All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 4, 2024 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
38:40
AKCTSHUALLY! Death by a Thousand Nitpicks!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yo, yo!
Good morning, everybody!
It's the Fat Moll and New from Free Domain.
Out for a wee woodwork.
And got a couple of great questions.
Fantastic, clarifying syllables of Scrubbing superlatives.
And somebody says, in the My Toughest Question show, Steph makes the argument that incest can be stopped under the NAP because incest would only occur in situations where one or both parties are too traumatized to give sexual consent.
What standard of evidence is necessary to deem an individual too traumatized to consent?
Right.
So this is...
A paralysis question.
I'm not saying it's conscious, right?
But this is a paralysis question that is designed to turn an answer into a confusion.
It is actually quite annoying and inappropriate.
And I actually did address this.
In the actual podcast or video that I did, but people have a tough time listening.
Sorry, but you all just do.
And this is called an emotional defense.
So, if I've solved the problem of incest in the non-aggression principle, a very brief statement being that Siblings who perform incest as adults would only do so because they had been severely sexually abused and traumatized as children, and therefore they cannot give meaningful consent as adults.
Well, that is an argument, right?
And I address this repeatedly in the show, saying that there are questions of principles, and then there are questions of legality.
Right?
So, if I say, murder is wrong, and you say, well, philosophically, how could you prove murder in this ambiguous case?
Right?
Doesn't fucking matter.
Doesn't apply.
Doesn't apply.
See, there's a difference between physics And engineering, which I've talked about many times before.
There's a difference between physics and engineering.
So physics is discovering the universal properties and behaviors of matter and energy.
Engineering is, will this bridge stand up?
So if someone comes up with E equals MC squared, and then someone says, well, yeah, okay, fine, E equals MC squared, but, but, What about this bridge which may or may not stand under these extreme circumstances?
But I could talk to a fucking engineer.
I'm talking to a physicist.
So what happens is there's a moral principle that is put forward and then there's this bullshit legalese edge case nonsense that gets spout that this adds a single thing to the conversation.
And it's designed, again, not consciously, it's designed to obfuscate and confuse and bury the general principle.
E equals mc squared.
Right?
Is that true or false?
Well, but...
What would be the budget to create a nuclear reactor and can it be done efficiently?
It's a totally different question in a totally different category.
There's the principle and then there is the material proof in a court of law.
So the question is, is murder wrong?
Well, there's a scenario where it's really kind of tough to figure out what the difference is between first and second degree murder and manslaughter and criminal negligence.
It's really complicated and confusing.
Who gives a shit?
That's for the lawyers, not for the philosophers.
The philosophers are there to tell you that murder is wrong.
That's it.
Going straight to edge-case legalese bullshit, It's a way of avoiding the general principle.
Is murder wrong?
Yes, murder is wrong.
Great.
Now, coming up with some bizarre edge case, sliding scale, slippery slope, possible proof, falsehood to solve this, well, that's not the job of philosophy.
And it certainly isn't the job of philosophers.
The job of philosophers is like the job of the physicist.
It is to define universal principles.
The specific application of those universal principles is not the job of a philosopher.
Right?
The physicist defines universal principles.
The specific application of those principles in the material realm is the job of who?
The engineers.
The engineers.
It's like saying E equals MC squared.
What's the business case for that?
What?
Two and two make four.
Well, what is the profitability matrix of that over the next three quarters?
Well, that's taking a physics fact and turning it into a business question.
Absolutely the wrong category.
Doesn't matter.
Relative to the principle.
The truth or falsehood of a principle is not defined by specific situations of empirical proof.
So, in general, adults are responsible for their actions, children less so.
Adults are responsible for their actions, children less so.
And babies, not at all, right?
We can agree on that, right?
Babies are not responsible for their actions, adults are.
Now, that's a general principle.
Now, if you say, well, define an adult down to the nanosecond, and does the fundamental principle of childhood to adulthood change at the age of 18 exactly?
And what about somebody who's been badly raised?
And what about a kid who's super mature?
And, like, you're just confusing the issue.
That is for the law to work out.
Right?
Thank you.
It's like saying, well, India is to the east of Belgrade, right?
See, India is to the east of Belgrade.
Well, that's quite a lot of bees getting their drink there in that little brook.
I think I will let them do that.
India's to the east of Belgrade.
Well, what is the budget for traveling third-star hotel through India?
What does that have to do with that?
That's the job for the travel agent, not the geographer.
Right?
Here are the principles of physics by which we can build a cell phone.
Yes, but what features do users want?
And what should the price point be?
And what should the cost per gig of data be?
And, like, that's not the...
That's not the right category.
Look, I understand this.
It's an emotional defense to avoid the principle.
So when somebody puts forward a clear principle, like, there is a degree of trauma that prevents consent.
There is a degree of trauma that prevents consent.
In other words, we say children cannot Children cannot consent to sexual behaviors.
We understand that.
Now, is it possible that there is an adult with the mind of a child?
Yes, there is.
They're called developmentally handicapped.
So, we all understand that a woman who has A severe brain injury, maybe got attacked by meningitis as a toddler.
She has a severe brain injury and has the functioning mind of a six-year-old, even into her twenties and thirties, that she cannot consent to sex.
We understand that.
There is a certain amount of brain damage that prevents someone from consenting to sex.
In the same way that we don't let somebody who's severely mentally handicapped sign a loan because they can't really process and comprehend interest and payback and work and taxes, right?
So that's a principle, right?
We understand that.
There is a degree of trauma to the brain that prevents someone from being able to give consent.
Now, we know that emotional trauma damages the brain.
Abuse and trauma as a child damages the brain.
This is why I've said for Almost 20 years that in a free society, parents would get significant considerations for submitting their children to non-invasive brain scans to detect whether there's any trauma or abuse going on.
It's very simple to do.
And the fact that we don't do any of this tells you exactly who runs society.
It ain't the nice people.
So, we accept that, right?
I mean...
Unless you're saying that somebody with a brain equivalent to a six-year-old can consent to sex, in which case I don't want to have you in the conversation because that's sinister and creepy as hell.
So I'm not saying that the guy who wrote this is.
So the principle is there is a certain amount of brain damage that prevents meaningful consent, shortcuts meaningful consent.
And we know that.
We accept that.
That's all over the law, right?
Let's let Mr.
Spider have his web.
It's already part of the law.
That's already part of common law.
That somebody below, say, a certain IQ threshold does not have the same rights as others do.
And also does not have the same responsibilities that others do.
We all accept And understand that.
And of course, if you've spent time around people who are developmentally handicapped, mentally, I'm sorry, I just, you just need to know that.
And when I was in daycare, there were some kids in my daycare class where I worked for a couple of years who were fairly severely developmentally handicapped, and they just couldn't really function nearly as well as the other kids, of course.
That's how you know there's an issue, right?
So, if you just don't have experience with any of that stuff, well, you just need to learn from people who do.
So, that we understand.
There's a certain amount of brain damage That effectively prevents the ability to consent to loans, to complex contracts, to sexual activity, to whatever.
And this is also true of medical treatment as well.
There are people who are severely developmentally handicapped and it is their parents who have to decide on their medical treatments because they cannot decide for themselves.
Well, now, as a principle, we accept that.
So, So then, rather than accept that principle and say, you know, that's a really good solution to the problem, that's obviously, it is indisputable.
If you say that, it's almost a tautology, people without the ability to consent cannot consent.
Right.
That's the big genius, big brain stuff I'm bringing to the world.
The tautology of people without the capacity to consent can't consent.
Yep.
Okay, so we accept that.
So then, rather than accept that and say, okay, here's a way forward that we can work with this, you get stressed.
Because once you accept the principle, then, as a reasonable person who wants the world to be better, once you accept the principle, you are obligated to advance it.
Right?
And that's scary.
I get that.
That's alarming.
That can be upsetting.
That can set you at odds with people.
That can be unpleasant.
That can be difficult.
And that's fine.
I understand that.
Nobody's saying you have to.
But if I put forward a principle that nobody can really disagree with.
Of course, people without the ability to consent can't consent.
Oh, look at that.
There's, I think these are baby turkeys up here.
I probably won't be able to get very close.
So sorry.
This philosophical lecture is interrupted for a nature moment.
I've seen these guys out here once before.
It's very cool.
I don't know if we'll be able to keep them in view.
They have this ability to despawn.
It's pretty wild.
Let me just see here.
Oh, they're there.
They're there.
I don't even want to zoom in.
Let's see if we can get a little closer.
I move about as quietly as a buffalo.
In heat.
Did they just eastbourne again?
Yeah.
Thank you.
I want out one more look.
Where did you go, Cotton Eye Joe?
No, they'd probably come back into thee.
They wouldn't be in here.
It's too easy to chase them.
So I'm sure they went back into the bush here.
Ah, suddenly we've gone to Bear Grylls hunting style.
Will he survive his encounter with the death turkeys of babiness?
See, the problem is you don't...
I don't even know if I'm heading in the right direction to catch these guys, but...
Anyway, it was pretty cool that we saw them.
Excellent.
We love ourselves some gorgeous nature.
So...
So, I put forward a principle that solves a big problem.
Right?
Which is, okay, how do you deal with the problem of incest?
Okay, well, incest is a manifestation of brain damage, which is the result of severe pedophilic child abuse.
And that's the solution.
Right?
That people who've suffered from brutal levels of child rape and being forced to have sex with each other as children, they are going to not be able to consent as adults.
Easy peasy.
Horrible topic.
Wretched, ugly, vicious, brutal, evil topic.
But, that's the solution.
Now, if you accept that as a solution, then what are you going to do?
Well, you're going to have to go out and talk about that solution.
Right?
There's a solution.
And then, You're going to upset people, right?
When you have fairly simple answers to questions that are supposedly very complex.
Now, the answer was not easy, but once you understand it, the answer is rather simple, right?
So once you have these answers, then you are honor-bound to go out into the world And answer these questions, right?
And solve these problems for people.
In the same way that if you learn the Heimlich maneuver and some guy is choking to death in a restaurant, are you somewhat, to some degree, honor-bound to go and help that person who's choking to death on a Chicken McNugget?
I know my Scottish chicken balls are on the menu, but I don't run McDonald's.
So, you then have to go out and promulgate the answer, right?
But, you don't want to do that.
And I understand.
I understand that.
There are times when I've made a moral leap forward publicly that feels like I'm stepping off a cliff hoping that a wingsuit is going to fall under my body and an updraft is going to keep me from the vicious rocks below.
I get that.
I understand that.
I sympathize with that.
But to be in the realm of philosophy, the first requirement is honesty.
Must be honest.
So, if you say, wow, that's a great answer to the problem of incest.
Incest is a violation of the non-aggression principle because neither party can consent because of brain damage through trauma.
So, What happens is you get upset that there's an answer because you like toying with the question so that you feel like you're in pursuit of virtue.
You don't like it when there's an answer because that means you have to go and talk about that answer with people, right?
And that's upsetting.
Right?
I understand.
I sympathize.
So, yeah, I get it.
So just be honest about that and say, the answer makes me uncomfortable.
Because I don't really want to go out and talk about virtue in the world, right?
Because when you talk about virtue in the world and you spread virtue in the world, you step severely on the toes of evildoers, right?
And evildoers will fight back.
There's another.
Man, the spiders have been busy today.
Probably trying to catch the death turkeys of doom.
Right?
So, we understand all of that, right?
And again, I sympathize, but just be honest.
So, when someone comes up with an answer, which I have, about the problem of the NAP, the non-aggression principle, and incest, Then you should go and talk to people about that.
But you don't want to do that because you fear blowback.
Again, I sympathize and understand, but let's just be honest about it.
You'd rather talk about morality internally.
You'd rather nip and tug and do that dog-with-a-bone worrying about morality rather than have any actual answers and go out into the world and talk about them.
I understand that too.
I sympathize.
But let's be honest, what you do instead to avoid the anxiety of actually having to go out into the world and talk about virtue, what do you do instead?
Well, what you do instead is you come up with sliding scale, slippery slope, edge case, legalese, nonsense, and then pretend that there's no principle.
Murder is wrong.
Well, what about when there's no witnesses, and there's only circumstantial evidence, and there's no body?
Okay, that's a whole different matter.
That's engineering, not physics, and you cannot disprove physics with engineering.
If I say these are the properties of balsa wood, and you say Well, if these are the properties of balsa wood, well, they can't be the properties of balsa wood because...
Oh, look at that.
I'm so sorry to keep interrupting.
There is a...
I'm not going to go this way.
Look at that.
There is a lovely shimmery spiderweb.
There.
I don't know if that's...
Oh, is that coming through?
Which side is the camera?
That is the camera.
Yeah, probably can't get it, but I'm not.
I'm not disturbing that work.
That's a lot of property rights to violate from our little eight-legged friends.
Six-legged?
Eight-legged.
Oh, just walked through another one.
Okay, I give up, but at least that one.
Also, it had a spider on it.
Not my favorite beast in the world.
So, you can't say, well, okay, so these are the properties of balsa wood, but how much balsa wood would you need to build a suspension bridge?
Wouldn't make any sense, right?
Okay, E equals MC squared allows you to build a nuclear power plant, but what are the environmental issues with a nuclear power plant?
Totally different matter.
Is a nuclear power plant cost-effective given the liability issues involved?
That's a totally different matter.
Implementing principles is not the test of principles, right?
E equals MC squared.
Well, it's very hard to build a nuclear reactor What is the exact perfect price point of the nuclear reactor?
What's the best cost-benefit kilowatt-hour per sale price?
And would the consumers be there?
And would there be environmental issues and liability issues?
And what about health and safety issues?
Totally a different matter.
Does E equals MC squared?
Is energy times mass times the speed of light squared?
Yes.
Yes, it is.
So, the practical implementation of the moral principle is not at all the test of the moral principle.
It just ain't.
But you say, I can't accept the moral principle until all possible objective implementations of that moral principle have been proven syllogistically, which is impossible, right?
In the law, it's proof beyond reasonable doubt.
It's not syllogistical proof, right?
Syllogistical proof is 100% proof, or metamortal Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal.
That's 100% proof.
This is deductive reasoning, which is about probabilities and variability, right?
So, in the civil case, it's the preponderance of evidence, 51%.
In criminal cases, it's proof beyond reasonable doubt, 95% plus.
And then you can always come up with some situation that is ambiguous, right?
That's really, really tough to prove.
All right.
Now, that usually is not something that happens in the law.
I mean, in any objective legal system, right?
Any reasonably objective and fair legal system, you won't end up with edge cases.
Because if, let's say, there's a murder, you only have very loosey-goosey circumstantial evidence, you don't have a body, you don't have a motive, and the guy has an alibi that seems fairly reasonable, though he's not perfect, well, that won't end up in a court of law.
Because there's not enough evidence to prosecute.
So the prosecution happens when there's overwhelming evidence.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Or at least a chance there too.
A chance thereof, right?
So your edge cases, right?
What standard of evidence is necessary to deem an individual too traumatized To consent.
Well, now you're talking about legal proof.
And when you have legal proof in a fair and just legal system, if there is not overwhelming evidence, the case will not proceed.
So all of the issues that you're talking about are filtered out by any rational legal system from the beginning.
Prima facie, right?
From the beginning.
So, oh, well, this is a real edge case.
Maybe the person can consent.
Maybe they can't consent.
It's really tough to tell.
They say there wasn't a problem, but, well, that place almost certainly won't go to trial.
Now, clearly, a woman in a coma cannot consent to sex.
That case would go to trial.
Right?
Clearly, an adult woman who voluntarily consents to sex, and let's say it's on a recording or something like that, well, that's not going to go to trial either.
So what you're doing is you're saying, what about the maybe, maybe 51-49 edge cases in criminal matters?
How do we prove those?
Well, the answer is you don't.
You don't need to.
Because in terms of criminal proceedings, again, even in the current system to some degree, but in a rational moral legal system, edge cases don't go to trial.
So the principle is never manifested, right?
Now, as far as what evidence is necessary to deem an individual too traumatized to consent, well, in order for the law to be Just.
There has to be some objectivity and predictability in the legal standard, right?
So, in a rational legal system, there would be, in any cases where consent is not obvious because the person is clearly mentally competent, right?
They have a law degree and a job, and they are a lawyer from my novel.
The future, right?
So, when somebody is clearly mentally competent, then you know that they're not too traumatized, let's say.
No, let's just do an IQ thing, right?
So, if somebody clearly has a high IQ, they're a lawyer, doctor, philosopher, well, the highest, of course, well, then you don't need any proof.
So, let's say that somebody is on the edge, right?
On the edge and could be considered Not able to consent in certain situations, so that's a problem that society has, right?
And it's the same with buying alcohol.
If I go to buy alcohol, nobody cards me because I'm almost 58 years old, so I don't get carded, right?
But if some pawn is much younger, Then they will be carded.
And there are places that say, you know, we card everyone 30 and under, right?
Okay.
So, that's an edge case.
Somebody can look older, somebody can look younger, so you need to card them.
So, when it comes to consent, Then somebody who might be somewhere on the spectrum or someone on the edge of being able to consent or not would simply have a brain scan, answer some questions, get a cognitive test, and then they would get a consent card or not in the same way you get a card called, I can consent to buy alcohol.
So where there's an edge case, this would be a very small proportion of the population.
And if you have sex with someone, Who is mentally handicapped and has been tested to be non-consensual and doesn't have a consent card, then you would be liable.
If you have sex with someone who is cognitively challenged in some way but has been deemed through some relatively objective process to be able to consent, then they would show you their consent card and you would be good to go.
Right?
Now, you could of course roll the dice In the same way that if a woman looks young and you're concerned about having sex with a woman who's underage, if the woman looks young, you will ask for ID. This is nothing new.
This is nothing, I mean, oh, you're so shocked.
It's like absolutely nothing new.
So, if you are dating a woman and she seems very young, You will ask for an ID check.
You will ask for ID in order to ensure that she is of age to consent to sexual activity.
She's 20.
She's not 16 or 15 or whatever it is.
It depends on where you are.
So that's the sort of Birth certificate or the driver's license, these are consent cards, right?
I'm old enough to consent to sexual activity, right?
This is why some of the rather challenged women at the age of 18 say, oh, I'm 18, I can go and start an OnlyFans site or something like that.
So there's a consent card.
They can't consent before 18, they can after.
Oh, how beautiful.
It's, uh, always important that you guys enjoy the glory of nature as well as the glory of my chatterbox.
Fagely, Iron Filings chin-head.
So, what standard of evidence is necessary to deem an individual too traumatized to consent?
Well, There would be an objective standard that would be developed and on edge cases, there would be a card or a QR code or something like that which says, although this person appears to be of somewhat limited cognitive function, they have been tested and found able to consent.
And you wouldn't just need that for sexual activity, right?
If somebody does not appear to be too bright and they want to get a complex loan or something like that, well, you would be on the hook.
If they fail to pay it back, like if you make some predatory loan to somebody who is severely mentally handicapped, then you'll be the hook for that and you'd be considered a pretty bad guy.
But on the other hand, we don't want to limit people just because they happen to not be as smart to not having general economic, social and sexual participation and romantic participation in society.
So, yeah, there'd be some objective test on edge cases that would give you knowledge of liability.
Or not, in the same way that there are objective tests for age to make sure that you're not dating someone who's underage.
That is the general approach.
And then you say, well, what exactly would the test be?
What exactly would the test be?
So then you're asking me what kind of brain-scanning technology in a free and liberated society, which is hundreds of years of the future, what kind of brain-scanning technology and objective standards and what comparison would there be to healthily raised children, which the vast majority of people would be, So, Steph, you need to tell me exactly what brain scans will be available in 300 years and exactly how this process is going to work.
Otherwise, your principles don't matter.
Now, come on!
I mean, you understand that that is a ridiculous requirement.
That is...
I mean, the fact that you would lack self-knowledge to not know that you're spiraling into, like, bizarrely Gordian knot, lower intestine gotcha territory.
Like, you just need to understand your own motives.
Okay, but what about this?
Okay, okay, I get it.
You're anxious to come to a moral conclusion.
You don't want to talk about it.
Okay, then fine.
Just say, well, Steph, that's a good answer.
But I feel...
Man, I feel really uncomfortable about this.
I don't know why.
I got this weird anxiety about...
Going out and talking about this stuff.
It's like, okay, I get that.
I respect that.
I sympathize with that.
I understand that.
And I don't hold you at fault for that.
It is scary to talk to the world about virtue.
Right?
It is scary to talk to the world about virtue.
Because it's not like all the most virtuous people are in charge.
Far from it.
So, I understand that.
But just be honest.
Don't say, well, I would love to go, Steph, I would love to go and talk about your answer to this moral problem or this issue.
But there's still a couple of knots that need to be tied up.
There's still a couple of loose ends that need to...
You just haven't met my standards of...
That's not it.
I've proven more in the area of essential...
Society, free will, virtue, ethics, self-ownership, property rights.
I've proven more than just about anybody.
Right?
And if you're like, well, Steph, okay, it's true that you have massively advanced these topics, but what about edge cases 300 years from now?
Okay, got it.
Yeah.
Okay, you don't want to talk about this stuff.
You want to feel like you're interested in morality because that makes you feel good, but you don't want to actually do the rather difficult and dangerous business of going out and talking about morality in the world.
Or to put it another way, there are people who desperately don't want you to talk about virtue in their life who are putting these ridiculous questions into your head.
These ridiculous objections that require omniscience, time travel, Infinite perfection, scientific knowledge which hasn't been achieved yet, medical tests hundreds of years in the future, but Steph, man, I'm telling you, once you pass that standard, maybe, just maybe, I'll accept your moral arguments.
And no, you won't.
No, you won't.
Right?
This is the yes, but thing.
You won't.
You simply won't accept my moral arguments, right?
You won't.
All that will happen is you will just come up with other ones.
And I can feel, I can feel this collective Borg brain bubbling away there saying, okay, well, but, okay, so that one's been solved.
But what about this one?
And what about each one?
I know, funny voice is not an argument, but I've been dealing with this crap for 40 years.
So, I hope you won't mind me if I make a little bit of mockery of this nonsense.
If you get a great solution to a moral problem and the first thing you come up with is edge cases that require omniscience to solve and technology hundreds of years in the future, then you're not interested in answers.
Right?
It's a great answer.
It's innovative.
It's creative.
It's in full conformity with common law.
It's in full conformity with the non-aggression principle and voluntary as society.
So, it's a great answer about this incident question.
Right?
So, if you are nitpicking at this, you just don't want to answer it.
You want to have endless questions, and it is part of the general persons from poor luck problem where you just want to have me scurrying all over hell's half acre trying to satisfy your bottomless needs for proof which will never be satisfied.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I wanted to go for a walk this morning and I think it's an interesting exercise to go through this, but you just need to be honest with yourself, with everyone else, and say, you know...
I just want to think about and come up with problems for philosophy and morality.
I don't actually want to go out there and promote virtue in the world.
I just want to talk about it and paralyze people who are making any smidge of progress with my completely unrealistic requirements that are complete category errors and demand the impossible to be satisfied.
Okay.
Boy, you must be fun to go on a date with.
So, yeah, you just need to look inward, right?
You just need to look within, and you need to say to yourself, why does it bother me so much that there's a clear answer to this problem of incest?
Why does it bother me?
But don't pretend that it's just your perfectionism and desire for absolute certainty.
That is the issue.
That ain't it, brother.
But I appreciate the question.
freedomain.com slash donate.
Thanks, Emil.
▲
Export Selection