Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 6, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

22:12

The Moral Relativism of NIETZSCHE!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello, hello everybody.
	Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Main.
	So, questions from people around.
	You published the book about UPB in 2007.
	If you were to write it again now, would there be any significant differences?
	If yes, what would they be?
	Well, I did rewrite, or I guess update, or make more concise UPB when I wrote my book Essential Philosophy some years ago.
	And you can go to essentialphilosophy.com and you can get an audiobook.
	And you can get it on e-book as well.
	I don't know.
	I mean, I'd have to reread it all again, which is not a project that I have in any imminent kind of way or fashion.
	So I would say that I think it's fine the way it is.
	So I did update it and make it a little bit more clear about all of that.
	Because UPB, like the word science, is both a methodology and a set of conclusions.
	So if you're doing science, you're either doing the scientific method as a methodology or you're doing particular conclusions.
	So I made that more clear in essential philosophy.
	Next question.
	What are your thoughts on amusement parks like Disney?
	I find they can be fun on the rare times when the lines are short, but in general I can't justify sitting in a line for an hour for five minutes of fun.
	Yes, I am entirely with you as far as that goes.
	I do not, I do not like Those amusement parks as much.
	And of course, they tend to be in very hot areas, right?
	So, yeah, that's not my thing.
	That's not fun for me.
	And also, the other thing, too, is that just standing in line, it's kind of tough to have, you know, conversations because you're kind of jammed up cheek by jowl with other people.
	It's kind of hot and it can be very loud.
	So, if I'm stuck in a place with people, I sort of can't have my own thoughts in particular and I can't really have any conversation.
	I do tend to space it out a little bit after a while.
	So hopefully that gives you some kind of answer.
	So I would try to avoid those.
	In general, I mean, some of the most fun my daughter and I have ever had has been just chatting, laughing, making jokes, doing goofy projects together and so on.
	And I do find that the amusement park stuff tends to be a bit sort of status overkill, if that makes sense.
	So hopefully that makes sense.
	Somebody says, me and my wife are struggling with communication.
	I often bring all the shiny new peaceful parenting stuff to her, but she can feel overloaded with it at times.
	How can I respect her needs while still helping both of us do what's best for our 17-month-old son?
	She often feels a bit micromanaged, I admit to that, and have apologized.
	I want both of us to have the knowledge, but maybe I do feel an anxiety around getting it wrong, and as such, I am projecting that onto my wife.
	In turn, she can get...
	She does get defensive and stubborn, which I can understand why.
	Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
	Hmm.
	Let's see here.
	Overloaded with it at times.
	Micromanaged.
	I think certainly that which is sustainably good in life needs to come about as a result of spontaneous self-generation rather than external control and management.
	So, you know, with regards to your wife, I would suggest talking with her about the principles, recognizing, of course, that we all have difficulty implementing our principles.
	That's natural, kind of inevitable.
	And have some gentleness, compassion, and kindness with regards to that.
	But yeah, micromanaging her.
	The problem, of course, with micromanaging others is that it tends to communicate to you.
	I mean, micromanaging their mother.
	It tends to communicate to the children.
	That mom is kind of out of control and incompetent according to the perceptions of the father, and that's not going to help at all.
	So just be there to be supportive and recognize that these principles are tough to enact in a consistent basis, but it does kind of have to come from an organic place internally.
	All right.
	Can you release your books on Audible?
	No.
	Audible requires that the books not be free elsewhere, so I can't.
	Let's see here.
	Second, an amended-generalized version of the topic of the 2010 book, The Denzel Principle, that being, is mass media, and their fictitious depictions of the idyllic man, and the comparison to who will actually date them, one of the main reasons for the modern disdain women have for most men, outside of the illusion of infinite resources of the state.
	The opposite of this, on the male side, I guess, is the cool girl, seen from Gone Girl.
	But that's a bit overblown, since most men I know would settle for stability, if given the chance.
	Though you can say men feel this similarly, but there's more variation in what they'll accept.
	Okay, so the purpose of the media in many ways is, at least the modern media, is to tempt men with empty, shallow, demonic, really, demonic temptations.
	So you get a bunch of stuff, you get a fast car, you sleep with a lot of women, You look cool, you have abs, and all of that.
	And that really is the hijacking of the sexual purpose and drive of mankind, which is, of course, the pair bonding and having and raising of children.
	That's really the purpose of all of this.
	So what the media as a whole is doing is attempting to hijack sexual purpose and power and sexual identity for Status and pleasure.
	To hijack that which is designed for the creation of families and children and hijack it towards your own particular preferences and selfish consumption, if that makes sense.
	To turn you sterile in the face of, say, sexual desire.
	So, a man's sexual desire for women, kind of the foundation of pair bonding, a man's desire for status and all of that is important for women.
	The gathering of resources for the sake of families.
	And this is sort of modern warfare.
	Modern warfare is designed to have you not have children rather than designed to kill adult males, right?
	So the killing of adult males in war is foundational to the expansion of the power of the state because then women have to turn to the state.
	for resources because there aren't enough providers or their provider got killed in the war and so on, right?
	So, one of the things that happens in modern warfare is you are tempted with pleasure rather than continuity.
	You are tempted with sex rather than procreation.
	You are tempted with situationships rather than marriages.
	You are tempted with status not for the sake A sort of resource acquisition and status.
	Not for the sake of having children, but for the sake of pursuing a lust.
	And so, pornography is kind of involved in that as well.
	So, that is sort of modern warfare.
	Is to convince your enemies to not have children.
	And that takes longer, obviously.
	Less dramatic, but is very effective in the long run.
	I was just reading the show the other day.
	It takes like four.
	It takes four grandparents in Japan to produce one grandchild.
	It's wild.
	Wild.
	All right.
	Let's see here.
	What do we have?
	Oh, we got that one.
	What are your thoughts on Nietzsche's moral relativity?
	Well, Nietzsche was more of an anthropologist or an essayist, an examiner of trends in existence.
	He was a mapper of the mind that was and the inevitable results of the Ideas and arguments that were being put forward at the time.
	That was Nietzsche's general goal and purpose.
	He was not somebody who wanted to compare proposed actions to ideal standards, but he wanted to say, what are the inevitable results of the kind of work that people are doing at the moment?
	And because of that, he's sort of like, well, he's sort of like, A nutritionist, rather than saying, here's how you should eat, would say, well, if you keep eating this way, these are going to be the results.
	These are going to be the typical outcomes and results.
	So, he was not...
	I don't think that he himself...
	I mean, it's hard to know, right?
	But as far as he himself, he didn't work on anything like a universal moral prescription or UPB or justifications for property rights or so on, right?
	But he was describing the sort of patterns, thoughts, and progress.
	of 19th century European thought and was, of course, chillingly accurate with regards to how that manifested in the 20th century.
	So, I wouldn't say that he himself was a moral relativist because he was describing more than prescribing, if that makes sense.
	Alright, somebody says, I've often had people accuse me of being petty and holding grudges against people who have done me wrong and memory-holded.
	Can you riff on the difference between holding a grudge and having integrity?
	So, holding a grudge is usually something that occurs when you stay in contact with someone and wish to punish them for a transgression.
	And that is a big problem.
	That's a big challenge for sure.
	So, in my particular view, you know, if somebody mistreats me and so on, you know, I'll try and deal with it, try and talk about it with them and so on.
	And if they sort of continue to escalate or mistreatment, this hasn't happened in many, many years.
	Something like that.
	Then what I would do is simply not engage with that person any longer.
	And would I hold a grudge?
	I don't think so.
	I don't think so.
	I mean, it's sort of like when I was a manager in the software industry.
	Every now and then I would need to fire someone and it would be trying to sort of work things out and sort things out ahead of time to try and avoid that situation.
	But if...
	If it couldn't be worked out, then I would just fire someone and it would be difficult, you know, I mean, to think about it a lot and work through it and all of that, have the conversation, do the off-boarding and so on.
	And, you know, sometimes I would be annoyed at the person for putting me in that situation, particularly if I'd inherited them from a prior manager, if it was someone that I'd hired, that would be my issue, not theirs.
	After they were fired and moved on with their lives, well, what was the point of holding the grudge, right?
	They moved on with their lives.
	So, let's see here.
	I just want to make sure I get here.
	Being petty and holding grudges against people, you've done me wrong.
	So, if a friend of mine said, you're holding a petty grudge, you're holding on to things and so on, with regards to, let's say, I had an issue with Bob and problems with Bob.
	Then, what I would do is I would say, okay, who was in the right and who was in the wrong?
	Right?
	Do never be afraid to ask, or really, in a sense, demand of your friends moral judgment.
	I mean, I would argue they can't really be your friends if they can't exercise moral judgment, right?
	So, who would have a conflict with Bob?
	Have an issue with Bob?
	And let's say I stop talking to Bob.
	And my friend is like, oh, you're holding a grudge.
	It's like, okay, who was in the right?
	Who was in the right?
	Now, if my friend says, oh, Bob was in the right, then I would say, well, why didn't you tell me that at the time?
	Or why didn't you try and intervene at the time and help me do better?
	If he made a good case for Bob being in the right.
	And if he says, well, Bob was in the wrong, then it's like, well...
	If Bob was in the wrong and I tried to talk about it with him and I couldn't resolve it and I decided to move on, then how is that holding a grip?
	That's making a decision based upon, you know, reasonable moral absolutes.
	All right.
	Yeah, but don't, and if the person won't, well, I don't want to make a decision, I don't want to, right?
	If you have a really wishy-washy friend who, if you have a fairly significant conflict with someone and that person won't even take a side, then I would say, That's kind of important, right?
	Can you really have a friend who can't make any particular moral decisions?
	I would say not really.
	So, you know, holding a grudge is when, I assume, it's basically when you keep a petty difference or opposition to someone without any sort of foundational moral justification.
	Okay, well, then if somebody says you're holding a grudge, say, okay, well, who was in the right, who was in the wrong in this conflict?
	And you can obviously go over the details and feel free to talk to Bob.
	But, you know, you're going to have to come to some kind of decision, right?
	And if it turns out that Bob was in the right and I was unjust, then I will apologize to Bob and work to fix things up.
	If it turns out that I was in the right and Bob was in the wrong, then don't accuse me of holding a grudge anymore.
	You know, just this kind of stuff as a whole.
	So, yeah, just try not to stay on the receiving end of these kinds of judgments and put them back on the person judging you.
	Somebody's judging you.
	As being morally deficient because you're holding a grudge, then have them spell out their moral reasons.
	Do you still have that interview with the guy who worked for Medicare and he talked about all the fraud?
	If so, is it on Rumble?
	I think it's from 2017.
	So, FDRpodcasts.com.
	That's where you need to go.
	FDRpodcasts.com.
	And just do a search.
	I don't know.
	What are you most excited about in terms of the future?
	Family.
	Is he going out into the world and all that kind of stuff?
	It's going to be very cool.
	Why do...
	Why do some people like to play psychological mind games with their supposed friends?
	Things like backhanded compliments, gaslighting, undermining confidence by subtly planting insecurity, etc.
	Seems like some people get a real kick out of that.
	Well, it's usually intrasexual competition, right?
	So, the general rule, this is just, let's sit around guys, right?
	Is that you are more likely to meet a potential mate if you are with...
	Other men, right?
	It could be with women too, but in general, with other men.
	Because when you're with other men, you're showing that you have social skills, you have people who like you, people who are willing to be a wingman, and so on, right?
	So, to be part of a group of men is to increase your chances of finding a potential mate.
	However, when you are with, let's say you're with three other guys, there's four of you, right?
	And you're with three other guys at a bar or something like that, or someplace.
	Frisbee golf, whatever.
	And you're with people.
	Well, you get a plus because you're with other guys to meet girls, but you get a minus in that they might prefer your friends to you.
	So, to be with men, other men, is a plus.
	However, to undermine the other men is also a plus because then you appear to be the most confident.
	So, in general, I think that's usually what's going on.
	All right.
	Well, how do we balance the inherent tension between individual freedom and the collective responsibility to protect the well-being of society?
	And can one truly exist without undermining the other?
	So for that, I'm sorry to toss you off on a book, but for that I would recommend my two books, Everyday Anarchy and Practical Anarchy.
	And those two books will help.
	Also, I would recommend my novel called The Future.
	Which you can get at freedoman.com slash books.
	Ah, let's see here.
	Have you seen any movies in 4DX?
	I do not think so.
	Is procreation a violation of the non-aggression principle?
	No, because it does not initiate the use of force to give birth.
	Is it terrible to steal someone's girlfriend?
	Isn't it kind of a free-for-all unless you are married?
	Like, bro, love and relationships are a competition use news you lose.
	That's that old joke, you know, if there's a really popular girl, it's 1v20, but she's got a boyfriend, it's only 1v1.
	But I would say that it's probably not a great idea to steal someone's girlfriend, because if she'll cheat with you, she'll cheat on you.
	So, although I have known, I did know a couple who met when they were both married to other people, and they did end up making a sustainable go of it as a whole.
	It's not generally the best way to start things off.
	All right.
	Hey, Steph, long-time listener, first-time commenter of my questions.
	How are you doing?
	I'm doing well, thank you.
	I miss your YouTube channel.
	Also, what has surprised you the most about the shadow ban and your being made anathema by the ruling technate?
	I think, really, in hindsight, looking back on it, it was what a positive experience that's all been.
	I know, it sounds kind of odd.
	What a positive experience that has been as a whole.
	And...
	I feel sort of very liberated and free and self-actualized and I have sort of maximum free will.
	It did feel, honestly, it did feel a little bit like a treadmill at times.
	Sort of the old show, 10 million views or downloads a month or whatever, right?
	You know, like I was interviewing, say, three or four people a week.
	That meant I had to read, like, you know, sometimes.
	10 or 12 or even more books a week.
	It was really quite a treadmill of preparation.
	And that was fine.
	No issue with it.
	It was fun to do at the time and enjoyable and enriching and worthwhile.
	But I would certainly say that in the long run, I'm very pleased at having been able to get back to the stuff that was kind of missing for me back in the day.
	I mean, to write Peaceful Parenting was great.
	To write my two novels was Great.
	And to feel more in control of my own sort of time and schedule to be able to do more call-ins was great.
	So I would say that the pluses of it are something that was the most surprising thing.
	Somebody says, I know you're a healthy guy and you probably don't eat fried chicken a lot.
	Just give me, give me, give me fried chicken.
	But when you do, what's your favorite piece?
	Gosh, when was the last time I ate fried chicken?
	I can't remember, but I'm a leg guy as a whole.
	Ah, do you really believe in unfettered capitalism with absolutely no restraint, even if it means loss of human rights and rampant pollution?
	I mean, there really is, of course, no such thing as capitalism.
	It's just sort of an abstract concept or description.
	There are people who are voluntarily trading to mutual benefit.
	When you think of trade, think of dating.
	Think of dating.
	Do you believe that people should just be allowed to pick their own dating partners and date whoever they want to sort of mutual advantage?
	Do you think that people should just be able to get married to whoever they want to mutual advantage, blah, blah, blah, right?
	Do you think that people should be able to stay in relationships or break up in relationships based upon what they perceive as best for them?
	Or should there be a sort of central registry where people have to get assigned dating, sexual, and...
	Romantic and marital partners.
	Do you think the people should just be able to choose the mother or father of their children, or should they be forced by the state or some other agency to who they're going to procreate with, right?
	Well, it's really all it comes down to, right?
	Absolutely no restraint.
	No.
	There is restraint.
	And restraint is consequences.
	So, you know, if you cheat people, then...
	It will cost you your reputation to some degree, right?
	So you cheat people and people want to do business with you and so on.
	In a truly free society, you would have sort of a contract rating, which would be a rating of how well you fulfill your contracts.
	And if you cheated people, then people would not want to do business with you.
	It would be more expensive to do business with you and so on, right?
	So there are tons of consequences.
	If you damaged somebody else's property through the, you know...
	Unwise exercise.
	If you're on property rights, then you're liable for the damage to somebody else's property and so on, right?
	This is an old Murray Rothbard story about the 19th century in England, that the sort of new satanic mills were pumping a whole bunch of pollution onto the apple orchards that were around London.
	And, of course, the apple orchard farmers took the factory owners to court, but the government basically said, Oh, well, we're getting way more taxes from the factory owners than we are from the apple orchard farmers, so we're just going to side with them and you're going to have to move, right?
	So, if you're concerned about people acting in a negative way without consequences, you should be the most concerned about the state.
	So, somebody's last question, are you still a voluntarist?
	And, of course, the answer is, it's not really up to me, it's up to facts, right?
	I mean, do you still...
	Do you still believe that the Earth is a sphere?
	It's not a willed thing.
	It's not a chosen thing.
	It's just based upon consistency, universality, and morality.
	Well, I hope this helps.
	FreeDomain.com to help out the show would massively appreciate it.

▲