All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 21, 2024 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
56:10
PHILOSOPHY REVIEW! The Anti-Subjectivist Manifesto
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning, hope you're doing well.
It's bright and early in the AM and we are going to do a little bit of work of dry analytical philosophy.
Now this may lack some of the fire and brimstone of my other kinds of philosophical teachings and live streams but sometimes I think there's a certain amount of detail and precision that's just very helpful to go through and so let's do something maybe just a tiny bit dry but For me, kind of the heart and essence of philosophy.
So this is something someone sent to me called the Anti-Subjectivist Manifesto, The Case for Consent.
And here is how I go about analyzing a document.
I've given it a quick skim.
I haven't finished it, but let's do it live.
It's a nice quote from Socrates.
It is not difficult to avoid death, gentlemen.
It is much more difficult to avoid wickedness, for it runs faster than death.
You know, it's interesting and fun.
Doesn't help you much in life, but it's kind of fun.
All right.
So...
We start with this is going to be a moral treatise.
So this is similar to UPB or the Nicomachean Ethics from Aristotle or I guess the case for normative ethics from Kant and so on.
So we're going to have a look at this and see how it does.
So he says, the nature of the manifesto is to inform others.
OK.
To profess some great insight, motivation or cause in a manner that is both poignant and powerful.
Our goal with this piece is to do just that for an ethical theory known as anti-subjectivism.
A theory that not only offers a normative framework for determining the rightness or wrongness of a given set of actions, but also a meta-ethical logic used to evaluate all ethical theories and a growing breadth of creators and philosophers developing applied instances of the theory.
Right.
So that's interesting to me.
I look at the form and the content of an opening paragraph with great detail because that's your hook, right?
That's what you're trying to get people to be interested in.
I generally find that humility is one of the things I'm looking for.
And humility is to recognize the skepticism of the person who is reading the piece.
So if, as I did with UPB, you claim to have solved the eternal problem of secular ethics, of ethics, without God's commandments, references to evolutionary adaptation, the benefit of the organism, or the arbitrary fists of the laws, if you have solved the problem of ethics for all time, People are going to be skeptical, of course, absolutely, completely and totally.
And, you know, when I was out in the software field, I wrote the best software around for the field that I was in.
But, of course, I would understand that people had doubt about that.
So, I would approach with all humility, say, I'm going to make some pretty wild claims here, but I'm going to try and back them up.
So, of course, I opened UPB with, I understand why you'd be skeptical that I've solved this problem.
Now, that's not In fact, but if you're going to make a claim that you've solved the eternal problem of ethics, don't just assume you have and that it's kind of no big thing in a way, because it is the very biggest.
It's the holy grail and the final prize of philosophy.
So, what do we say here?
The nature of the manifesto is to inform others.
Well, here's the thing.
If you don't know what a manifesto is, I'm not sure you'd be reading a manifesto.
And so, if I say that the purpose of my writing is to communicate, I'm not sure that that's really necessary in a way.
You know, that, of course, to inform others.
And that's not specific or detailed enough, right?
The nature of the manifesto is to inform others.
Well, we have a category error at the very opening sentence, right?
Because the nature of all communication is to inform others.
I mean, it could be to misinform others, but certainly to pass information across.
So the nature of the manifesto is to inform others.
And is it to inform others?
Because that's not precise either.
Because if you have an announcement that your flight has moved from gate 57 to gate 59, you're being informed.
But that's not an argument.
It's got nothing to do with ethics.
It's not a manifesto.
So if you're going to say to inform others, Then you'd have to say why a manifesto is different from all other forms of information transfer.
So it's a little imprecise.
It says to profess some great insight, motivation, or cause in a manner that is both poignant and powerful.
Okay, so this is going to be like the sort of rousing, workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains.
Insight, motivational cause, inner math, poignant and powerful.
Okay, so that's a big claim.
They say we've got this manifesto and then they say it's going to be powerful, this is going to be a call to arms, this is going to be rousing, passionate.
Okay, so it's not really informing, it's inspiring, you could say.
This is our goal with this piece, right?
Why is it being called a piece now?
Right, so we say this is a manifesto.
You say, the nature of the manifesto, the goal of this piece.
Okay, so we've got, now it's being called a piece.
Why would you define it as a manifesto and then call it something else in the third sentence?
It's a bit odd.
For an ethical theory known as anti-subjectivism, a theory that not only offers a normative framework for determining the rightness and wrongness of a given set of actions, but also a meta-ethical logic used to evaluate all ethical theories in a growing breadth of creators and philosophers.
Okay, so now we have, to me, some significant problems.
We've got great insight, we've got motivation, we've got cause, and now it's a theory and also normative framework for determining the quote rightness and wrongness of a given set of actions, not a given action, given set of actions.
Now he says, so they say here, First of all, don't use the word normative.
For most people, they don't know normative means in accordance with particular norms or objective standards.
So don't use that because you want ethics to be available to the general population.
So you have to write at the level that the general population understands.
So don't use technical terms like normative.
So here, What I think is interesting is they say a normative framework for determining... Now, why are quote rightness and quote wrongness?
Why would they be in quotes?
I don't quite understand that.
I mean, if you were to say in engineering, you know, this is a methodology for figuring out whether a building will quote stand.
It's like, well, no, I want the building to stand.
I don't want the building to quote stand.
You know, if you're a salesman and you come back to your boss, he says, how was your day?
And you say, oh, I made a quote sale.
It's like, what?
That's confusing.
Why are you putting quotes around things?
Now, the other thing I find confusing, it's not the rightness and wrongness of an action, a given set of actions.
Now, the rightness and wrongness of a given set of actions is a moral theory.
Right, so is it right to violate the non-aggression principle?
That's a given set of actions.
You know, rape, theft, assault, murder all violate the non-aggression principle.
So it says here, it's a normative framework for determining the rightness and wrongness of a given set of actions, but also a meta-ethical logic.
Yeah, what does meta-ethical logic mean?
I don't know.
I couldn't tell you for the life of me.
Use to evaluate all ethical theories.
So it says it's not only, like an ethical theory is that which determines the rightness and wrongness of a given set of actions, right?
So it's precision.
An ethical theory is that which determines the rightness and wrongness of a given set of actions.
So we say it's not only, it's given that these are synonyms to evaluate, like ethical theories and the rightness and wrongness of a given set of actions, these are synonyms.
So it not only offers a normative framework for determining the rightness and wrongness of a given set of actions, but also a meta-ethical logic used to evaluate all ethical theories.
Alright?
So these are the same things.
Right, so if it said the rightness or wrongness of a particular action, okay, that's one.
So, it's like a biologist saying, I have a way of not only defining mammals, but also defining mammals, right?
So this is not particularly precise.
All right.
So he says, the term anti-subjectivism in modern philosophy holds deep connotations to the moral realist positions on the nature of ethical truths.
This is not a position of the anti-subjectivism we here shall propose.
Rather, this theory was constructed under the notion that ethical realism is an unfounded position, and as a result, none of her arguments will rely on a conception of any ethical, quote, truths woven into reality, nor power beyond our comprehension which has created any such truths.
Okay, so here we go back.
So the purpose of the manifesto To profess some great insight, motivation, or cause in a matter that is both poignant and powerful.
We've got some poetry, we've got some passion, we've got some exhortation, some enthusiasm, some inspiration.
Except we don't.
We don't.
It's like saying a manifesto is there to poetically inspire people to greatness and then you publish your laundry list or your shopping list or whatever, right?
It doesn't match, right?
So the promise is, this is going to be both poignant and powerful, right?
And you better start delivering, right?
So now we're into a paragraph and a half and there's nothing poignant or powerful.
All right.
The term anti-subjectivism in modern philosophy holds deep connotations to the moral realist positions on the nature of ethical truth.
What does this mean?
Remember, you're talking to people about the nature of goodness.
And if you're talking to people about the nature of goodness, please, please, please talk in a language that they can understand.
Please, I'm begging you, talk in a language that they can understand.
If people cannot understand the language, then they're going to tune out.
Define your terms, build from the ground up, start with kindergarten ethics, show how it's going to matter in people's lives.
All right.
So here, The term anti-subjectivism in modern philosophy, this is not a position of the anti-subjectivism we here shall propose.
So what they're saying is there's a term called anti-subjectivism and we're going to completely redefine it.
So I guess then my question is why would you hijack a well-known term and redefine it for your own purposes?
Right?
I mean if I were to say I'm going to redefine subjective as objective.
So, I'm going to say that subjectivism now means a belief and acceptance of objective reality.
It's like, why would you use the term subjectivism and then redefine it to the opposite, right?
So, again, this is kind of murky and how does this help the average person understand morals?
And how is it poignant and powerful?
All right.
Okay, so I understand none of our arguments will rely on a conception of any ethical truths woven into reality, right?
So this is the Humean is-ought distinction, right?
You can't get an ought from an is.
Nor power beyond a comprehension which has created any such, quote, truths.
So this is religious ethics.
Okay, got it.
So it's not the nature of reality that we're getting our morals from, and it is not a divine commandment that we're getting our morals from.
Okay, that's fine.
Our goal is not to dupe, swindle, trick, or manipulate our way into a popular adoption of these ideas.
Instead, we would like to present to you the arguments which have compelled us, by the force of reason alone, to construct this manifesto for you today.
All right.
So, for a moralist to say his goal is to be moral, or for a moralist to say... I'm just going to... I know this more than one person, but I'm not going to keep doing the they-them.
Who wrote this?
So when a moralist says my goal is to not dupe, swindle, trick or manipulate you, I always get a little suspicious with that.
Because if you're not going to swindle me, just don't swindle me.
Right?
But if you say our goal is to not Don't swindle, trick or manipulate our way.
I don't know.
It's sort of odd.
Like if someone comes up to you in a business meeting, shakes your hand and says, my goal in this business meeting is not to dupe, swindle, trick or manipulate you.
It'd be like, well, isn't that kind of a given?
Like, why would you say that?
All right.
But before we dive into the discussion of anti-subjectivism directly, we feel it important to lay out some basic statements about reality that may be useful to help contextualize this philosophy.
Okay, I'm still not seeing this poignant and powerful stuff.
All right.
Establishing requirements.
We believe there to be three key aspects of the universe and our existence in it that must be directly addressed and agreed on before any ethical theory can be built.
Okay.
Rights.
Okay.
Honestly, I appreciate the effort.
I really do.
And I don't want to sound condescending.
A lot of effort goes into that kind of things.
But if you're going to make a case for ethics, right?
If you're going to make a case for ethics, you cannot start with, we believe.
You cannot start with, we believe.
You know?
If you say to a little kid, do you believe in Santa Claus?
And they say, I believe in Santa Claus.
Does that have anything to do with objective reality.
It is a statement of subjective acceptance of a truth that is unproven.
I don't believe that two and two is four.
Two and two is four.
So we believe there to be three key aspects that must... Okay, but why?
Is it your belief or is it a fact?
Right?
And this is a problem, right?
Okay.
Reality Reality exists subjectively.
The three laws of logic are a necessary foundation for any ethical theory.
The default ethical environment of all living creatures is amoral.
Okay?
So, that's fine.
This is saying here the things that need to be established, right?
So I would say, rather, there need to be three key aspects of the universe and our existence in it that must be directly addressed and agreed on.
Okay, but why?
But if you already agree on stuff, you don't need ethics.
Ethics is for people who completely disagree with you.
Rather, the ethical theory would be for people who disagree with you.
So if you say, well, we need to agree on these things and then we can move forward, it's... I mean, honestly, this is like in a court system, if the prosecution says to the defense, or the prosecution says to the accused, well, all we have to do, okay, let's agree that you're guilty and we'll move on from there.
And it's like, whoa, whoa, whoa.
What are we, in a Stalin show trial here?
So, you can't just say, we need to agree on these things and then we can move forward.
Uh, no.
If you're at a yard sale and there's an old lawnmower there, and...
Somebody comes up to you from the art sale and says, okay, so we agree that this is a million dollars and you'll pay it, so just if you could give me the money, right?
We're like, what?
How do we agree already, right?
All right, so sorry, this is kind of, okay.
So, one, reality exists objectively.
For the first claim, it is necessary for any system of normative ethics to accept, even if done so arbitrarily, that reality exists in an objective manner.
Why?
So we've gone from we believe to it is necessary.
So for the prosecution to say, to put you in prison, the prosecution, it is necessary for them to prove to the jury
that you're guilty and for the jury to...
Vote that you're guilty.
Right?
So, for you to go to prison, it is necessary for the jury to vote you guilty.
But that still doesn't mean that you're guilty.
That is necessary.
But how is that true?
Right?
For you to accept what I'm saying, it is necessary that you believe my argument, you accept my argument, and so on.
But that doesn't mean that my argument is true.
So, for the first claim, it is necessary for any system of normative ethics to accept, even if done so arbitrarily, that reality exists in an objective manner.
What the heck does this mean?
Even if done so arbitrarily?
So, again, this is Diet Books for Thin People.
This is people saying, hey man, I...
I want you to accept reason and objectivity, so the way that we do that, as I say, it is necessary for you to accept reason and objectivity.
Well, that's not... Why would I?
I mean, the whole point is, what if you don't?
How do you get people to accept it if you don't, right?
There exist large swaths of claims in support of the contrary.
To the contrary of this position, however, none of these claims bridge the inability for solipsistic or ideologically similar worldviews to facilitate any ethical theories.
What the hell?
I'm going right back up here, too.
Is this... I told me to laugh.
Come on, guys.
You say this is going to be poignant and powerful, and you get into this... What is a technical word salad that's undefined?
There exist large swaths of claims in support to the contrary of this position.
However, none of these claims bridge the inability for solipsistic or ideologically similar worldviews to facilitate any ethical theories.
What the hell?
Okay.
Uh, our response to any individual who would reject this assertion of objective reality is a simple one.
There is no amount of argumentation, logic, reasoning, or civil conversation that could bridge the gap between the claims presented in this essay and a rejection of reality wholesale.
Uh, our response to any individual who would reject this assertion of objective reality is a simple one.
There's no amount of argumentation, logic, and reasoning Okay, if any reader exists as a solipsist and would like to participate in a consistent ethical theory with their imaginary companions, we encourage them to continue reading and perhaps live this theory out in their own world.
However, this manifesto will prove highly lacking in cogency and explanatory power for any with a pre-existing perspective as such.
Okay, so they're saying The world is me.
It's to some degree the Cartesian brain of the tank stuff.
It's a narcissistic worldview.
Well, but you have to find a way to push back on people who don't believe what you're saying, right?
You can't say, well, okay, we just have to accept that reality exists objectively.
You have to find a way To get people to accept that reality exists subjectively.
Now, of course, they'll say, well, if you reject that reality exists subjectively, then you can't be convinced.
That's what they're saying.
Like, we have to agree that reality exists subjectively, otherwise we can't have a conversation.
But if you say, my theory is true if you accept all of my premises, right?
So, they've got three premises, right?
The reality exists subjectively, three laws of logic, and living creatures are amoral.
And so you have to establish these things.
Because if they have an ethical theory that relies on these things and we say, okay, if you assume that all of my premises are true, but the whole point of debate of philosophy is you have to assume that nobody believes in what you're saying.
And you have to establish it from first principles, right?
Okay.
So, yeah, saying this in this manifesto is not going to make any sense if you're narcissistic and don't believe in objective reality.
It's like, okay, So, Philip K. Dick, reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
Alright?
So, this is how they deal with reality subjectively.
They say, well, this is required for our theory.
Which, again, these are people that have just never been in any kind of objective business situation.
Right?
So, what I mean by that is, they have not, let me just make sure the recording is still going.
Yeah.
So when you go to get investment into your business and you have, you say, here's my income, here's my expenses projected over five years, right?
Then if they're interested in your business, then they're going to wrangle with the numbers, right?
So if you say, well, I'm going to, I'm going to spend 3 million, we're going to make 5 million.
I spend 3 million, but I'm going to make 5 million, right?
And if you go into them and they say, okay, so you have to, In order to invest in my company, you have to accept these numbers.
And they'd say, well, why do I have to accept these numbers?
Right?
We have to wrangle about these numbers.
I need to see the proof.
I need to see the research.
I need to see your experience.
I need to see market conditions.
I need to see competition.
I need to see earnings before taxes.
EBITDA.
Taxes.
Interest.
EBITDA.
Earnings before interest.
Taxes.
Deductions.
I can't remember.
EBITDA, right?
So I need to see all of these things so you can't just say well you need to accept my business projections in order to find my company valuable.
It's like I actually don't have to accept these things.
You have to prove them to me.
If you go up to a woman and say well you have to accept that I'm the perfect man for you and you can't do any better in order to go on a date with me and she'd say well why do I have to accept that?
Don't you have to kind of establish that?
All right.
The three laws of logic are a necessary foundation for any ethical theory.
Now, that is a radical statement, because getting from the three laws of logic to morals prior to UPB was an insurmountable task.
So that is a very, very radical argument, to say that you can get to an ought from an is, that you can get from logic to ethics is a massive, massive, massively, Aristotle didn't do it, Plato didn't do it, Kant didn't do it, and Ayn Rand didn't do it, I mean, so, this is a big thing, right?
So, alright, regarding so, this is a radical claim, and radical claims require radical proof, right?
Regarding the second, oh sorry, so just go back up here, so reality exists objectively, how do you prove that to people?
Who don't believe it?
Well, you point out that them denying your claim requires that they use objective reality.
Right, so that's how you do it, right?
So if somebody says to you, I don't believe in objective reality, well you've just said I, you've made an argument using sound waves, relying on my hearing, using the medium of air in objective reality, using language that is defined objectively, and so you can't deny the existence of objective reality to someone without utilizing and accepting the existence of objective reality, and that's how you prove it to people, right?
Now, people can say no to that as well, but then they're obviously wrong to everyone, right?
It doesn't matter so much if people are wrong, if they accept that they're wrong.
What matters is other people accept that they're wrong, right?
So, if somebody says, if somebody on a street corner says, I have three invisible space aliens standing on my head, you can't probably convince them otherwise, but everybody else understands that they're crazy, and, right, so that's enough for the ethical theory to spread.
All right.
All right.
Regarding the second claim, so it's a claim, it's not proven, right?
So they're saying it's a claim, which means that they've got to prove it, right?
Regarding the second claim, without the ability to apply logic and rationalization, In a consistent manner, there is no way to construct any ethical theory.
Why?
There absolutely are ways to construct ethical theories.
Right?
You can say the greatest good of the greatest number, pragmatism, utilitarianism, there's the There's Kant's categorical imperative, there is Ayn Rand's that which is good for man, there is the highest pursuit of morals, eudaimonia from Aristotle, there's of course the commandments of God for
many religious theologians and ethical theories so just saying it's crazy it's crazy so maybe you say these houses are built badly but if you say without bricks there's no way to build a house you're ignoring all of the houses out of clay and and sticks and I don't know whatever right you can wood right beams right so if you you can say that a brick house is superior to a house made out of wood I guess this is so we get into Three Little Pigs territory.
But you can't say, without bricks, there's simply no way to build a house.
Because there are houses all over the place that are not built with bricks.
So, I don't know.
And also, we've got logic.
And rationalization.
Now rationalization is a word that is quite technical and usually meant in a psychological way.
So people who rationalize their beliefs are people who apply ex post facto reasoning to what they already believe.
Right?
So if you're told that Donald Trump is the worst guy ever, then everything that you see is curated to and inhabits that filter.
Right?
If you hit your kids when you're angry and then later you say, well I had to hit you because it kept you safe or whatever, you're rationalizing, you're applying ex-post-factor reasoning to something that isn't rational or wasn't reasoned at the time.
So you can't just say logic and then use the word rationalization, which is a psychological term for false reasoning, I mean, maybe they're using it in some other context, but if you're aiming this at the general audience, then you can't just, which, you know, if you've got a Philip K. Dick quote, you probably are.
You can't just use a term that means the opposite of reasoning.
Rationalization is not reasoning.
So, without the ability to apply logic and anti-logic in a consistent manner, it's like, what does this mean?
Okay.
Without the laws of identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle, reigning supreme, arguments, claims, and truth have no meaning.
Again, this is a statement, right?
As these laws are necessarily axiomatic, they must be adopted without a logical proof justifying them in themselves.
So necessarily axiomatic is not true.
Not true.
So there are people who live who are crazy, right?
And necessarily axiomatic They must be adopted without a logical proof justifying them in themselves.
But you can absolutely provide a logical proof for logic and objective reality.
Everybody who is alive to debate has followed the dictates of objective reality in order to survive.
They have eaten food, not gravel.
They have breathed air, not water.
They have drunk water, not poison or air.
And so, in order to survive, you have to follow the dictates of objective reality And you have to be logical in how you solve the basic problems of survival and existence.
That you need food, water, rest, shelter, and all that, right?
So, all who are alive are alive To the degree that I have followed objective requirements and rational actions.
I mean, it doesn't mean that they're perfectly rational, of course, right?
But it just means that in order to get to be a 25-year-old who's debating, you have to have followed reason and evidence and objectivity and so on in order to gain sustenance from reality.
So you can prove these things.
All right.
The law of identity A equals A, for example, does not exist because some other aspect of reality has allowed us to derive this concept and to verify its authenticity outside itself.
The law can only be verified by its lack of a counter-example.
Again, I'm going back up here to we want it to be what?
Poignant and powerful, right?
So, no.
The law of identity exists because another aspect of reality has allowed us to derive this concept.
So the law of identity exists because of the nature of reality.
A carbon atom is a carbon atom and not a carbon atom and a hydrogen atom at the same time.
Right, so all the way down, right, an orange is an orange, not an orange, and a banana and an elephant tusk, and a concept at the same time.
Right, so the law of identity is concepts match the predictable behavior of matter and energy.
So the law of identity, laws of logic, are derived from what is in the world, what is in the universe, what is in objectivity that is not only transmitted through the evidence of our senses but also defined at a scientific and cellular level and a atomic level.
So yeah, the law of identity is because of the nature of atoms and the laws of physics.
From the laws of logic, what truths there are of reality can be derived because they are necessary products of these laws.
Any theory of any sort which either does not consider these laws or either intentionally or unintentionally violates one of the laws of logic cannot be seriously stated to have any substantive explanatory power or founded basis requiring its existence.
It's all kind of special pleading, right?
This is all Uh, Thomas Paine quote and so on, right?
So, you're just saying, like, you have to accept these as necessarily axiomatic, right?
So, but if the laws of logic are necessarily axiomatic, then you're trying to make people more rational.
by saying well you have to totally accept the laws of logic but of course if they're not rational then they have to have rejected the laws of logic to some degree at least conceptually and so you have to cross that gap, right?
I mean if you're a nutritionist you have to accept that the reason you are a nutritionist is some people eat badly and need to eat better, right?
So saying well it's axiomatic that everybody eats perfectly would mean that there's no need 4.
A nutritionist and if you're gonna say that these laws are necessarily axiomatic then you're saying well everybody's already perfectly logical and therefore we're right but of course you're trying to reason people into something and therefore you have to accept that they've rejected reason to some degree so you have to find a way to bridge that gap and get them to accept reason.
Okay.
3.
The default ethical environment of all living creatures is amoral.
And finally, for the third, claim.
See, they say a claim.
You can't just go from a claim to a... it's necessarily axiomatic, right?
Because these two things are not.
A claim is something you say is true and needs to be established.
The claim is Bob is guilty of assault, right?
So you can't say the charge against Bob, the claim against Bob is that he beat up Sally.
Now, it's necessarily axiomatic that Bob beat up Sally, and it's like, well no, you can't be both a claim and necessarily axiomatic.
The term state of nature exists as this amoral environment with large historical context grounding it firmly in the minds of many philosophers.
We will be dedicating a large section of this manifesto to properly outlining the state of nature as viewed by anti-subjectivists However, for those of prior knowledge on this topic, it can be tacitly conflated with the Hobbesian conception.
Still, it is important to note that they are not identical.
Okay.
I'm still looking for the inspiring poetic poignant stuff.
All right.
Several key points of differentiation between the Hobbesian and anti-subjective is interpretation of the state of nature include the expansion of the state of nature to all living creatures in nature.
The term nature being synonymous with existing in reality.
No.
Unless you mean the natural world which includes rocks, mountains and so on.
So if you're going to say there's a state of nature that applies to animals and nature is now applicable to all atoms and energy across the universe, that's a problem, right?
That's a problem.
So, the Hobbesian state of nature is about animals.
There's no such thing as a rock that exists in a state of nature, or a cloud, or anything like that.
It has to do with living creatures that can impose will on others.
So, let's see here.
State of nature.
The expansion of the state of nature to all living creatures in nature.
The term nature being synonymous with existing in reality.
So it's true that living creatures exist in reality, but so do rocks and asteroids and suns and moons.
Right, anyway.
Be it ant, deer, or human, and the affirmation that no living being is born with any objective moral authority over any other living being, thereby evolving Hobbes' claim that there being no natural tyrants in a physical sense to a moral sense.
Okay.
Not quite sure I follow.
They're kind of gish galloping here in that each one of these sentences could be a whole book, right?
Any ethical theory without a proper conception of the state of nature which is appropriately addressed is omitting by their own volition the most basal state of existence for any living creature which we can directly observe and evince.
Oh yeah, these kinds of events and so on, that is, it's a ten dollar word designed to slightly intimidate.
As the state of nature is the broader context from which any ethical theory ought to be in direct consideration when developing both its justification and claims, anti-subjectivism naturally places a large focus on the topic.
There is no accurate description of existence, where the state of nature is omitted, and as such we believe it to be highly telling of both the credibility and explanatory power of any ethical theory when it fails to address this massive elephant in the room, akin to designing a submarine with no mention of water.
Okay, analogies are not proof, but they can certainly help explain.
But they're not proof.
So, there is no accurate description of existence wherein the state of nature is omitted.
So, I don't know, man.
I mean, I think the state of nature stuff is interesting, but is science justified by saying that, say, before modern Baconian science like 16th century, is science valid or invalid?
without addressing the lack of science in the past.
Right?
Are antibiotics validated when they were invented or created?
Are antibiotics validated by pointing out that there were not antibiotics in the past?
Is quantum physics true because quantum physics is new?
And quantum physics has to refer to the prior to quantum physics state of science.
Last one, right?
So there was Newtonian physics, then there was Einsteinian physics.
Is Einsteinian physics... Can Einsteinian physics be judged on a standalone basis or does Einsteinian physics need to prove itself relative to all that was pre-Einsteinian physics, right?
So does an ethical theory have to deal with the fact that prior to philosophy, reason, conceptual abilities, language and usually the written word and a capacity to argue and debate and so on.
Does an ethical theory have to explain everything that occurred prior to the development of our capacity for ethical theories?
It's a concept validated by referring to all of the creatures that don't have man's conceptual ability.
I don't think that, I mean UPB ...does not need to show that prior to UPB, there was a state of nature.
Or all moral theories at some point in our 150,000 or 200,000 year evolution there were no particular moral theories and it was a state of nature.
Is an ethical theory proven or disproven if it references the state of nature or not?
Now they're saying well yeah and I'm like if the theory is valid and true it doesn't matter that in the past people didn't believe the theory.
or didn't know the theory or didn't accept the theory.
The theory is true based upon its relationship to reason and evidence.
If it's rational and if the evidence fully supports it that's true as you can get.
And so I don't think that modern scientists say well in the past there was no modern science so all of my scientific theories have to make reference to that fact and show how science evolved out of non-science And so, I don't think ethical theories need to say, here's how we developed out of non-ethical theories.
Alright, let's see here.
So, ethical philosophies all begin with, whether they realize it or not, the hypothetical imperative that people's goal is to live above the state of nature, the reality in which they are subjected to the force of might makes right.
Yeah?
That people's goal is to live above the state of nature.
Well, of course the state of nature is when animals use their best abilities to coercively extract resources from others, and false ethical theories are the weapon by which people extract resources and labor and money from others.
So ethical theories are used in general to take from people without risk.
So some guy tries to rob you in an alley, you can fight back, you can beat him up or something like that.
But if there's a false law, an immoral law that transfers property and everyone believes in it, then you can make a huge amount of money out of that.
So ethical theories are generally weapons used by people who exist in an actual state of nature while claiming the opposite.
And that's, I mean, that's empirically verifiable all over the place, right?
He says, on the other hand, science begins with the laws of logic derived from the consistency of the universe.
Ah!
Interesting.
Laws of logic derived from the consistency of the universe.
But if we go back up here to laws of logic, all these laws are necessarily axiomatic, they must be adopted without a logical proof justifying them in themselves.
Whereas down here we say laws of logic are derived from the consistency of the universe.
And this allows irrational or arbitrary selections in any given theory.
Alright?
Non-arbitrariness ensures that the... I think non-arbitrariness is just consistency, isn't it?
Anyway, non-arbitrariness ensures that the results of such theories will not produce unforeseen conflict when applied in reality.
If the logic of the theory is sound, it stands to reason it will produce the expected outcomes.
For ethical theories that wish to accomplish their fundamental goal, the same is true.
In order to ensure that any given ethical theory will continually facilitate an individual's existence above the state of nature, we must subject philosophy to the same primacy of logic and absence of arbitrariness utilized by the sciences, thus preventing ourselves from developing theories that, when applied in reality, prescribe mutually exclusive or conflict-generating behaviors, might-based.
This is not particularly clear.
I think I understand what they're talking about.
It's not particularly clear language.
OK?
Now, of course, when people say science, I mean, obviously there's theoretical science and there's ideal science and Baconian science, but there is, of course, the pseudoscience of the modern mystery cult religion known as government quote science, which is really just about lying and exploiting people, right?
So, we've got tons of examples of all this kind of stuff.
I'm not sure exactly what they're saying here because it's very much, again, this is kind of a Gish Gallop where they're just kind of dragging you behind a truck saying we're going for a walk.
But let's just see here.
In order to ensure that any given ethical theory will continually facilitate an individual's existence above the state of nature, No, it's not existence above the state of nature.
It's their goal.
Existence and goal are two different things.
Existence is a state.
Goal is a purpose.
We must subject philosophy to the same primacy of logic.
Arbitrary selections are by definition selections made with no rational basis.
Our ability to rationalize is our sole valid tool for making sense of the universe.
Now, rationalize again.
This is a term used in psychology to mean false moral reasoning.
And a key product of this ability is our capacity to contrast sense data with the proposed concepts to identify contradictions.
Okay, so empirical evidence trumps what you believe, okay.
So, when you sense data with proposed concepts, so the laws of logic that we evolve from sense data, we compare that to proposed concepts.
But you can't compare, you can't contrast immediate sense data with proposed concepts, can we?
Because proposed concepts are ideas, they don't come in through the senses other than as the transmission of ideas, right?
So if I say, if I let go of this egg, it will float in the air.
You can't contrast sense data with my proposed concept, because I haven't let go of the egg yet.
So if I'm holding an egg up and I say, if I let go of this egg, it's going to float in the air.
Now you can't contrast your sense data with the proposed concept.
Because I haven't let go of the egg.
Right?
So sense data is about what is happening or what has just happened.
Proposed concepts about what will happen.
Sense data cannot perceive the future and proposed concepts are about the future behavior of matter and energy.
The ability to notice when what is being presented does not match with reality.
Oh, it's a bit of a sentence fragment, but all right.
It is from the rules of logic that we know contradictions cannot exist in reality and with the rules that we are able to identify them.
Okay.
A cannot equal both A and non-A.
Consequently, any contradiction with reality must be a problem with the concept and not with reality.
That's certainly true.
To give an example, if Fred were to believe that the Earth is flat and present it with the wealth of evidence that exists today demonstrating that the Earth is spherical, it is neither the evidence nor the fact that the Earth is spherical that is the contradiction with Fred's conception of the flat Earth itself.
Yep.
In any contradiction between ideas and facts, facts rule.
All right.
The relationship between arbitra and the reason for that is that we only have theories and reason and facts and life because it's because reality is not contradictory.
We can't say that we only exist because of non-contradiction and our purpose is to accept non-contradiction.
If we accepted non-contradiction we wouldn't be here.
An arbitrary selection is by definition unfounded and thereby it does not require adherence to the laws of logic.
As we've demonstrated, if a concept is in line with the laws of logic, it cannot be the source of any contradiction.
Okay, so now we're talking about concept formation, which is fine, but we're trying to figure out the ethical philosophies.
Okay, so this is all metaphysics and epistemology, nature of reality, nature of knowledge, fine.
With it, arbitrariness is asserted, the risk for contradictions is undefinable, because there is no metric by which to ensure claim Made without rational justification.
Okay, sorry.
I don't want to read this too fast.
As we've demonstrated, if a concept is in line with the laws of logic, it cannot be the source of any contradiction.
But when arbitrariness is asserted, the risk for contradictions is undefinable, because there is no metric by which to measure a claim made without rational justification.
Don't follow that too well.
If we arbitrarily assert that 2 plus 2 equals 5, we are obviously wrong.
But only if you were to scrutinize my claim utilizing the rules of mathematics,
logical symbology, to do so.
Um...
You don't need mathematics to know that 2 and 2 do not equal 5.
You don't need logical symbology, you know, toddlers, no.
If you say to a toddler, I'm going to Let's say, if you say, I'm gonna give you two candies and then two candies, and then you give a toddler only two candy and one candy, they'd say, hey, where's the other candy?
Right?
So they don't have logical symbology, they don't have mathematics, but toddlers absolutely know these things, right?
On the other hand, I mean, when you give chimpanzees money, the first thing that male chimpanzees do is start trading money for sex.
And they start bidding for this, right?
And so they don't have logical symbology, but they're still doing mathematics.
All right.
On the other hand, if we were to arbitrarily claim that the highest of all goods is the reduction of harm, the claim becomes much more difficult to casually dismiss.
Okay.
The claim is no less arbitrary than my poor mathematical assertion, but when couched in a sea of pseudo-rationalizations.
Oh.
Ah.
Rationalizations is now being used in the psychological sense, whereas before it was being used as a synonym for pure rationality.
So again, you gotta watch this language.
Don't flip.
Meanings.
They're ultimately defined by subjective preference.
The obviousness of the break with rationality is better hidden from those not looking closely.
Yeah, yeah.
So when you say, I want to do the general good, you're just as irrational as saying two and two make five.
I want to make everyone happy, but people get sucked in by the emotional language too.
Yeah, I get that.
It is this link between arbitrariness and subjective preference that facilitates the adoption of the name anti-subjectivism.
If an act is deemed good or evil merely because one asserts that it is ipso dixit, ipso dixit, sorry, then you have made good and evil ethically meaningless terms and in so doing Robbed for any important concept of any onus to be regarded seriously by those striving towards rationality.
Okay.
I'll be honest with you, I don't know what ipse dixit means.
And when people go into not-common-use Latin, Not ideal.
All right.
Let's do another minute or two.
An arbitrary selection is subjective.
The reason any person would make any given arbitrary choice is definitionally absent any sort of objective justification.
These claims are made because they feel right, seem like the correct course of action, or might be close to the truth.
But none of them are founded in any sense that a person striving to be rational, to be a rational individual, would be able to logically validate or to test for soundness.
Not all arbitrary selections are something that ought to be avoided.
Your favorite tie, Metallica album, flavor of ice cream, and sports team are, for most people, arbitrary selections.
But it is not the objective of anti-subjectivists to rob you of these personal pleasures.
When the discussion turns to ethics, however, it is another matter entirely.
Now, that's interesting.
So arbitrary selections are your favorite tie?
Eh, maybe.
Maybe.
Metallica album?
I suppose so.
But flavor of ice cream?
No, people would say that is not arbitrary.
Your favorite flavor of ice cream is that which your tongue causes you to please the most.
Your tongue creates the most pleasure in touching.
So that's not subjective.
It's like saying that whether you choose to enjoy stubbing your toe or having sex, that's subjective.
No, it's not because one gives you pain and the other gives you pleasure, right?
A sports team, people do not say, that is an arbitrary selection.
This is, I'm sorry, this is like complete not non-sports nerd talk.
Sports teams are not arbitrary selections for just about everyone.
Sports teams are based upon your geographical location.
Not arbitrary.
All right, let's do one more paragraph.
Maybe we'll do more later.
Arbitrary selection in the context of ethics, either normative or applied, the process for determining what is good and evil and how to live these determinations in reality, have ramifications that extend past your preference of Tom Brady or Dak Prescott jersey.
If an ethical theory makes an arbitrary selection to demand all able-bodied men fight a wild grizzly bear bare-handed upon turning 18, or else be considered bad, there are legitimate ramifications to such a prescription.
Suddenly, without any approval from the individuals in question, in order to be considered good, they are required to partake in the mass mauling of the youth, or else, or else.
Who would ever enforce that, we hear you ask?
Anyone who arbitrarily chooses to do so, throughout history, arbitrary ethical theories, in the form of various superstitions, religious, even, quote, scientific conclusions have been indoctrinated into the masses.
Everything from Hitler's ubermensch to purify the human race to the child sacrifices of the Aztecs to bring the rains exist in this category and were adopted and enforced en masse to terrible effect.
The existence of an arbitrary element in an ethical theory necessarily introduces the opportunity for further arbitrariness and this can result in detrimental consequences for those who are expected to live under such circumstances.
Right, so this is a standard atheist position which, you know, doesn't mean that it's, you know, axiomatically incorrect but it certainly is incomplete.
So to say that arbitrary ethical theories have all just been indoctrinated into the masses is to say that there has been no trial and error in ethical theories throughout mankind.
So there have been, I mean, the whole conservative position is to say, well, a bunch of ethical theories have been tried, and we have worked out the ones that work the best, right?
Which tend to be monogamy, investment in children, property rights, limited government, and so on, right?
So there have been, there has been evolution in ethical theories, right?
So, I mean, I talked about this in Australia in 2016 with regards to the Aborigines and saying, okay, so if you kill everyone who disagrees with you in society, then you don't progress as a society and then you will be conquered by people who allow disagreements.
Right?
So the more brutal and violent and censorious cultures were conquered by those who had more human liberty.
And so there tends to be a movement across the world as cultures which have evolved better methodologies tend to do better, right?
So all of the cultures that have become, you know, feminist obsessed, patriarchy obsessed, hatred of men, suspicion of women, and welfare state, and so on.
Then you have a collapse of birth rates, and those cultures that have healthier relations between men and women in many ways, or at least can have more children, tend to do better, right?
So there is a race, there is an arms race, so to speak, of ethical theories and so on, right?
Sorry, where are we in this?
We are about halfway through.
So I think I'll stop here.
And so, okay, well, let's just, okay, we do one more paragraph, finish this, right?
The chain of pseudo-rationalizations must start with an arbitrary selection.
If there is no arbitrary rule demanding bouts with bears, there can be no false rationalization that someone ought to enforce the rule.
We do not believe it to be hyperbolic in stating that unmitigated use of arbitrariness is the ultimate downfall of the overwhelming majority of modern ethical theories, if not all of them.
When arbitrariness is allowed to fester in places that have no and can never have rational justifications for their insertion, it is a catalyst for any number of adverse reactions, interpretations and results.
So yeah, anti-rationality in ethical theories is absolutely the downfall of civilizations, for sure.
The state can counterfeit, you cannot.
The state can initiate force, you cannot.
The state can take, you cannot.
The state can start wars, you cannot.
The state can use political violence, you cannot.
So yeah, absolutely, I get all of that.
But the problem is, if you're going to say, well, there's arbitrary stuff, But then you're gonna say, when it comes to, um, all these laws are necessarily axiomatic, they must be adopted without a logical proof.
Okay.
So if you're going to say there's just stuff that is necessarily axiomatic, you have to be adopted, and they have to be adopted without a logical proof, then that's going to be the case for everyone.
They're going to say, well, my beliefs are necessarily axiomatic and they have to be adopted.
And my ethical theory absolutely demands and requires that you accept this premise and this premise and this premise, right?
So we believe there to be three key aspects of the universe and our existence that must be directly addressed and agreed on before any ethical theory can be built.
Well, no, the whole point of a debate is to convince people who don't agree with you.
So if you're going to say, well, you've got to agree with us on this stuff before we can go any further, it's like, well, you've already lost me.
Because If you go into a job interview and you say, well, you know, you're applying for some programming position and you say, OK, there are three aspects of this job that you have to agree on and then I'll work for you.
You have to pay me a million dollars a year.
I have to get foot rubs from a masseuse every morning and I want to work on the space station.
So we'll talk now, and now that you've accepted those, let's get me hired.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, we haven't accepted any of those, right?
So that's the problem.
I really enjoy this kind of stuff.
I hope it's interesting to you.
I really do appreciate the work that these guys have done on this, and there's some interesting ideas in this for sure.
I think this is an interesting first draft, but it needs to be made much more accessible.
And you need to keep your promises, right?
Right?
You need to keep your promises, right?
Right at the beginning you say, and a manifesto informs in a poignant and powerful way.
Okay, that's your sales pitch, right?
That's your sales pitch. And if you're going to say this is a poignant and powerful story
and it turns out to be a bunch of syllogisms, then you have not kept your promises.
It's not exactly fraud, but you're massively overselling what you're about to do.
And if you're going to make a promise, which I take very seriously, that this is a great insight, motivational course, and poignant and powerful, okay then...
Saying that it's like Tom Brady's jersey is not poignant and powerful.
And you just need to work on that, in my opinion.
And let me know if you want me to do more.
I certainly appreciate this work.
And thank you for the person saying to review this.
I think it was interesting.
If you've got other stuff you'd like me to check out, please let me know.
▲
Export Selection