no dietician, but let's say that there's some great diet for a particular ailment that you have.
And he says, listen, you've got to eat this diet in order to deal with some ailment that you have.
Now, of course, a lot of people aren't going to follow that diet, even if they know about it.
That's why you have nutrition.
Like, no, there's no obey gravity society, right?
There's no experts in obey gravity, because that's an automatic process of physics, right?
So where we have a choice, we need to have an ideal.
So the fact that some people don't follow UPB or some people will reject UPB does not invalidate UPB.
Like, which doctors don't practice science?
Some people are bad at math.
Some people hate eating well and exercising.
That doesn't mean that science is a subjective discipline.
It doesn't mean that nutrition is completely random.
It doesn't mean that exercise has no positive benefits in any, right?
You understand, right?
So people can reject things.
That doesn't mean those things are invalid.
It means those people are wrong.
To illustrate this through another example, while I might value truth over falsehood when it comes to the question of if we will be reunited with our deceased loved ones when we die, another person may value falsehood over truth as a result of them valuing comfort over truth.
The- Which means what?
Philosophy doesn't- Philosophy is not like massaging your single mom's foot, right?
Philosophy is not, well, if you like it, if it makes you happy, then you should just do it, right?
That's like saying, well, you know, if you have diabetes, you may just prefer eating an entire chocolate cake.
It's like, yeah, you may.
It doesn't mean it's good for you.
It doesn't mean at any time eating an entire chocolate cake is good for you.
So it's a little confusing as far as that goes.
I've never quite followed this.
So, the question of whether we are reunited with loved ones when we die is a valid philosophical question.
If we believe that there's consciousness after death, then we would have something which says there could be immaterial consciousness, so we would find evidence of consciousness without the material substrata of the brain.
You would have to find a mind without a brain.
Also, if we say that our consciousness survives our physical form, or our consciousness is eternal and our physical form is not, Then we have an example of non-existence, which is the, what is it, 13 billion years the universe has existed prior to us coming into being born.
So if we have an eternal soul or consciousness that lives forever, then we should have some level of consciousness before we were born, but of course we don't, right?
We don't have any level of consciousness before we were born, and there's no example anywhere, and never will be, that I can imagine, of having consciousness Without a brain.
And so, consciousness is an effect of the brain, and it requires the electrical, biochemical, and material energy of the brain, so we have a solid answer to all of this.
And so, yes, some people choose to reject that, and they live in the idea that other things can happen that is rejected, but doesn't have, like, people reject the truth.
What does that matter?
I mean, I guess it matters, but it doesn't reject the truth.
The fact that people reject the truth doesn't reject the truth.
Another person may value falsehood over truth as a result of them valuing comfort over truth.
Now here's what's interesting as well.
So this guy says, you can choose to believe something and it's still a perfect value, right?
So how on, like, how on earth, like, let's just go into his mind for a sec, right?
So I really like UPB.
I'm very proud of UPB.
And so why would he tell me that I'm wrong if people's comfort matters more than the truth?
Doesn't he know that by telling me that I'm wrong, I'm going to be uncomfortable?
And he says right at the beginning, you remember right at the beginning of the video, he says, well, I'm going to annoy a lot of Molyneux fans by debunking Molyneux's UPB theory.
But now he's saying, well, you know, if it makes people uncomfortable, that's bad.
Dude, what are you doing?
I don't understand this at all.
If people's comfort is more important than the truth, then you should not make me or my listeners uncomfortable by debunking my theory.
But what he's saying is, no, no, it doesn't matter if Steph's followers, or whatever, listeners get annoyed or uncomfortable.
It doesn't matter if Steph is bothered by my disproof.
The truth matters more than people's feelings, more than people's emotions, more than people's comfort.
But now he's saying, what?
No, but some people like comfort over truth, and who are we to tell them that they're wrong?
It's like, well, you're telling me that I'm wrong?
Kinda my life's work.
And I don't mind that he's telling me that I'm wrong, that's fine.
I just think it's funny that he says, people's comfort is all that matters, but I'm gonna make Molyneux fans really uncomfortable by debunking his theory.
I'm sorry, it's just a little funny.
The point being is that we all value concepts such as truth, well-being, and comfort differently to one another, and it is only when we have a conflict of preferences – that is, a choice between one preference or another – that the subjectivity of our preferences and values is explicitly exposed.
So, subjectivity of preferences and values, which means you can't tell other people that they're wrong.
Let's just scroll down a second here.
Oh, look at that!
Universally preferable behavior debunked Stefan Molyneux.
Refuted!
It means that he has a higher standard of truth and objectivity rather than just my particular feelings and preferences.
I don't know how people do this.
I don't know how people do this.
It gives me a facial tick.
For me, well-being trumps all other values.
For you, it might be truth, comfort, or something else entirely.
all other values, but he starts the video by saying I'm going to make Stefan Molyneux fans very annoyed and uncomfortable.
So it doesn't.
It's just bullshit.
Or something else entirely.
But what is for sure is that what we value personally is not universal.
Oh!
Dude, do you even listen to yourself?
What we value personally is not univer- What we value personally?
Oh, I'm sorry, I can't see all that.
What we value personally is not universal.
Look!
There's a universal statement of values right there on the screen.
Can you read your young eyes?
Can you read the text that's right in front of you?
What we value personally is not universal.
Is that a universal statement?
No.
Okay, then you have to qualify it and say, I like the idea that what people value personally is not universal, although I reject the very idea of universality.
But you know, that's a lot.
What we value personally is not universal.
Right there.
Universal statement.
God, read that book again, dude, you really need to.
What's more, and to again quote Common Sense Atheism's review, Molyneux seems to be saying that objective moral values exist because we have the opinion that moral values exist, which is not the same as demonstrating that moral values really exist.
I don't know how people, like, just misread everything so much.
So when someone says, seems to be saying, it's like, okay, how about a quote?
First of all, I say objective moral values do not exist any more than math or science in the abstract do exist.
They don't exist.
They describe things that exist, but they don't exist.
So, because we have the opinion that moral values exist, which is not the same as demonstrating that moral values really exist.
Of course, I'm not trying to demonstrate that moral values really exist, because they don't!
And when you say, he seems to be saying this!
It's like, seems to be, without a quote?
Instant straw man.
...which is not the same as demonstrating that more circumstances really exist.
Even if everybody, in all circumstances, in all places, and at all times, asserted that the moon was made of cheese, this wouldn't make it so.
Hence, Molyneux's first... What?
Okay, um, um... ...was made of cheese.
This wouldn't make it so.
Ah, so there's an objective truth outside of people's personal perspectives.
But... What we value personally is not universal.
But what if you value personally the belief that the moon is made of cheese?
But now he's saying that you can't believe that the moon is made of cheese because it's objectively false.
In all circumstances, in all places, and at all times asserted that the moon was made of cheese, this wouldn't make it so.
Okay, so, fantastic, so if people believe that the moon is made of cheese, they're objectively wrong and they should correct their beliefs according to the reality.
That the moon is not made of cheese.
UPB, right there, preference for truth, preference for objectivity, preference for the concepts in the mind matching what actually goes on in reality.
Come on!
But hey, let's continue.
Hence, Molyneux's first proof is invalid because its second premise is simply incorrect.
It's a crooked foundation – a false premise.
The second proof that Molyneux offers is the following.
1.
All organisms require universally preferred behaviour to live.
2.
Man is a living organism. 3.
Therefore, all living men are alive due to the practice of universally preferred behavior.
4.
Therefore, any argument against universally preferable behavior requires an acceptance and practice of universally preferred behavior.
5.
Therefore, no argument against the existence of universally preferable behavior can be valid.
Right, so just so you understand, and he's giving me these syllogisms where I do, of course, have much greater detail and fleshing out, so to speak, of the arguments in the book, but yeah, that's kind of how it rolls.
You know, in order to have this Conversation, or to have this video, to have this debate, I have to have had spent 52 years eating and sleeping and moving and breathing, you know, at least have shelter and maintaining a reasonable temperature and so on and not Dying, right?
So life requires universally preferable behavior.
You can't survive on gravel.
You can't live at zero degrees Kelvin.
You can't live in the center of the sun.
I can't live outside without sunscreen for more than eight minutes because I'm Irish.
Half Irish, half German.
There's a reason one half of us went south.
But anyway.
So, yeah, you can only be alive because you have pursued universally preferable behavior.
The actions required to keep you alive.
It's not a moral argument, right?
Hitler pursued universally preferable behavior at least until the cyanide end with Eva Brown in the bunker in 1945 in Berlin, but it's not a moral argument, but it says if you say there's no such thing as universally preferable behavior, but you have pursued and accepted universally preferable behavior in order to be alive to make that statement, you can't say that it doesn't exist.
You can't say there's no such thing as universally preferable behavior since you're only alive So, where to start?
Well, premise one is begging the question, because the conclusion of the argument is implicitly included within the premise, making the entire argument circular.
So let's see what he says about it. - So, where to start?
Well, premise one is begging the question because the conclusion of the argument is implicitly included within the premise, making the entire argument circular. - No, that's not true.
No, see, it is saying that in order to make an argument, you have to have pursued universally preferable behavior in the past.
That's not begging the question.
It's fact.
It's true.
Absent the fluff, the premise is implicitly asserting that because all living organisms require UPB to live, all living organisms can't argue against UPB because they are alive.
First of all, I don't say all living organisms.
I don't think so.
Let me just go back here and check what he's got about me.
All living men.
Yeah, so here, man is a living organism, right?
So, man is a living organism.
All organisms require UPB in order to live, right?
So, I'm talking about men.
Now, he's suddenly switching it here to talk about all living things.
Now, he's got quotes here, but that's not what I said.
I said men, which is a proxy for human beings, because I'm pretty aware that Single-celled organisms are not making big abstract discussions about universal ethics.
So I don't really know what to say about this.
It was a literal straw man, right?
Because he just had it up there where I'm talking about men and now he's got quotes to say all living organisms require UPB.
All living organisms can't argue against UPB because they're alive.
That's not what he just had up.
UPB to live.
All living organisms can't argue against UPB because they are alive, which, again, is profoundly circular.
To illustrate this further, here's a comparison with another Begging the Question fallacy.
Steve asks, how do you know that the bible is divinely inspired?
William responds, because it says so in the third chapter of 2 Timothy that all scripture is given by divine inspiration of god.
Steve asks, how do you know that all living organisms require UPB to live?
Stefan responds, because organisms are alive because they practice UPB.
What?
Okay, so one, one is, okay, yeah, circular reasoning I get.
How do you know the Bible is divinely inspired?
Because the Bible says it's divinely inspired, but you would only accept that if you believe it was divinely inspired.
I get the circular reasoning of all of that.
But how do biological facts necessary for the survival of human beings, how is that the same as looking something up in a Bible?
Bible?
Biology?
Not the same thing.
I don't know what to say.
You know, it's an example when somebody really wants to disprove something, they just make it happen, right?
Hence, premise one is begging the question, and consequently... See, he's not proved anything.
He's given an analogy, but he hasn't proved it.
First of all, he misquoted me.
He said all living things, all living organisms rather than men.
Secondly, he's not addressed the biological fact that we do need UPB in order to live.
And third, he just said it's a circular reasoning.
Here's an example of circular reasoning, and I'm just going to insert what Steph said with no proof.
That's not an argument.
Premise 3, 4, and 5 are unsubstantiated.
So, for him to say that the last argument is unsubstantiated, he would have to prove – that's just so funny – so this dude would have to prove that Organisms can survive.
I'll give him all organisms, right?
He's going to have to prove that organisms do not have universal and objective requirements in order to stay alive.
They don't need a certain amount of energy.
They don't need a certain amount of movement.
They don't need a... whatever it is, right?
Do human beings Require UPP in order to live.
Can you just choose to live however you want?
No.
You need particular kinds of food.
You need particular kinds of temperatures.
You need a certain amount of water.
I mean these are objective requirements for you to stay alive.
They can't be bypassed.
They're universal.
They're absolute.
They're As absolute as you can be.
So the way that he would have to disprove my argument is to say, no, human beings do not have objective universal biological requirements that they need to meet in order to stay alive.
Which would be an insane thing to say, which is why he doesn't say it.
Because he's wrong!
Furthermore, notice that premise 3 states practice of UPB, but premise 4 states acceptance and practice of UPB.
Again, I- Okay, I don't write things accidentally.
So, all living men are alive due to the practice of universally preferred behavior, right?
Food, water, and so on, right?
So you have to accept that you have universal requirements in order to stay alive, right?
You don't practice things that you don't accept, right?
So there's lots of religions I don't accept, I don't practice them.
I don't accept witchdoctory.
I don't practice witchdoctory.
I don't accept that me doing the funky chicken changes the weather so I don't do the funky chicken when it's raining out and I want to go for a hike.
Right?
So it's not a switch.
You have to accept That you need food and water in order to live, and therefore you go and get food and water in order to live.
And everybody who's alive has had food and water throughout their life.
Universally preferred behavior, eating and drinking.
Let's just delimit it to those two, eating and drinking.
So what's his problem?
I don't dislike Molyneux, but really?
Really?
Wait, what?
Oh please, dude, come on!
Let's go back and enjoy this one again.
Alright, let's just enjoy this one again.
Right.
So if you practice something, you have to have accepted it.
And if you have eaten and drunk in order to survive, then you accept that eating and drinking is universally preferred behavior.
You accept it because you've practiced it.
We know that you accept UPB because you're alive.
That's an argument.
It's a very factual argument.
The fact that I put the word acceptance in there is natural, right?
Because we're talking about consciousness.
Listen, a worm has objective things that it needs to live, right?
But it doesn't accept those at a conceptual level, right?
Because I'm talking about men, all living men.
Now, the reason I put living men in there is some people will kill themselves, some people will die, right?
But they still take universally preferred actions in order to kill themselves, right?
They don't kill themselves by having a glass of water with just water in it, right?
So, the reason I say acceptance is I'm talking about philosophy here, not... All organisms practice universally preferable behavior, and most of them, of course, are driven by hormones and instincts and hunger and thirst and so on, but human beings can accept it as a concept.
It's not that complicated.
But okay, so how does he rebut me again?
Let's just listen to this again, shall we?
Again, I don't dislike Molyneux, but really?
Really?
Moving on, let's take on proof number 3.
Three reallys, because two reallys only just prove me a certain amount.
1.
Three or four.
Why don't you spend the next eight minutes going, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really?
Until you sound like you're faxing in comprehension to the world.
Really?
I'm sorry.
It's just, you know, he's a nice kid.
All right.
Moving on, let's take on proof number three.
One.
For a scientific theory to be valid, it must be supported by empirical observation.
Two.
3.
If the concept of universally preferable behavior is valid, then mankind should believe in universally preferable behavior.
3.
All men believe in universally preferable behavior.
4.
Therefore, empirical evidence exists to support the validity of universally preferable behavior.
And the existence of such evidence opposes the proposition that universally preferable evidence exists to support the validity of universally preferable behavior.
And the existence of... Now here I say... Again, I don't write accidentally.
I write very carefully.
To support the validity... It's not a proof of universally preferable behavior, but it supports the validity of universally preferable behavior.
Such evidence opposes the proposition that universally preferable behavior is not valid.
Right.
So here's what I say.
I say it opposes the proposition.
It doesn't disprove the proposition.
It opposes the proposition, which puts the burden of proof on someone who says universally preferable behavior is not valid.
Right?
So it exists to support the validity.
Doesn't prove it.
Evidence opposes the proposition.
It doesn't disprove it.
Right?
So that's, that's important.
Evidence opposes the proposition that universally preferable behavior is not valid.
Starting with premise two, we have another begging the question fact.
Ah, and here we have the weariness and impatience.
Here we go.
As it literally includes the conclusion of the argument within it.
In fact, it's a circularist saying, if the Bible is valid, then mankind should believe in the Bible.
No, it's not.
It's not.
So, mankind should believe in universally preferable behavior?
Well, sure!
Because human beings who are alive have practiced universally preferable behavior in order to live.
Right?
We're looking at the empirical evidence of them being alive, knowing that your day of being alive is the result of a million little dominoes of you getting food and water and sleep and all of that, right?
So, no.
No.
And I said, should believe in universally preferable behavior.
And the closest analogy would be something like this.
If the concept of religion is valid, then human beings should believe in religion, or a lot of human beings.
If we say, yeah, religion is not a valid concept like it's true, but religion is something that people believe in, then we would look for evidence, right?
So if you were some space alien, and you knew nothing about the Earth, and somebody said to you, well, a lot of human beings believe in a divine power that influences their lives and so on, you'd say, well, I'm gonna need some proof for that.
It's a theory.
They say, okay, well here, look, here's a church, here's a mosque, here's a synagogue, here's whatever, a Buddhist temple, there's lots of things, I have Buddhism or philosophy, but you would look for evidence, right?
So, of course human beings believe in universally preferable behavior, because they wouldn't be alive otherwise.
Right?
If the concept is valid, humans should believe in universally preferable behavior.
They do.
And please understand that this is not, again, this is not ethics, right?
You can't argue against universally preferable behavior because you're only alive due to universally preferable behavior.
You can't argue against universally preferable behavior because you're saying truth is preferable to falsehood, you're wrong, I'm right, you should abandon your false beliefs, you should believe things that are true.
This is all universally preferable behavior that have more to do With the aesthetics of ethics, as in, like, there's a reason why I don't talk about telling the truth in UPB, because there's times where I could absolutely believe that it's better to lie.
You know, if some guy has been in a terrible car crash, and his wife and his children are dead, and he's dying right there in the car, and he says, with his last fading breath, he's got a minute to live, are my wife and children okay?
I would lean over to that guy and I would say, absolutely, they're fine, they're in the hospital.
They're gonna make it, right?
Because I don't want his last minute to be pure agony.
Why would you want that?
It doesn't make any difference.
And it gives him a more peaceful exit from this veil of tears, right?
It's the reason I talk about rape, assault, theft, and murder.
So, anyway.
Yeah, this is not even a close analogy, right?
Ridiculous premise.
And while we're on the topic of ridiculous premises, what on earth is going on with premise three?
Even if all men practiced UPB, which they don't, they claim that all- Wait, all men practice UPB in order to survive, right?
This is the only proof that he's brought up is not ethical proof, but biological proof.
All men practice UPB, well they have to, otherwise they're not alive, because they haven't eaten, they haven't drunk, they might live for a little bit, but All men believe in UPB is just wrong.
It's that simple.
It's just factually and demonstrably wrong.
A false premise.
Again, in order for it to be wrong, he would have to show that human beings do not need objective universal requirements in order to survive, which is false.
I don't believe in UPB, therefore, not all men believe in UPB.
So what he's saying is he doesn't believe... See, he's conflating the biological proof, which is support for the ethical proof, with the ethical proof, right?
So he and I differ on our definition of ethics.
And therefore he's saying there's no such thing as UPB.
But all the proofs that he's bringing up are to do with biological requirements for life.
So he doesn't distinguish between these two things, but it's very clear.
I'm talking about biological requirements for life, which are universal and absolute.
And as for premise four, if stated simply, it is asserting that because there is some evidence that suggests that UPB is valid, UPB is therefore valid, which is... Hmm?
So it didn't say UPB is valid, it says here empirical evidence exists to, sorry that's my wrist there, to support the validity of universally preferable behavior.
Opposes the, it's not proof, it's support, it's evidence for, it's not absolute proof.
I mean, it's like he's not even reading his own slides.
Amazing.
Just bizarre.
And it's another... Ah, you see, it's just bizarre.
How bizarre?
How bizarre?
...but false premise.
Alright.
It holds as much validity as stating that because there is some evidence for Hinduism, Hinduism must be true.
No.
No.
If, so, if you say that Human beings have objective requirements, universal objective requirements to live, and if a human being is alive, therefore he must have followed those objective requirements.
This is as simple as, all men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal.
Or, human survival requires UPB.
If a human being is alive, he must have followed UPB.
It's really that simple.
It's not that complicated, and there's no way to disprove it.
You can't disprove it, because human beings have biologically objective requirements in order to survive.
But it's okay, he's got an argument by Picard.
Hang on, what can I, can I mirror that?
Wait, this, no, this hand, right?
Oh, I can't get it right because it's, it's backwards.
Anyway, all right, I should, I should do that one.
And what's more, and to once again quote Common Sense Atheism, none of these statements follow from any of the others.
It's like reading a book that says, for Tyler Cowen to be right about the economy, he must have evidence.
If theism is true, it is immoral to be unaware that gods exist.
Every culture has believed in gods, therefore, all milk is nervous.
What?
Nah, that can't be.
He didn't just do that, did he?
Hang on.
So he's saying that when I say all human beings are alive because they followed UPB, food and water, rest and shelter or whatever, that that argument is exactly the same as these arguments.
All milk is nervous.
I don't know on what particular planet this guy's brain landed, but it seems to be a rather confused and confusing one.
All milk is nervous.
What about proof 4?
How does it fare?
Well, it goes as follows.
1.
Choices are almost infinite. 2.
Most human beings make very similar choices.
3.
Therefore, not all choices can be equal.
4.
Therefore, universally preferable choices must be valid.
You know, it's strange, because Molyneux is a very articulate and educated person.
Yeah, so maybe.
You should not just dismiss things without understanding them.
You know, one possibility.
But when it comes to arguments, he's just… awful.
For starters, premise one, the claim that choices are almost infinite, can only be considered true if every micro-variation of every choice is defined as its own choice.
For example, if someone offered you either an apple or an orange, you would have several choices available to you.
To name but a few, you could take the apple, take the orange, take neither, impolitely take both, etc.
You would have many choices, but you would not have an almost infinite amount of choices.
What?
Okay, within a particular box called, would you like this piece of fruit or that piece of fruit, I agree you don't have infinite choices, which is why I didn't in the previous syllogism say, when it comes to choosing between an apple and an orange, you have almost infinite choices.
No, human beings as a whole have almost infinite choices.
Come on!
You can choose to watch this video through to its conclusion.
You can choose to go jump off a bridge.
You can choose to put your hand into a garburetor.
You can choose to bang together two garbage can lids.
You can choose to drill a hole in your basement.
You can choose to bang your head against a wall, as I seem to be doing, right?
You can choose almost anything, almost anything in the world.
There are an infinite number of choices that you can make, right?
You can, and that's just counting ones that are possible.
You can choose impossible things like I'm going to choose to see if I'm Aquaman and try and breathe underwater.
I'm going to choose to try and live without oxygen.
I mean, you know, I mean, I'm going to choose to try and eat glass and see if that works out for me.
Like there's an almost infinite number of choices.
But most people make very similar choices in terms of like they're alive.
Therefore, they must have made very similar choices.
Again, this is in the context of the biological proof, which I've been talking about before.
So anyone who's alive has made the choice to have shelter, to eat, to drink, to exercise, to have an income of some kind, to have food and water, right?
These are all very similar choices, right?
So that's support for UPB, right?
Unless, and here is where the pedantic variations come in, you define every variation of every choice as its own choice, such as waiting two seconds to take the orange, waiting 2.1 seconds to take the orange, or waiting 2.2 seconds to take the orange.
Well, aren't those valid?
Is it impossible to wait 2.2 rather than 2.1 seconds to take the orange?
You know, if you ever have this thing, I have this sometimes in the morning, right?
So I'm kind of a bit of a night owl and I need a good solid eight hours of sleep.
So sometimes in the morning I'll wake up kind of early and I'll be like, eh, I'm kind of tired.
Maybe I'll try and get another hour or two of kip, right?
And sometimes, like this morning, I'm like, eh, I've got a bunch of stuff to do today.
Let's get up and get going, right?
But there are times, you have this too, you have this too.
You sit there and you say, well, I'm kind of tired, but if I try and doze, I'm just wasting time.
If I do fall asleep and I'm rested, fantastic.
If I wake up with a headache, that's bad.
You weigh these options, you weigh these variables, and you'll stay in bed for a certain amount of time.
And then at some point you'll make the decision to get up, right?
This happens all the time.
Why are these not all continual choices?
And so on and so forth.
Not even counting the fact that you can try to eat your pillow, you can try and do sit-ups, you can like do any number of things, right?
Fourth.
Wait, furthermore?
What does he say?
He's actually just supported my argument.
So he's saying even within choosing an apple and an orange, you have a near-infinite number of choices.
So even in the example that he used to supposedly rebut my argument that you have a near-infinite number of choices, he actually just asserted that you have a near-infinite number of choices, because the time slice is at which you choose either the orange or the apple, right?
Right, so, I don't know, let's say you're lining up to go through security at an airport, right?
And your wife comes to you and says, well, we've got an orange, we've got an apple.
I'll eat whichever one you don't want.
And you're like, I don't know, I can't decide.
It's like, look, the line-up's coming, we've got to choose now.
Okay, gotcha, right?
Infinite number of choices.
Even within the context of what he's saying, he proved my argument.
Even with the reduction, the limitation of his fruit choice.
...requires the implicit acceptance of libertarianism, and so on and so forth.
Furthermore, the very idea that we have choice requires the implicit acceptance of libertarian free will, and with that, the rejection of hard determinism.
What is libertarian free will?
What?
I don't know what libertarian free will – I've never heard that phrase before.
Free will is an argument in philosophy going back to the pre-Socratics.
I don't know what libertarian free will is.
The belief that our choices are free from any determination or constraints.
Yeah, well, I've got a whole series on Free Will, but he chose not to review it.
And I also have a great section on Free Will in my new book, which you can get.
It's available for free right here on YouTube, or you can get the audiobook, or it's a small amount of money for the Kindle version.
Essentialphilosophy.com.
All right.
Which, sorry folks, the evidence doesn't support.
But let's not get into this here.
It's not necessary.
Huh?
So your idea of an argument is a straw man saying the evidence doesn't support it and then moving on.
Which?
Sorry.
Sorry, to be fair, I don't even know if the libertarianism thing is a straw man or not.
I have no idea because I don't even know what it means.
Folks, the evidence doesn't support.
But let's not get into this here, it's not necessary.
Moving on, in premise three, the word equal is critically ambiguous, causing the argument to commit an ambiguity fallacy.
What does Molyneux mean by equal?
Does he mean popular?
If so, why would that matter?
Throughout history, misogyny and racism has been incredibly popular, but Wait a sec, did this dude just talk about racism and misogyny?
Is that a moral argument?
Racism and misogyny?
Would you say that these are universally preferable behaviors to refrain from?
Is racism and misogyny always bad?
Because you're using moral terms, absolute moral terms, in a discussion about how there's no such thing as absolute morality.
Oh yeah, okay, so he's a lefty.
So if almost all human beings choose to pursue the actions to remain alive, then you can't say that all choices are equal.
So let me sort of give you an example.
So, if there's two foods that you like, that both are providing the same amount of nutrition and calories, it doesn't hugely matter which one you choose, right?
You understand that, right?
I'm not even gonna figure out what that might be, because the moment I get specifics, people are like, oh, that specific doesn't work, right?
But let's just say you got two options to eat in front of you, both the same amount of calories, same amount of nutrition, same amount of health value or whatever, right?
Doesn't really matter.
You can't say, well, one choice is vastly more Popular or prevalent or good or whatever, right?
Then the other, right?
So, but let's say on the same table you put down a person's favorite food and whatever Winston Smith room 101 rats in a head cage that they hate to eat.
Could be the worst conceivable thing that they could imagine eating for my daughter.
It would be like squid or something, right?
Or broken glass or poison or something like that, right?
So this is evidence for, not proof of, evidence for.
Almost all the human beings in the world make the choices to eat the food that they prefer, that's relatively available, to have sleep, to drink water.
There's some people that go on hunger strikes and so on and I understand all of that, right?
So this is why it's support for, it's not proof of, right?
So we can't say all choices are equal if the vast, vast majority, the overwhelming majority of human beings Make the same choices – to eat, to sleep, to drink, to have shelter.
All human beings who are alive do that.
So we can't say that all choices are equal, because the evidence is that human beings who are alive have overwhelmingly chosen – actually all of them who are alive have chosen UPB.
That doesn't mean that they're somehow right or valid.
And as for premise four, stated simply, it doesn't follow from the other three premises.
The fact that humans make similar choices doesn't prove that certain choices are universally objective.
Right.
Agreed.
Which is why it's And finally, we get to Molyneux's fifth proof, and it goes as follows.
1.
Organisms succeed by acting upon universally preferable behavior.
2.
Man is the most successful organism.
3.
Therefore, man must have acted most successfully on the basis of universally preferable behavior.
Four.
Man's mind is his most distinctive organ.
Five.
Therefore, man's mind must have acted most successfully on the basis of universally preferable behavior.
Six.
Therefore, universally preferable behavior must be valid.
Where to start?
Perhaps you could start with hipster condescension, but yeah, okay, let's go.
Premise 1 is again begging the question.
In fact, it's almost identical to the second proof's first premise, that all organisms require universally preferred behaviour to live, and it carries all of the same problems.
As for Premise 2, the assertion that man is the most successful species, this is just childishly absurd, because it's arbitrarily assigning significance.
I mean when was the last time you saw chimpanzees and an orchestra opening at the Met, right?
So yeah, there are different levels of success and human beings are the most successful at Such a wide variety of things, I don't even know how to explain this.
Like, if you want to really understand or learn about philosophy, you kind of need to look at what you're doing, rather than all these abstractions to begin with.
I'm an empiricist, so you start with what you're doing.
So he's going to go in like, I don't know, but this next bit is going to be like giraffes are better at getting leaves from the top of trees, which is actually false because you can get a machine to get you.
There are machines that you can get right up there to harvest the stuff from the trees.
There are robots that can pick fruit and even strawberries and grapes and so on.
But anyway, so he's going to say, well, human beings are not the best at stuff.
But my question is, why doesn't he have a sea slug present his information?
Why didn't he just have a little like put the sea slug on the table and have the sea slug explain why UPB is wrong?
Why doesn't he have a chimpanzee do it?
Why doesn't he have a robot do it?
Why doesn't he have a piece of paramecium do it?
Why doesn't he have one of his gut bacteria come up and spread the word about how bad UPB is?
No!
He's using his conscious mind, he's using his abstract thought, he's using presentation techniques, he's using YouTube, he's using every single human facility to communicate that human beings are not successful.
How successful would he be at rebutting my argument if he didn't use any human capacities?
Nah, I'm not going to make that joke too obvious.
Alright, let's see.
It's not neck length, because the giraffe is more successful than us in this area.
No, the giraffe's neck is longer.
It's not population, because ants are more successful than us in this area.
It's not age, because arctic whales are more successful than us in this area.
And it's not reproduction, because rabbits are more successful than us in this area.
So what is it?
Brain power?
How arbitrary!
I don't know that it's that arbitrary.
Human beings have the greatest capacity, even if we just look at sort of biological stuff, right?
So human beings have the greatest capacity to control the environment to further survival, right?
Which is why we can go hugely underwater, hugely underwater, very deep in bath escapes.
It's why we can go up high mountains with air packs.
It's why we can go into space.
It's why we can live in the Arctic without igloos and fur, right?
So we have this amazing compa- why we have pressurized cabins and airplanes and so on.
So we do have this incredible ability to adapt the environment to suit our particular needs, and that has to be counted as some degree of biological success, right?
Right.
Why should we accept that success is defined by how much brainpower an organism has?
This isn't just taking the biscuit.
No, because it allows you to control your environment to further your success, right?
It allows you to build houses in cold temperatures.
It allows you to build cooling in hot temperatures.
It allows you to build shelter from winds.
And to a degree that animals can't even conceive of, right?
So, yeah, it does have something to do with survival, of course, right?
It's taken the whole damn job.
So, all right, didn't take the biscuit.
So, the other interesting question is, in terms of success, as far as I remember, I could be wrong, but human beings are the only creatures to live in all areas of the world, right?
I mean, you could talk about rabbits, but rabbits are, you know, pretty narrow band of the world that they could live in.
Ants aren't in the Antarctic, ironically enough, right?
So human beings, in terms of success, you could at least say human beings Are the most widely spread organism that we know of, even if you count like people in space and so on.
I don't know if there are like permanent undersea stations, probably are.
But yeah, there are ways in which you can measure the success of human beings, even just from a biological standpoint.
And again, when you're using a lot of technology to argue that it's arbitrary to say there's value in technology, when technology is the only thing that allows you to make that argument, it seems a little specious.
So there's a distinction between a difference in degree and a difference in kind.
A difference in degree is more or less pretty much the same thing.
A difference in kind is something completely different.
So think of two guys lost in the desert.
One guy has $100 in his pocket.
One guy has $10 in his pocket.
That's a difference in degree.
They have differing levels of money.
One guy has a bottle of water or water at all, and the other guy has no bottle of water, no water at all.
That's a difference in kind.
One has water, one doesn't have water, whereas they have different amounts of money.
So if you look at the example provided of the giraffe, the giraffe has a long African hoop-neck style neck, for sure.
But that's just a difference in degree, not in kind, because human beings also have necks.
He says, well, whales can live longer than people.
Okay, that is a difference of degree, not of kind, because human beings live for a long time, whales live for a longer time, it's just an extension of something that already is.
If you look at the population of ants, well, there are more ants than people, yes, but there are still numbers of people.
The number is higher, but the existence of life is simply a difference of degree in terms of numerical number, of number, rather than of kind, right?
So if you're talking about differences of degree rather than of kind, you're missing the entire point of what it means to be a human being.
Let me give you an example.
So imagine I said something like this.
Human beings have flown to the moon.
But those ants are not as good at it because their little ant rockets only reach to the top of the tallest tree.
Or imagine if I said, human beings can write the most astonishing poetry, haiku, sonnets, you name it.
The sonnets of dung beetles, I mean, they're good-ish, they're just not as good as human beings.
Or, human beings can build incredibly complex structures, multi-story heating ventilation, elevator shafts, you know, all that kind of stuff.
But the homes of beavers, while good, don't have quite as good plumbing or HVAC systems or, you know, some of their windows can open, which means that they're not quite as energy efficient, even though people get to breathe semi-fresh air.
You understand?
Human beings, in terms of stuff that I listed earlier, right?
Poetry, abstract thought, philosophy, concepts, scientific method, ethics, plays, novels, you name it.
There's so much that human beings do That is a difference in degree, not of kind.
Now, to take the counterpoint, you can say, ah, well, unaided, then birds can fly, but human beings can't.
And that's a difference in degree.
And therefore, if you only have flying unaided as the standard, then birds are more successful than human beings.
It's like, yeah, but you can't just take things in isolation.
I mean, you can take things in isolation, but you're wrong.
So if you say, well, birds can fly unaided, and then you take away technology from human beings, But that's like saying, well, if you rip the wings off a bird, then it can't fly unaided.
It's like human technology is part of our tool set.
It's like the fur on a bear.
It's like the proboscis of the long bird beak of a hummingbird or the proboscis of other animals.
It's like the wings of a bee.
You understand, you can't just take away our technological powers and achievement because those are the effects of our brain.
It's like saying, well, beavers, if you don't allow them to build dams, they don't do so well.
It's like, yeah, well, You're taking away one of their survival mechanisms, which is the ability to build dams.
So as far as human beings go, yeah, we're better flyers than birds because we have technology.
We can fly higher, we can fly faster.
And you can say, well, but you can't quite fly as delicately.
It's like, yeah, drones can be pretty good and all that.
But if you allow us, which you should, our technology and our capacity for abstract thought and so on.
Then yeah, I mean what we can do no other animal can do and we can do it in thousands and thousands and thousands of different disciplines.
You understand?
So we have a infinite superiority to the animals in a nearly infinite array of capacities.
So yeah, we're better at just about everything than the animals are.
So we are more successful in that we can do a whole bunch, we can do just about everything the animals can do.
And we can do near infinite things of near infinite things that the animals can't do.
So I was superior that way.
Now let's look at another measure of success.
So of course, success is in a conflict between two animals, the animal that wins the animal that kills or escapes the other animal.
is more successful, right?
I mean, clearly, that would have to be the case, right?
Because if you have two animals that are facing off over a particularly limited set of resources, the like think of a gray squirrels versus red squirrels or whatever it is, right?
This is one of the problems of multiculturalism is that subspecies are all competing for the same resources within group preferences, which leads to huge amounts of social conflict, but If you look at red squirrels versus gray squirrels, if the red squirrels are slower or less aggressive, then they get displaced by the gray squirrels.
And we say, well, the gray squirrel is more successful, because whenever there's a competition between the gray and the red squirrel, in general, on average, the red squirrel loses, the gray squirrel wins, the gray squirrel spreads, and therefore they are more successful.
Okay.
So, let me ask you this.
Can you think Again, allowing man his full access to technology.
Can you think of any situation where a man faces off against an animal with all of his technology and the man loses?
Right?
I mean, think of a machine gun and a bear, right?
I mean, think of a herd of elephants and an airstrike.
I mean, come on, I mean, this is all silly, but you understand, this is the whole point.
You understand, we can defend ourselves against animals really easily, right?
You got a bear, just go into a house, right?
He gets into the house, you've got a gun or whatever, right?
So we can defend ourselves against animals very, very easily.
We displace animals all the time, you know, for better and for worse.
We're just talking about biological success here.
And so, yeah, we, in any, virtually any combat between a human being and an animal, the human being is going to win, right?
Think of those whaling ships firing those horrible harpoons into the ass of a sperm whale and dragging it to the surface to strip it for blubber and Japanese facial creams.
Well, that's a combat between a giant animal.
and a human being.
So all of the animals that were mentioned, right, I mean, they lose against human beings.
Human beings are the most successful species.
We've spread the most, we've grown the most.
And it's true, like rabbits will multiply like crazy as they did in Australia when they first got there, I think.
But then they run out of food and they starve to death.
Now, okay, we've got fiat currency and debt and all that, but we do have that reality that human beings have spread the most, have grown the most, have the most unique capacities.
And you could say, ah, yes, well, but the shark has lasted for 200 million years and who knows?
And yeah, okay, for sure.
But right now, I'm not talking about 10,000 years from now or a million years from now.
Right now, man is the most successful species by just about any metric whatsoever.
I would consider that one pretty much asked and answered.
Now of course, to state a caveat that I add in a lot of my videos, the flaws and fallacies I've risen throughout this video are not exhaustive – there are many more.
But, the ones that I've risen are more than enough to completely invalidate Molyneux's 5 Proofs of UPB, and, by extension, UPB entirely.
Now what's interesting as well, so… Very, very briefly, the argument against theft in UPB goes like this.
Why is theft wrong?
Well, theft cannot be universally preferable behavior because universally preferable behavior means you want to steal and be stolen from at the same time.
You can't want to be stolen from because if you want to have your property taken away from you, it's not theft.
Like if you leave a A lawnmower on the front of your lawn with a sign saying take me, you can't charge someone with theft for taking that lawnmower, right?
So you can't want someone to steal from you.
So theft cannot be universally preferable behavior.
Now you can say that if you don't steal, that can be universally preferable behavior because everyone can logically and practically respect other people's property rights at the same time.
But you cannot Say, theft is universally preferable behavior, because if you want to steal and be stolen from, the concept of theft completely vanishes.
So theft cannot be universally preferable behavior, because if transfers of property are universally preferable, theft ceases to exist as a category, right?
So that's a sort of more practical stuff.
So he's sort of mucking about at some of the proofs, and look, I'm not saying that's irrelevant or invalid, but he has not shown, because he can't show, that human beings require UPB in order to live.
That's just a fact.
You can't, I mean, you can bypass it, you ignore it, you can throw up all these little pictures and so on, but yeah, we need food, we need water, we need shelter, we need a fairly constant temperature to some degree, we need sleep, we need whatever, right?
You need these things in order to live.
And so, people are only alive because they have spent years and years following UPB.
So then to say, well, there's no such thing as UPB is like, look in the mirror, are you breathing?
So, to recap, the first proof is flawed because Premise 2 is a false premise.
guess you can oppose UPB and you've got about a minute or two before you pass out.
In which case, I guess you could take that approach.
So, to recap, the first proof is flawed because premise two is a false premise.
The second proof is flawed because premise one is begging the question and premise four unjustifiably smuggles in the word acceptance.
The third proof is flawed because premise two is begging the question, premise three is a false premise, and premise four is a false premise. - Yes.
The fourth proof is flawed because, premise one, folks, premise three, thanks for sticking around people, the fifth proof is flawed because, premise one is begging the question, and premise two is obvious.
As always, thank you kindly for the view, and here's an overwhelmingly powerful argument to consider.
Organisms require a subscription to rationality rules.
But here's the interesting thing also about syllogisms.
Let's say you've got five syllogisms to prove a particular point and one of them proves it.
The fact that the others don't prove it is not that relevant.
It's like getting someone pregnant.
You only need to get one puck past the goalie.
There were millions of sperm that didn't get the girl pregnant.
It's like, yeah, well, she's still pregnant, right?
So it only takes one.
If I have a particular mathematical proof that's valid, and then I have other things that are supposed to prove the same thing that aren't valid, the one that's valid rules.
If I say, all men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal, that establishes it, assuming we accept the premises.
If I then say, Socrates is mortal because he's bald, Then that's invalid, right?
Because there are hirsute men who are also mortal, right?
So if you have one true proof, one valid argument, even if all the other arguments around it are invalid, you still proved your point.
And you've still established that.
So the way that UPB works is, I say, we have to accept universally preferable behavior.
Here's a bunch of proofs for it.
And I think there are eight or so in there.
And you have to knock all eight down.
If one gets through, Then UPB is established, right?
So the fact that human beings do require universally preferred behavior in order to survive means that everyone who's alive has accepted UPB, has accepted and practiced UPB.
You can't get around that one.
Now, the other ones you can say, well, this word could be defined better.
Yeah, okay, fine, fine, fine.
But it doesn't really matter.
Because as soon as you accept that one, then we move on to the moral argument.
Now, he never gets to the moral argument.
Never gets to the moral argument.
Because, of course, he thinks that he's knocked down all of the proofs or all of the supports for the validity of UPB as a concept and as a practice that people engage in.
You know, even if you say seven of the eight aren't valid, it just takes one.
And you cannot possibly argue against someone, tell them that they're wrong, be alive, and deny UPB.
It's not possible.
So yeah, it's a shame, really.
Look, the first draft, the first version of UPB, it had some refinement to make.
But people focus on those syllogisms, which is fine.
They're support for UPB, they're not proof, and I sort of say that embedded in a lot of the arguments as evidence for and so on.
But they don't get to this issue of theft, rape, assault, murder, which is the foundational core of UPB.
So yeah, I mean, it's a shame.
really understand the arguments.
Now, I'm not going to say that's entirely his fault.
I mean, I've learned a lot in how to communicate things since I first wrote the book 10 years ago.
And I've got a whole bunch of debates.
I got a whole bunch of explanatory articles and a whole bunch of a whole book, section of a book now on UPB, which will help.
And so it's not his fault if I was not as clear as I wanted to be.
But at the same time, he definitely is willfully ignoring it, bypassing the basic thing too.
Because the other thing too is that, if you just look at this whole argument, right?
Just look at this whole thing, right?
A refutation, right?
The five proofs.
So he's saying that my support for UPB is invalid.
So you understand that that means that I'm objectively and universally wrong.
And he thinks, he thinks somehow that telling me that I'm universally, that my behavior of publishing the book, of writing the book and so on, defending the book, that my behavior is universally, preferably incorrect, that I'm universally and preferably wrong in my behavior.
This is somehow a repudiation of universally preferable behavior.
So check out the book.
Essential philosophy is the one to get, and you can listen to it, you can read it, and it goes into a more clear explanation.
I did have 10 years of rebuttals in order to refine the argument, but no, I'm sorry.
Rationality rules.
You didn't make it.
You didn't even come close to make it.
Making it, you straw-manned, and you rolled your eyes and so on, which I guess is not an argument.
And basically, until you can prove to me that human beings do not have objective requirements for survival, rationality, my friend, is not ruling.
But here's the thing, here's the thing that makes this whole video rebuttal such an exercise in willful futility and absolutely blind self-regard.
Strong case?
Let's see if we can make it, shall we?
So this young man, you see, tells me That there's no such thing as objective truth, but that I am objectively wrong.
This young man tells me that there's no such thing as universally preferable behavior, and then chides me, dismisses me, is snarky, and attacks me, and tells me I'm absolutely wrong, because my arguments aren't logical.
Is being logical universally preferable behavior?
Of course it is.
That's why he claims the right To dismiss my arguments, to kind of insult me, to insult my listeners, to call me a fool, because I'm wrong!
Objectively!
Universally!
Absolutely!
Empirically!
Rationally!
You name it, I'm wrong!
It's not just his opinion.
He's not like, well, you know, Steph says that he likes Fight Club, but I prefer Room with a View, but you know, hey, taste is taste, you know, you can... No, no, no, no.
This is what's so funny.
Watching people Argue against UPB is like watching those birds peck into a mirror over and over again, or watching those kittens attack a mirror over and over again.
I know that's not an argument, but it's true.
Because the only way that you can tell me that I'm wrong is through an appeal to universally preferable behavior.
If I had put out arguments that this young man found rational, Syllogistically sound, valid in their conclusions, then he would have agreed with me.
But I didn't do that, according to him.
Therefore, I am wrong.
I am not conforming to the universally preferable behavior of creating and communicating rational arguments.
I don't know how to make it any more clear.
He can't call me wrong about UPB without reference to UPB.
It is universally preferable That I make true arguments rather than false arguments.
That my arguments are logically sound rather than unsound.
That my syllogisms tie together.
That my conclusions are valid.
The only way that he can say that I'm wrong is through an appeal to UPB.
is infinitely preferable to error.
He didn't say, well, I'll give him a 95% on his arguments, but maybe a 96% would have been if they were logical and valid and true and blah, blah, blah, right?
He doesn't say that.
It is minus infinity to be illogical and plus infinity good to be logical.
You understand?
You can't argue against UPB.
Without invoking UPB.
You can't do it.
You just can't.
And this whole rebuttal is an absolute affirmation of UPB.
It is universally preferable behavior to make sound, rational arguments, which he argues that I didn't and therefore I'm wrong.
Catastrophically wrong.
Appallingly wrong.
Terribly wrong.
Right?
He can't call me wrong without reference to UPP.
I know I'm repeating myself, but it's so hard for people, it seems, to just grasp this foundational point.
Once you get this foundational point, which to a lot of people appears to be watching a giraffe swallow a watermelon or a bunker buster, but once you grasp that fundamental thing, and I'm sorry, I don't mean to say grasp like, oh, it's so hard.
It is really hard to grasp.
You have to catch yourself in the act of debating and say, what is it that I'm doing?
I'm imposing universal standards and values and requirements on someone else.
That's UPB.
Right there.
You cannot correct someone without reference to UPB.
UPB cannot be denied.
Now, you can refrain from the argument completely and then I don't know what you think, but the moment you correct someone, you're UPB based life form.
There's no way around it.
There's no way to avoid it.
You can try and step over it, but it's just like one of those rakes in a Laurel and Hardy movie, comes up and whacks you in the face.
But you need to have humility to do that.
Rather than focus on someone else's arguments, you need to focus on what it is that you're doing.
What am I doing in the very act of debating, in the very act of arguing, in the very act of universally and objectively correcting somebody else's errors?
If everything is taste, I can't be wrong.
But this young man has completely accepted that not everything is taste.
Because I'm wrong.
And that's the beauty of it.
When it comes to UPB, if you call me wrong, I'm just more right.
But here it is.
This is really the most important aspect of what this young man is talking about.
So let's go back to 349.
Because I like it very much so when we can disprove people's arguments without reference to external facts, data, research, things you have to look up just to use their logic against them to undermine a false and, to me, morally reprehensible position, which we'll get to in a moment.
So let's go back to 349 here.
What exactly is wrong with Molyneux's first proof?
Well, to put it bluntly, Premise 2 is simply incorrect.
It's a false premise.
If I state a preference for truth over falsehood when debating UPB, this does not mean that I have a preference for truth over falsehood in all things.
For example, if there was a scenario in which I had to choose between knowing the truth but permanently diminishing the well-being of organisms, or not knowing the truth but permanently improving the well-being of organisms, I would choose the latter every time.
Now this is a lie.
I don't think it's a conscious lie – it doesn't really matter – but it's an egregious and wrong and immoral falsehood.
Why?
So, he says that he would prefer to improve the well-being of organisms even if it meant sacrificing the truth.
Now, universally preferable behavior proves that rape, theft, assault, and murder are immoral.
And of course, they harm organisms.
They harm living creatures, in particular, of course, the people who are assaulted, raped, murdered, and stolen from.
And this guy says That he would prefer to sacrifice the truth in order to enhance the well-being of organisms.
Are you beginning to see the problem here?
The sophistry, the lies, the falsehood, the lack of commitment to even his own ethical standard.
Horrible.
Wretched.
Ridiculous.
Wrong.
Because, you see, let's say he believes, obviously, that UPB is false.
He's wrong, which is even worse, but let's just say he's right.
He believes that UPB is false.
UPB is wrong.
It is false to say that UPB is true.
But, you see, if people accept UPB, if he promotes the theory, if people accept UPB, what happens?
What happens is, people will stop, or at least they will reduce the prevalence of theft, rape, assault, and murder.
You understand?
It's like a doctor saying, well, if I have to tell a lie to get someone to take his medicine, I will tell that lie.
And you say, OK, well, here's a medicine.
Well, no, you see, I'm not going to tell that lie.
Well, then he's not willing to sacrifice the truth to improve the well-being of organisms.
We'll just talk about people.
This is an ethical theory related to people.
He says, I will dump the truth in order to improve the well-being of human beings, but he knows that if people accept UPB, the prevalence of rape, theft, assault and murder are going to decline, perhaps enormously.
So why isn't he sacrificing the truth that UPB is false, according to him, in order to spread it and improve the well-being of organisms everywhere, of people, civilizations, cultures?
So what does it mean?
When he says he's very happy to sacrifice the truth in order to enhance the well-being of people.
But he's arguing against a moral philosophy that, if accepted, would reduce the prevalence of rape, theft, assault, and murder among people.
How many people is he willing to have these crimes committed against because he's not willing to let go of the truth and enhance The happiness of organisms.
And this is the result, you see, of opposing an ethical theory that bans rape, theft, assault and murder.
What are the consequences of opposing this moral theory?
Now, you can oppose the moral theory It would be nice if you were right.
You can logically oppose the moral theory and say, well, I don't give a rat's ass about people getting raped, stolen from, assaulted, and murdered, because things have to be logically pristine.
And I find this theory logically wanting, rationally.
Then you can say, okay, well, I don't really care about people getting raped, assaulted, stolen from, and murdered, because my platonic logical purity is more important than these crimes that are committed against actual human beings.
Okay, I think it's cold as hell, but you can say it.
But that's not what this guy says.
One more time, because it's important.
One more time.
If there was a scenario in which I had to choose between knowing the truth but permanently diminishing the well-being of organisms.
This is what's so crazy to me about these kinds of videos.
This is a scenario, my friend.
This is a scenario right here.
You did it two years ago.
It's a scenario right here, right now.
You have the chance to reject the truth, UBB is wrong, and it will permanently enhance the well-being of people.
But you didn't take that, did you?
So even by your own argument, you're not only wrong, you're immoral.
Well, thank you so much for enjoying this latest free domain show on philosophy and And I'm going to be frank and ask you for your help, your support, your encouragement, and your resources.
Please like, subscribe, and share, and all of that good stuff to get philosophy out into the world.
And also, equally importantly, go to freedomain.com forward slash donate.
To help out the show, to give me the resources that I need to bring more and better philosophy to an increasingly desperate world.
