All Episodes
Previous Next
July 28, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
02:28:34
Atheists on Trial: Why Not Lie? Twitter/X Space
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello, hello, Sphemo and you from Free Domain.
And yeah, we can talk some ethics, reason, virtue, evidence, morality, atheism, heaven above, hell within, and the demons below.
And sorry for starting this a little late, later than I wanted.
I got stuck in, I don't think you really need the details, but let me just tell you, I got stuck in incompetence hell.
Incompetence hell.
You know, where you're just trying to get someone to do something and there's delays.
Sorry, there are delays.
There are problems.
Sometimes Peter Bogosian was tweeting today and saying like, hey, has anybody noticed that the quality of service has gone down?
It's like, yep.
Yes, it has.
And that is because IQ is plummeting.
We know that.
The Flint effect has reached its peak some time ago.
And I got stuck in limbo.
In limbo.
All right.
So if you have been following, I guess I had a wee bit of a banger.
Bangers, beans and mash.
And let's see, what's it at?
How many views are it at?
What is it at views?
Yeah, 1.7 million, I guess, views.
If you're an atheist, what reason do you have to not lie?
And that's an important question.
It's an essential question, given that a lot of people are post-Christianity.
It's a pretty important question.
And people's responses are telling.
They're lazy.
They are irrational, hostile, angry, defensive.
You should just be able to give me a reason.
Now, of course, if you're not religious, you say, well, Christians don't have a good answer.
Religious people don't have a good answer.
Okay, but they have an answer.
It's a bad answer, but it's an answer.
It's a reason.
It's a bad reason, you could argue, from an atheist perspective, but at least it's a reason.
And why Christians don't lie, of course, we can talk about other religions as well, but I'm most familiar with Christianity, having been raised a Christian, of course.
But the reason that Christians don't lie is it is commanded by God to not bear false witness.
And because God is all-knowing, all good, all-powerful, then his moral rules are all good without exception.
I mean, you could find some exceptions to the rules, but where the rules apply, thou shalt not bear false witness is a good moral rule because the all-good, all-perfect moral creator of the universe says this is what the good is, and therefore it's the good, right?
And it's not like it goes against their instincts.
We generally like to think that telling the truth is a good thing.
So they have an answer.
They have a reason.
Now, if you're an atheist, obviously you don't believe in that reason.
You think that's a bad reason.
You don't believe in God.
And therefore, using claims of God as the source of morality is invalid.
I get that.
But way, way, way too many atheists, or maybe it's just the right amount given what I think of atheists these days, but way too many atheists are just saying, well, the Christian answer is bad.
So what, bro?
As my aunt used to say, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
So what?
What does it matter?
If somebody else has a bad answer, does that obstruct you from providing your good answer?
If I'm in a math class and the kid next to me writes two and two make five, and I say I'm good at math and the teacher says to me, what does two and two for?
What does two and two make?
And I say, hey, that kid says two and two makes five.
That's wrong.
What would that have to do with answering the question?
Nothing.
Attacking Christians is cowardly.
Of course, also, they attack.
Oh, look at these brave souls.
They attack a religion that commands its followers to love their enemies.
Not all religions do that, as we know.
Oh, look, they're picking the kid in glasses who won't fight back.
Oh, such fedora-wearing internet dice rolling D ⁇ D courage.
Magnificent.
Oh, there's a kid over there who's not allowed to hit back.
Oh, okay.
I'll go pick on that kid.
Oh, such nobility.
Such strength.
It's magnificent.
I'm getting a tan from all of this.
Fedora wearing Courage Fest.
So the other thing, of course, and you know, when you're outside a particular community, it's pretty easy to see the NPC talking points.
And of course, one of the atheist NPC talking points, and it is, it's absolutely unthinking.
One of the atheist NPC talking points is, well, if you need a sky daddy to be good, you're not really a good person.
Okay?
I get that.
But what does that have to do with atheism?
Question is, be it resolved.
Question is, if you're an atheist, what reason do you have to not lie?
Well, I don't believe in the Christian one.
What does that have to do with anything?
Answer the question or tell me I can't answer the question.
All of this sophist stuff is cringe.
It's embarrassing.
It's ridiculous.
It's foolish.
And you are displaying clear as day that you don't have an answer.
Question is, if you're an atheist, what reason do you have to not lie?
Well, Christians lie.
What does that have to do with anything?
I didn't ask what makes people not lie.
What reason do you have to not lie?
The Christians will say grace of God, salvation, desire for heaven, union with God, following Jesus, avoiding hell.
These are all reasons.
And again, if you're an atheist, I get you don't believe them.
But of course, I didn't mention Christianity here if you're an atheist, right?
I'm specifically excluding from the question, Christians en masse.
Religious people en mass.
If I say to me, if you're from Iowa, answer this question and somebody says, well, people from Botswana can't answer this question.
It's like, that's what?
I'm talking about people from Iowa.
Like dragging religion into a question specifically for atheists.
And the reason I'm excluding Christians is we know that they have their answer as to why they should tell the truth.
Does that mean they should always tell?
It doesn't mean it means they should always tell the truth, but it doesn't mean they always will tell the truth.
So, what do people say?
What do they say?
Well, here's someone who says: Building trust means that other people are more likely to help me and provide me resources.
I can lie, but it's risky.
If I'm found out, I might lose resources and assistance, right?
So, you tell the truth because it's practical and pleasurable.
It provides you a positive outcome, you hope.
That's not morality.
Morality are the rules you have to follow, even if they F up your life.
Even if they frack your life from here to eternity, these are moral rules you have to follow.
I mean, as Christians, as you know, have sacrificed their lives for their faith.
In fact, Christianity was founded to a large degree on the credibility of Jesus being the Son of God because his followers were willing to be tortured and murdered and torn apart by lions because of their faith.
So if he says, if somebody says, no, I get positive rewards and I like it.
Well, that's a bad answer because that's just hedonism.
I expect positive things.
My life will be better.
That's hedonism.
I expect positive things and I like to tell the truth.
I don't like it when I lie.
I'm unhappy when I lie.
I'm happy when I tell the truth.
That's just hedonism.
That is being driven like any rake, like any addict, being driven by that which is pleasurable and avoiding that which is painful.
And then these mouth-breathing smooth brains have the gall to say to Christians, well, your God just bribes you.
You know, you're just doing it for the sake of heaven and avoiding hell.
Whereas these people are saying, well, I tell the truth because I want to get positive social rewards out of it and I don't want to get negative social punishments out of it.
How is that different from heaven and hell?
It's just less than, but not different from.
Somebody says, that's easy.
Oh, don't you love it when people come into, you know, you know it's complicated.
You know it's complicated.
Somebody comes in like, that's easy.
Horrible getting tough.
That's easy, says Bill the Cat guy.
I can't believe the things I say.
That's easy.
You don't want to damage your relationships by having someone discover you lied.
Some atheists do have some personal integrity.
Well, you can also damage your relationships by telling the truth.
That doesn't answer anything.
And again, that's hedonism.
Well, it could have negative effects on my relationships.
I don't like that.
I don't want that.
Therefore, I won't do it.
Devon says the same reasons.
You have to not lie if you're a Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, or Zoroastrian.
Nope.
Nope.
First of all, Muslims are allowed to lie to outsiders under some interpretations, and Christians in general, it's universal.
Stephen says, I'm an atheist.
I don't need a God to tell me lying is wrong.
I value trust, empathy, and accountability.
So these are things he likes.
I like these things.
Well, I like the color blue.
I don't make that a moral argument.
Honesty helps build better relationships and a better world, and I want to live with integrity, not fear.
But integrity is just another word for morality.
Somebody writes, do, do.
I love it when the people like, do, like they put all of these things in, like they're speaking to a child.
You know, I just want to tell, I just want to ask you, I don't want to startle you.
Do you not have a conscience, Stefan?
Well, if a conscience were a universal absolute, we would neither have free will nor any need for morality.
So for instance, I don't need any rules.
I don't need to promulgate any rules that say, hey, you know what?
When you wake up in the morning, guys, seriously, you got to commit to gravity.
Commit to gravity.
You're just going to float out your window and offer disbed.
You've got to commit.
Focus on it.
Focus on it.
Do the gravity thing.
Don't do the un-gravity thing.
Gravity is an automatic process.
We don't have the free will to not be subject to gravity.
Neither do we need any exhortations to be subject to gravity.
So yeah, a lot of people don't have a conscience, right?
A lot of people don't.
At least 5% of the population doesn't have a conscience.
They're either sociopaths, psychopaths, or narcissists.
So people who say, well, I'm sensitive and I think about other people's feelings and blah, blah, blah.
Okay, well, first of all, you don't know if you're moral in an abstract sense.
You just like pleasing people, and therefore you do things that don't hurt them, and then you call that virtue.
Well, actually, that's just weakness.
To not have the capacity to upset people is not a strength.
It's a weakness.
If you can't be hated, you can't be loved.
Love is what you get when you're virtuous, and evil people hate the virtuous.
So if you're not willing to be loved and to really piss people off, frustrate them, anger them, annoy them, you can't be loved.
You're not a gladiator.
You're a jellyfish.
You don't not hurt people.
You have no capacity to hurt people because you're too frightened of a negative response.
Go lift weights.
Go lift yourself, man.
Somebody writes, personal accountability.
Ah, yes.
Personal accountability.
It keeps life simple to not have to remember many different realities.
Who knows what version, etc.
All I need to remember is the truth.
When I'm doubted, I never need to fight for something I know is untrue.
So yes, a lot of people did answer it this way.
A lot of people did say, well, you know, lying is, it's, it's complicated, man.
You've got to remember a whole bunch of different things.
Telling the truth is simple.
Well, it's not that simple, of course.
Sometimes people tell you things they don't want you to tell other people.
It's really complicated.
So-and-so knows this, but so-and-so can't know this.
So-and-so is indifferent to this.
So telling the truth isn't that simple.
And when people say, well, I don't lie because it's too difficult and complicated for me, what they're saying is, well, I don't lie because I'm bad at it.
I mean, really good liars remember everything.
Like really accomplished, professional-grade Olympic Bill Clinton-style liars, gold medal winners of falsehood.
They remember everything.
They're really good at lying.
So the fact that you suck at lying doesn't mean that you're a moral person for not lying.
That's like saying, well, I'm a pacifist because I suck at fighting.
I can't defend myself at all.
I have two wet fish at the end of my arms to make fists with.
No, you're bad at lying, so you don't lie.
That's hedonism.
If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then, brother, that person is a piece of shite.
Shisfer.
Well, but everyone who's an atheist who's replying to this comments, they're all saying, well, no, no, but it's good for me.
It's good for my relationships.
It's good for society.
I'm happier when I tell the truth.
I'm unhappy when I lie.
That's just expectation of reward and punishment.
Somebody says, I'm a human that cares about my fellow man, unlike the God-fearing Christians who only worry about their relationship with their God.
I suppose it's not that shocking, the level of ignorance about Christianity that goes on in the world today.
An atheist, look, I don't mean to toot my own horn.
It's not because I'm such a great guy.
It's because I was stuck in the Canadian wilderness for 18 months in total.
I read the Bible cover to cover.
Doesn't make me any kind of expert, just so you know.
But I did get some basics.
I mean, I went to Sunday school.
I went to church.
I was raised in the Anglican tradition.
I read the Bible cover to cover.
I've interviewed a whole bunch of people about religion, had lots of conversations.
So again, I'm not an expert at all, but I get some basics.
So Christians don't have a relationship with God because God commands a relationship with your neighbors, love thy neighbors and do good in the world and go out and preach the gospel and help the poor.
So God commands a relationship, horizontal, right?
So when you say Christians only worry about the relationship with their God, nope.
Nope.
Somebody says, because I detest being lied to, and it would be hypocritical of me to do it myself.
Right.
So you don't like it, so you don't do it.
That's hedonism.
Right?
If what you didn't like to do was work, you'd be lazy.
Maybe you are.
Pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain is hedonistic, and it's not the same as virtue.
It's not the same as morality.
Eating what tastes good and avoiding what tastes bad is not a diet plan.
It's not a nutrition plan.
It's just letting the taste overwhelm the needs of the body.
The tongue rules the stomach.
Russell says, the most rewarding life possible is one lived with utmost integrity.
Sure, there's plenty of strives that comes with it, but the inner peace that comes with unwavering honesty and congruency with reality is unparalleled.
Unparalleled, I tell you.
What?
So pleasure.
I seek inner peace and happiness.
I do these things because they make me happy.
That's hedonism.
James says, it's got nothing to do with religion.
It has everything to do with character and integrity.
So it's kind of a funny thing that people think synonyms are proof.
So character and integrity and morality and honesty, they're, you know, all, you know, like a 20-sided dice.
They're all around the same ball called morality.
Integrity to what?
What is morality?
Dave writes, it pays dividends to be truthful.
You want to be truthful because people treat you better.
And you cause less trouble for those around you.
That comes back to you.
You, on the other hand, have just admitted that the only reason you don't lie is because you're afraid of eternal punishment.
So I didn't include the word fellow atheists in there, because it doesn't matter.
So everyone who asks questions of atheists has to be, what, a fundamentalist Christian?
Boy, talk about a bubble, right?
And also what it says is that atheists are not questioning each other.
They're just united in their contempt for Christianity.
It's a little demonic, frankly.
Because they're always criticizing Christians.
They're rarely criticizing Satanists, right?
Well, for reasons we can imagine.
So as Dave says, it pays dividends to be truthful.
So you're bribed with honesty.
People treat you better when you're honest.
You get more trust, more social resources.
People like you.
They can do business with you.
They're not positive.
Because it's just Satanism.
You're saying that you do what society approves of.
A few reasons.
First, why would you lie to someone you care about?
There may be reasons, but then do you really care about them if you're not willing to tell the truth?
Second, I've seen what happens to people when they lie and get caught out in that lie as the person they're lying to ask questions and trips them up.
Horrible situation.
So that's negative, right?
Oh, you get punished.
You get exposed.
It's horrible.
It's embarrassing.
Tell the truth all the time or just don't answer.
Don't offer up false information.
I try to live by that.
Hard to retain friends doing that, though.
Okay, why would you lie to someone you care about?
Well, of course, we move through society interacting with a lot of people who aren't friends and family, right?
We interact with people a lot.
People when they're lying get caught, holy crap, toller balls, Batman.
The idea, the idea, the very idea that people get punished for lying, holy shysterballs.
That's just astounding.
Like, where the freck have you been since history was first recorded?
The government lied America into the weapons of mass destruction hoax to post-9-11, 2001 to 2003.
David Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, we don't want the smoking gun to be in the form of a mushroom cloud.
They lied their ever-loving bull sacks off.
Hashtag not Condoleezza Rice, I think.
What happened to them?
What happened to George W. Bush, the shrub?
What happened to him?
What happened to all the people who pushed the Russia collusion conspiracy theory hoax that partially emasculated Trump's first presidency?
What happened to all the people who lied their asses off about the COVID vaccine?
Oh, it stops transmission.
Well, actually, technically, we never really tested that.
Oh, it doubles your chance of survival.
Yes, from 0.5 to 1% or 1% or 2% or whatever it is, right?
They gave you relative, not absolute, right?
The virus stops with you.
You'll never get COVID again if you take this vaccine.
I mean, what happened?
Those people made tens of billions of dollars.
Governments massively expanded their powers, turned us all against each other.
What happened?
What happens to people who perchure themselves before Congress?
What happens to liars in this world?
Somebody says, I hate it when people lie to me.
Well, I hate eggplant.
It's like they sliced a sweaty devil's haunches and deep-fried it in vileness and evil.
But that's not a moral preference.
Somebody says, I hate the feeling that comes after lying and the mental burden of remembering the BS to stay coherent.
So she hates that feeling, and so I don't like it, and it's too hard.
They think this is moral.
Self-preservation, lying doesn't usually doesn't work long-term.
What are you talking about?
Makeup is lying.
Commercials all lie to you.
Governments, politicians, the media, lies, lies, lies.
And they have infinite power and control.
When have you ever seen a politician, a successful politician, wake up one day and say, I can't do these lies anymore.
I quit.
Oh, I'm going to go become a monk.
Oh, I feel befouled in my very soul.
No, it doesn't happen.
They love it.
See, people, this is the thing, man.
If you're going to base it on hedonism, you've got nothing with regards to morality.
You've got nothing.
You've got nothing.
Well, I don't lie because it feels bad and I'm bad at it.
Okay, what about the people who enjoy lying and are really good at it?
What are you going to tell them?
Well, I don't lie because I feel bad and I'm bad at it.
Okay, somebody's going to say, well, that's great.
Good.
Less competition for me.
Somebody's going to say, I'm a con man.
They're going to say, I enjoy lying.
Feels good, man.
Victory.
You know, like, you know that feeling you're a quarterback?
Nah, you're not a quarterback.
He's the one who snaps the ball.
Like you're a running guy in football.
You catch the ball and you dodge to the right.
The guy's going to block you to the right.
And then you dodge to the left.
You fooled him.
You lied to him.
You indicated you were going a certain way.
You're going another way.
And he just goes tits over us, rolling into the stands.
And then you get your touchdown.
That's a great feeling.
You faked him out.
You duked him out.
That's beautiful, man.
You know, like in tennis, when you make like you're going to smash the ball.
You're going to smash the ball.
And then you pink.
You just do a little dink, little dink.
And they're all the way at the back because they thought it was going to get smashed.
Oh, it's delightful.
You know, in chess, when you build a particular move and you get them distracted, and then you're doing something around the side, beautiful, man.
Trojan horses, war.
Deception is fun.
In boxing, they think you're going to throw your right hand, then you throw your left hand.
They think you're going for their right jaw, you're going for their left rib.
Ah, love it.
Deception, fraud.
Love it.
Love it.
They love it.
They love it.
And they're really good at it.
What are you going to say?
Hedonism doesn't work.
Hedonism is just saying, well, I don't like something, but that doesn't make it immoral.
It just means that you don't like it.
I'm bad at doing moguls when skiing.
I'm not a particularly great skier.
I can do most hills, but I'm not particularly great.
But I suck at moguls.
In fact, my daughter and I, when I was teaching her skiing, we got stuck on the side of a hill because we went into mogul land and one of my skis fell off and we were there for like half an hour trying to crawl our way back up.
Damn bad at moguls.
That doesn't make moguls evil.
I mean, they felt evil that day, but it wasn't make them evil, right?
Someone else writes, in practical terms, lying introduces cognitive overhead that tends to compound.
Yes, it's work.
But there's lots of things that induce cognitive overhead.
Learning piano induces cognitive overhead.
So what is that?
Not moral.
Long-term consequences of being caught lying, which almost certainly will eventually tend to outweigh short-term benefits.
Well, if you're lying and you're a conservative or on the right, then you're going to get punished.
If you're on the left, then you won't, right?
Everyone knows that, right?
Long-term consequences of being caught lying for people in power doesn't happen.
Generally, you will probably also have a harder time trusting other people.
But if you're an exploiter and a con man, you don't want to trust other people.
You just want to feign trust.
You want to feign being trustworthy.
It's wrong to hurt other people.
Lying is hurting other people through deception.
Therefore, lying is wrong.
So I will not do what hurts other people, right?
This is the argument.
I will not do what hurts other people, which would be an embarrassing moral rule to put to a kindergartner, let alone an adult human.
If you will not do that which hurts other people, oh my God, how is this possible for people on the internet to not know this?
People on the internet in particular.
So, come on, people.
It's not that hard.
It's wrong to hurt other people.
I will not do that which hurts other people.
But then all other people do is pretend to be hurt to control you.
They just pretend.
I mean, what, have you never dealt with a hysterical woman?
Right.
If you say, well, I'm not going to do things that hurt other people.
Well, then all that other people do is pretend that you've hurt them in order to control your behavior.
You've got to have standards.
You've got to have standards different from other people's real or fake feelings.
Oh my God.
It's wrong to hurt other people.
Okay, don't be a surgeon.
Don't be a dentist.
Don't be a doctor who tells the truth.
Don't say to people that they're fat when they're fat.
It's just, oh, but long term, right?
It's not what he said.
Didn't say long term.
Ron says morality doesn't come from religion.
It's realized, not imitated.
Haha.
Excellent.
I feel enlightened.
Enlightened.
Like somebody poked out my eyes.
Wild man.
Wild stuff.
Somebody says,'cause I'd like to avoid being a piece of shite like you.
And one of these ways is to be truthful.
So yeah, but hey, if you need Sky Daddy to keep you in check, that says a lot more about you than it does about me.
This is schoolyard stuff.
I know you are, but what am I?
Actually, I did have one.
Some guy said, you're an idiot.
You're an idiot, right?
It's fine.
So I replied, you'd never say that to somebody who was a real idiot, like somebody with an IQ of 70.
Therefore, you require that I have the intelligence to know that you're insulting my intelligence so that insulting my intelligence becomes worthwhile.
You have to assume I'm not an idiot in order for me to be potentially hurt by you calling me an idiot.
I know this, you don't, therefore I'm much smarter than you.
Somebody says, if you need to outsource your conscience in order to prevent you from lying, stealing, or murdering, how can you comprehend that there are people who have an internal conscience?
What answer would satisfy and be accepted?
So, I mean, I've said this for like, I don't know, 30 years or more, that most moralists, they're just trying to sell diet books to thin people or slender people, right?
Lean people.
I mean, if you are a person who doesn't want to lie, steal, or kill, great.
You know that the problem is the people who want to do that stuff, right?
That's the problem.
That's the problem.
And also, if you don't develop the principles of why lying, stealing, or murdering is wrong, if you don't develop those principles, you're just going to be manipulated because people are going to hide what they're doing, right?
So thou shalt not steal.
Okay, what about forced government redistribution of wealth?
Could that be considered stealing?
If you just look at individuals with weapons moving, right?
So you're just going to be blind.
You don't have the principles.
You just rely on your conscience.
That's just another kind of hedonism because your conscience needs to be trained by Reason.
It needs to be trained by philosophy.
It needs to have abstract moral virtues.
Otherwise, your conscience just becomes, I like, I don't like.
And that's like trying to guide your meals by what tastes good.
Maybe, just maybe, maybe.
You have the palate that has you only like food that is super good for you, but most people don't.
So this is not about the answer.
I'll give the answer.
I have the answer.
I'll give the answer.
But this is about more questions and comments and criticisms.
And I thank you for your patience.
It is your show now.
Come back to the five and dime, Jimmy Dean.
Jimmy Dean?
I think after today, people who want to talk and then don't talk.
Because if he, you know, I don't know if he's listening or not.
If he's not listening, then it's not going to be much fun to have the combo.
Oh, hey, Seth.
Yo.
I kind of joined into the space late, but I kind of wanted to ask you, what do you think about the fact-value distinction, like within philosophy?
And do you think that's something that ultimately kind of obtains?
Or do you think it's a kind of false binary?
So when you say the fact-value distinction, do you mean the humian is-aught dichotomy?
Well, I mean, do you want to want to make, why don't you make the case so that people, I don't want to, you know, I could do it, but why don't you make the case so that people know what I'll be rebutting, if you don't mind?
I guess it's basically the idea that something is the case that doesn't like necessarily allow you to deduce what ought to be the case from that.
I guess that's maybe a simplistic overview, but.
Okay, so yeah, so in the Christian worldview, the universe is an ought.
We ought to obey God.
We ought to follow the commandments of Jesus.
We ought to get to heaven.
We ought to save our souls.
And so the entire universe is constructed around oughts.
Like in the same way that, and I'm sorry to use this analogy because it's a little coarse, but in the same way that when you design a zoo, the entire purpose is to have people come and pay to see the animals, right?
So you wouldn't build a zoo where people couldn't see the animals.
So the entire purpose, the ought of the zoo is to make money and, you know, hopefully do some good for the animals and so on.
So in the Christian worldview, the universe is a giant ought.
Now, in the atheist worldview, the universe is not designed.
The universe is not created.
The universe does not have a purpose.
The universe simply is.
Is that a fair way, at least of starting with the metaphysics of both systems?
Yeah, that's fair.
Okay.
Now, there is no virtue, morality, purpose, or truth in atoms and space.
There's no meaning inscribed in carbon atoms.
We're largely composed of carbon atoms.
There's no meaning inscribed in hydrogen or oxygen atoms.
H2O, we're mostly water.
So we are atoms and space, and there is no ought.
There is no should.
Now, the fact that if I push someone off a cliff, they fall and die, that is a fact.
Now, in the religious worldview, I shouldn't do that because God commands, thou shalt not kill.
And that is the ought.
The ought comes from divine power, grace, and the metaphysical nature of reality, which is it is here for us to make good choices and to get to heaven.
However, in the atheist atoms and void worldview, the fact that if I push a guy off a cliff and he falls to his death, there's no ought in that.
Like we can make an ought, but it isn't in the nature of the universe.
The universe doesn't care.
The atoms don't care if they're alive or dead.
Now, the man may care, but so what?
I mean, the zebra doesn't want to get eaten by the lion, but if the lion doesn't eat the zebras, the zebras overmultiply and they all die anyway.
So in the atoms and space mechanistic view of the universe that comes out of atheism, there is no should, there is no ought.
We can make up all the rules we want, but they're man-made.
They're not inscribed into the nature of the universe like physical laws.
Again, tell me if I'm in the rough approximation of accuracy regarding these worldviews.
Yeah, I think that's right.
But I think there are kind of other opinions or positions.
So for instance, you know, the notion of like teleonomy, a purposiveness without a predefined purpose would maybe be a kind of middle position here.
I don't know.
You guys, I don't know what that means, if you don't mind explaining it.
Well, so like organic life forms, right?
They have a kind of intrinsic purposiveness to them, but they don't necessarily.
Yeah, but not moral.
Not moral.
I mean, the zebra wants to eat the grass and not be eaten by the lion.
The lion wants to eat the zebra and not be kicked by a hoof while chasing.
I mean, so they have their purposes, but they're not morals.
Couldn't you kind of give yourself your own law or your own kind of?
No, no, if it's my own law, then it's not moral.
Morals have to be universal.
Otherwise, they're just personal preferences.
Like I could have a law for myself that says, I'm going to get up at six o'clock in the morning and spend three hours writing, right?
That could be a law for myself, a rule for myself, but it wouldn't be a universal moral rule, right?
I think you could have like autonomous ethics as opposed to like heteronymous ethics.
And yeah, hang on, bro, bro.
Are you trying to sound smart?
I'm not trying to, I'm not, I'm not understanding why you're so bad at communicating.
Autonomous versus, like, do you think everyone knows these terms?
Like, you know, you're speaking to a general audience, right?
Educated, smart, general audience.
Like, why are you using these complicated terms without explaining them?
I was waiting for you to explain them, and then you were going to move on to some other topic.
So sorry, go ahead.
Yeah, again.
Heteronymous means basically referring to some outside or ulterior authority, whereas autonomous is basically the idea of self-legislation, like giving oneself a law for oneself.
And give me some examples of this external authority.
Would that be God or police, courts, justice system?
Yeah, God or craps, you know, humanity, the state.
These would be other kinds of heteronymous ethics.
So enforced ethics.
Yeah.
Okay.
But there's no moral content to rules being enforced, right?
Because you can have good rules, so to speak, like don't steal or whatever, don't murder.
And you can have bad rules.
You know, all who disagree with communism get to the gulag, right?
So the simple enforcement of rules Through the use of force is not related to morality.
It may coincidentally be related to morality, but it certainly isn't in any absolute sense.
I mean, we've seen in China, in Cuba, in Nazi Germany, in Russia under the Soviets, I mean, all kinds of appalling, terrible laws, right?
All being forced by an external authority.
So it's not the same as morality, right?
Sure.
Would you apply that same kind of idea to God?
Like, could we in theory have a God with an immoral set of laws?
Sure.
Yeah, absolutely.
There would be laws that you could find from a variety of religions.
For instance, the Aztecs believed in a God that was fed by the terrified tears of children.
So they would torture children, collect their tears, sacrifice it to that God who commanded them to do that according to their perception.
And that would be an utterly evil rule that came from religion.
Right.
Yeah.
So I'm kind of curious, like, what is your moral theory?
And like, what is the criterion in place?
No, no, I'm not doing answers today.
No, this is exploration time.
I've got the answers because I've got a whole book I've written like 15 years ago about all of this.
But I do want to help people over the is-ought dichotomy.
And this came, so this, I've got a whole History of Philosophers series, which is available at freedomain.locals.com for subscriptions.
You can 22 parts.
Fantastic work.
Fantastic work.
I got to tell you.
And I have a whole section on Hume, David Hume.
So this came out of the scientific revolution.
This came out of the new materialism that was in the later Middle Ages.
And this also came out of a particular or peculiar, or not peculiar, but strong horror at the religious wars racking Europe after the Reformation.
300 years of religious wars will make people a little skeptical about the peaceful nature of theism.
But in the atoms and void, and this is something that Pascal was terrified by, he's like, I'm terrified by the thought of these infinitely empty spaces.
And when you really do conceive of the universe, I don't mean to get all kinds of woo-woo on you, but if you really conceive of the universe, just how enormous it is, how empty it is.
You know, there's an old saying in biology, I don't know if there's a God, but I do know that if there is one, he's inordinately fond of beetles because there's a huge amount of beetles.
Like 99, whatever percent of everything is hydrogen.
And there's massive empty spaces.
Eight minutes to the sun, quarter second to the moon, 4.3 light years to the closest star, Alpha Centauri, or whatever it is.
I think there's another one that's closer now, but you've got, you know, massive voids, 100 billion stars, 100 billion galaxies, and almost all of it is empty, dead coincidence of aggregated matter orbiting accidental atomic bombs called suns or stars.
So it's kind of weird.
It's kind of weird.
So with the new understanding, and of course, in the shifting of the Earth from the center of the universe, as was perceived in the ancient world and, of course, in the early to middle Middle Ages, the shifting of the world through the new astronomers, right?
They got the lenses and then they got the heliocentric solar system and the Tycho Brahe and Copernicus and all of that helped people to understand that the Earth was not the center of the universe, even though the Bible says the Earth is fixed and doesn't move, that we were rocketing around the sun, the sun was rocketing around the galaxy, and we're just a coincidental bald ape species on a nondescript rock 93 million miles away from a small to average sun in the middle of nowhere.
And it gave people a whole, I mean, I don't know that there's been a bigger disorientation in the human mind than that which occurred during the scientific revolution.
I think when people finally stop believing in the myth of political power, that will be equivalent, but I can only chip away at that.
It's up to each individual to accept and reason with people about that.
Statistically and historically, it only takes about 3% of people to change society.
Once 3% of people are committed to changing society, society changes because most people follow.
And we're not anywhere close to 3% as yet, which, again, is everybody's individual choice.
So I just wanted to give a little bit of a background.
They said, but we can't get an ought from an is.
You can't get moral rules out of the nature of the universe.
And the person who put the final nail in that coffin, of course, was one Charles Darwin in his theory of evolution.
So how do you get an ought from an is?
Well, the moment somebody says to me, Steph, Steph, Steph, and they always say it very loftily, and not you, right?
Because I know we're just jawboning here, but they say, Steph, my God, man, don't you know, you simpleton, you fool?
Don't you know you can't get an ought from an is?
To which I reply, you just did.
You can't get an ought from an is.
It is against truth to get an ought from an is.
You must not get an ought from an is.
That is getting an ought, in this case, an ought not, from an is.
So the very statement saying there is no ought in the is saying there is an ought in the is, which is, it is not.
I know that's a bit of a mouthful.
And where there is one ought, there can be more.
So the very statement, you cannot get an ought from an is, is a declarative statement of a truth requirement that does not exist in reality.
And so you've already broken the barrier and said, there are truth statements that you can get from the nature of reality.
In this case, you ought not get an ought from an is.
Okay.
So the fact that people haven't seen that is because they're desperate to avoid moral responsibility and they want to erase the moral rules of Christianity and not have anything substitute them.
It's kind of a hedonism.
Again, I'm not talking about you, but in general.
So there is no such thing as the is-ought dichotomy.
If I am going to make a statement about reality that I claim to be true, it is true to the degree that it accurately describes reality.
Think about scientific rules, right?
Simple ones, mass attacks mass.
Sorry, mass attracts mass through a concept called gravity.
Okay, that's my statement.
And I'm saying that my statement is valid and true because it accurately describes what occurs within reality.
So if I'm claiming that my statement accurately reflects the nature, properties, and behavior of matter and energy, right?
If I'm claiming That my statement accurately describes reality, then my statement must accurately describe reality.
If I say, I had a dream last night that I was a penguin, I'm not claiming that I'm describing objective reality, but rather a subjective perception in the form of a dream.
But if I say, I am saying something not about my internal or subjective state, I like ice cream.
I'm saying something that is true objectively and universally, then it has to be true objectively and universally.
The ought comes out of the nature of what I am claiming.
I am claiming not a subjective experience, but a universal, absolute, and objective truth.
Therefore, everybody else should be able to reproduce it as they see fit if they have the right equipment.
If I say gases expand when heated, you should be able to heat any gas and see it expand.
Heat a balloon, see if it gets bigger, whatever, right?
So the is-ought dichotomy is destroyed in the very statement.
The is-ought dichotomy, sure, there is no such thing as the inverse square law in the universe.
There is no such thing as the concept of gravity in the universe.
There is a concept called gravity that we use to describe the behavior of matter, not energy in this case, but matter.
So if I'm going to claim a universal statement, it needs to be universal.
The ought comes out of the very claim that I'm making.
I'm claiming this is universal, therefore it has to be universal.
So that's how we get past the isOught dichotomy, if that makes sense.
Okay, yeah, I think I understand your position.
Maybe you can tell me if I have this right.
Is this the idea that like any kind of logical judgment has some kind of normative content?
So if I say like two plus two equals four, like like implicit in making that mathematical judgment, it's kind of like I'm saying you should accept that two plus two equals four and not five.
Is it something like that?
Well, whether you should or should not accept it, you cannot say it is false without lying.
Right?
So I wouldn't like if I say I accept that which is true, right?
So numbers are a little tricky.
Let's just do a basic syllogism, right?
The famous one.
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal.
Right.
Now you can reject that if you want and say, no, no, all men are mortal.
Socrates is a man, but Socrates is immortal.
But then you've just disqualified yourself from any rational discourse and nobody who wants a rational discourse is going to interact with you.
Does that make sense?
Yeah, I get that.
Right.
So it's not like you have to or you ought to, but if you want to have a rational discourse, you need to accept reason.
Now, if you don't want to have a rational discourse, that's fine.
Then don't have a rational discourse.
It's not like you have to.
I mean, you don't even have to breathe.
You don't have to eat.
If you want to live, you probably want to keep breathing and eating.
So it's simply if what I have stated is true, and if you value truth, then you must accept what I'm saying is true.
But I mean, there's a lot of ifs in there for sure.
But the good news is, like, so people say to me, well, you can't trust the evidence of your senses, right?
And I say, well, but you're using the evidence of my senses to communicate that I can't trust the evidence of my senses.
That's a contradiction.
It's a performative contradiction, which means, or I call it a self-detonating statement, which means that it's the same thing that happens with the isort dichotomy.
You are destroying your own argument in the formulation of the argument.
So if you say language is meaningless, you say it or you type it out, you're saying language has no capacity to convey meaning, but you're using language to convey the argument that language has no capacity to convey meaning.
You're using the meaning of words to say that words cannot have meaning.
That is a performative contradiction.
That's like mailing me a letter saying that no letters ever get delivered to the right address.
But if no letters ever get delivered to the right address, why would you mail me a letter?
So one of the things that I've done in the realm of philosophy is say, okay, forget all of these abstract considerations.
Look at what the person is doing first.
Look at how many metaphysical and epistemological solutions there are just in slowing the F down and looking at what people are doing.
Right?
So if people say to me, you don't exist, say, well, why are you talking to me?
If people say to me, I'm a determinist, you can't change your mind.
It's like, well, why are you trying to change my mind about not being able to change my mind?
Like, if you just look at what people are doing, you can't trust the evidence of your senses.
Dude, you're relying upon the fact that I can trust the evidence of my senses in order to tell me I can't, because you're using my hearing or my sight if I'm reading.
So if we simply look at the is-ought dichotomy, if somebody tries to argue me out of a position, they say, well, your position is false and you need to get a correct or valid or true position, then they're saying the truth exists.
It's of extremely high value.
It's the highest value.
And you should alter your positions.
You should alter your mental constructs or your concepts to be in accordance with the truth.
So we've just solved like literally 98% of epistemological and metaphysical questions are literally answered in the very form of having a debate using the medium of objective reality, requiring the validity of the senses and necessitating that language has meaning.
Does that make sense?
Right.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Maybe it's kind of like play devil's advocate a bit.
Couldn't the person say, you know, I'm not making some kind of like prescriptive judgment.
I'm just sort of like describing, you know, what is in fact the case?
Let's just take, you know, for example, you cannot derive an ought from an is.
That statement.
And then I would say, but you just did.
Because I would say, look, you just told me I cannot, I ought not get an ought from an is.
So that's saying that there is an ought from an is.
I think saying they cannot just kind of like entails a capacity.
Whereas like if they said you should not, whether it should not.
No, should not and cannot are different.
I should not go to Philadelphia if it's on fire.
I cannot jump to the moon.
Those two things are different.
Should not means you're capable of doing it, but it's just not a wise Idea or a decent idea cannot is a statement of impossibility, it's impossible, right?
Yeah, so like from their perspective, they could just say, like, you think that you're deriving an ought from an is, but in fact, you're not.
This is just some kind of like dialectical illusion based on that.
Okay, so then I would say, so because there's no ought embedded in atoms, I ought not say there is, right?
Because there is no ought embedded in atoms, you ought not say there is, right?
Because oughts do not exist in the universe, I ought not say that oughts exist in the universe, right?
I just kind of like wonder what is like the predicate existing exist adding to like the concept of ought in this.
Okay, we can say invalid, right?
Because oughts are not embedded in the nature of the universe.
I ought not say that they are, which I would agree with.
Oughts are not embedded in the nature of the universe, for sure.
There is no ought in an atom.
I get that.
But what the person is saying is when they say you can't get an ought from an is, they're saying that the contents of your mind should accurately reflect the nature of reality if you're making claims about the nature of reality.
So your concepts that claim to be universal descriptors of the nature of reality should not include things that are not part of the nature of reality.
If I said there are 12 ghosts in the room and they can't be proven or established in any way, they would say, well, that is not a true statement because you can't prove or validate it in any way.
And also, not only can you not prove it or validate it in any way, there's no spectral detector, right?
So because of that, we have to, like, there's no difference between there not being 12 ghosts in the room and you claiming that there are 12 ghosts in the room.
It shows up the exact same way.
And the other thing would be that ghosts is a contradiction in terms because you're saying there is life and consciousness without matter.
But there is no such thing as consciousness without matter.
That's like saying there's gravity without mass.
Consciousness is an effect of the brain.
So you can't have incorporeal consciousness any more than you can have free-floating gravity without a material origin or origin within matter.
So if I'm going to make claims about the nature of reality external to my consciousness, then those claims need to accurately reflect the nature of reality.
Can we say that?
I think you could just evaluate these kind of claims imminently within your own consciousness and not necessarily presuppose some kind of theory of correspondence.
Okay, so can you give me an example of that?
I mean, you mean Platonism?
No, because I think Platonism is also a kind of correspondence theory.
Okay.
Can you explain to people what correspondence theory means?
So like there are different forms, but like let's say a proposition corresponds to a state of affairs in reality.
So the cat is on the mat.
That proposition is true when in fact there is a cat upon the mat, basically.
Right.
As opposed to I dreamt I was a penguin last night, which people can't reproduce, right?
They can't go into sleep and have the same dream that I had, right?
So it's a subjective experience.
Okay.
Well, yeah, but can't you just like look at the subjective experience on its own terms and kind of like bracket, you know, the questions of like what it corresponds to?
So like my subjective experience is true as a subjective experience.
We can just like evaluate it.
Well, sorry, hang on.
But then that begs the question, what do you mean by true?
So if I say I like cheesecake, but I've never eaten cheesecake, is it true?
Well, no.
But you can't validate whether I do in fact like cheesecake or not.
Like if there's a cat on the mat, we can both look at it and see if there is one, right?
Or if we're blind, we can feel for it, right?
So if you have a subjective experience, it cannot be validated empirically, right?
I mean, I guess it depends on what you mean empirically.
Like I would say you can't validate it extensionally, right?
Sorry, what's extensional, right?
Basically.
I'm not extension.
In logic, you have like a basic intentional, intentional, extensional dichotomy.
So like my beliefs about a thing or even like modal distinctions like possibility, necessity, these are examples of like intentional properties.
Okay, so can you give me sort of concrete examples of a subjective experience that could be validated externally?
I mean, sorry, go ahead.
Well, I mean, that's not the claim, though.
I'm not saying you can validate it externally.
I'm just saying like you need to kind of like bracket these sort of questions of reference and just like observe the phenomenon.
Okay, bracket these questions of reference.
What the hell does that mean?
I don't know what that means.
Sorry.
Give me some good old Anglo-Saxon empiricism.
I don't know what that phrase refers to.
Yeah, I don't know.
Bracket questions of reference.
Like, what about that?
Don't you understand?
I don't understand.
Bracket questions of reference.
What does that mean in real world scenarios?
Just like look at things as they present themselves, basically.
Look at things as they present.
So empirically.
If I have a dream or like, you know, a phantasm, right?
And say, like, I don't know, a deer appears to me in the dream.
I can just, you know, describe the deer as it appears to me.
Okay.
So like, would you like object to that kind of methodology in general?
No.
I mean, if you tell me that you had a dream about a deer and you tell me about the deer, I mean, I wouldn't consider it proven empirically, but I would have no particular reason.
If let's say that you're not some pathological liar or you don't stand to gain some material advantage from convincing me of this and I don't trust you, then I would say, okay, you had a, you know.
I mean, I do dream analyses on these shows.
People tell me they dream.
Sorry, go ahead.
Yeah, I thought of a better example.
I mean, do you know who the Indian mathematician Ramanujan was?
No, but I think I ate some of those packets in university.
But no, go ahead.
He was a mathematician who developed novel mathematical theorems and proofs.
And he didn't actually know how he arrived at them, but he had dreams where he believed the goddess was communicating these things from him.
So I think that is an example of a subjective experience kind of giving.
No, but it has to be validated, right?
He wouldn't say this theorem.
Let's say he was Gödel's last theorem or whatever it was, right?
He wouldn't say, I've proven it and provide no proof.
He would still have to work through the proof, right?
He might be inspired by a particular vision, but he would not claim that the vision was the proof, but it may lead him to the proof or give him the confidence that he could achieve the proof, but he'd still need to provide the proof, right?
The actual symbolic notation appeared to him in the dream, but the actual derivation of the proof was something he arrived at later, I think.
Fantastic.
Okay, so people only accepted it when he wrote down the proof.
I think there are mathematical theorems that aren't proved, but people generally suppose them to be valid.
Sure, but that's contingent upon their necessity, right?
And so there are things that there's no unified field theory, but we generally accept that matter and behavior exists in some predictable manner.
But you'd still need to prove.
Like if I said, I have a dream, I had a dream that I knew the exact equations for a unified field theory, like the one unified theory of everything.
People would not accept that I'd proven it unless I was able to prove it in some manner, right?
Well, I mean, I think there are like operational descriptions of things that don't, in fact, rest on truth.
I think there are schools.
Yes, but they're not proven.
Yeah, I think there are schools of mathematics that kind of want to, you know, like kind of like bypass a lot of these questions of truth.
I get that.
I get that.
And they may find them useful and they may find them valid.
But if they haven't been proof, I mean, I'm aware of these sort of mathematical theorems, though, of course, not in great detail.
I'm not far from a mathematician.
But there's stuff where it's like, and you see this in mathematical proofs all the time.
If we assume that X is true, then we get the following, right?
And X could be some big complicated idea or argument or supposition regarding the behavior of, could be numbers or matter and energy.
And there's a bunch of stuff in physics for sure.
It has not been proven, but a lot of proofs rely upon it being true.
Does that make sense?
Yes.
Okay.
So we would say that it's useful, but we would not say that it's proven.
Yeah, I think like proof is really something that is only really relevant in like pure mathematics and logic.
I don't think any of the other sciences are really.
Well, we have it in physics, right?
Maybe.
No, no, no.
Come on.
Let's not.
I mean, let's not get all quantum here, right?
Is it true that it is the Earth that orbits the sun and not the other way around?
Well, yes.
Okay, so that's been true.
I don't think that's what.
I guess I'm not sure what you mean by proof in that instance.
What do you mean?
I don't think that would be the same thing.
Hang on.
It conforms with.
Hang on.
It conforms with all observations, all mathematical proofs, even that stick in the desert, like they did a stick thousands of years ago in Egypt, I think it was.
They put two sticks and measured the shadows, and they were able to figure out that the world was round and so on, right?
So, I mean, that's a slightly different proof, but it certainly means that the world isn't flat, right?
And so the fact that the sun is the center of the solar system accords with all mathematical proofs.
It accords with all systems of gravity and momentum and centrifugal forces.
And there's not one single piece of information that contradicts it.
Therefore, it's proven.
I don't think that's like a proof in the logical sense.
Like if you read, you know, Russell and Whitehead's performance.
Okay, do you think, okay, what percent?
Okay, that's fine.
What percentage do you think it is not true that the Earth revolves around the Sun?
I would say like 0.001, something like that.
So you think there's a chance that the Sun, in fact, orbits the Earth?
Sure, probabilistically.
I would say it's basically null, but on what grounds would you doubt that the Earth orbits the Sun?
Well, I mean, like all our observations could be like mistaken.
And I think I agree.
That's like something that's highly.
What does that mean?
You mean the view from the space station, all mathematics is false, all sense data is false, all physics theories that prove it are false?
Like, I'm not sure what you mean.
Isn't that just radical Cartesian skepticism that we're a brain in a tank controlled by some matrix adult demon?
Sure.
And I don't think you can actually ever refute that extreme form of skepticism.
But I would just say it's kind of like not useful to work with that model when we have actual models that can predict phenomena.
Sorry, I don't know what that means.
So you are not willing to say it's true that the Earth orbits the Sun?
No, I am willing to say it's true.
No, but you said that.
No, it's not true if you hold a 0.01% theory that it's not true.
You can't say it's true.
It's likely.
It's most likely.
It's most likely, but it's not true, true.
Sure, it's not absolutely true.
And I don't absolutely know that.
That's fine.
Okay.
Now, are you saying that there's nothing in the realm of the senses?
Because when we're talking about mathematics and numbers and so on, we're talking about pure abstractions, right?
Not pure, like they're unrelated to reality, but we can manipulate them without reference to external reality, which makes them different from physics, right?
You can have a mathematical equation or proof that doesn't touch, that requires no physical experimentation at all, right?
Is that fair to say?
Yeah.
Okay.
So that would be 100% true.
And what standard of truth would you have for the material world that could be 100%?
Well, kind of like I said earlier, I can be certain about the phenomena that I experience.
I can be certain that I'm looking at my hand.
Right.
And yeah, that's that kind of basic idea, like, you know, phenomenal or eidetic reduction, you know, to use.
So the only thing that you can be certain about, again, this is back to Cartesian stuff, right?
I think, therefore, I am.
So the only thing that you can be certain about is your direct sense data, is that right?
Yeah, and math and logic, right?
Like tautology, essentially.
Well, a tautology doesn't provide any new information.
So it's not, it's not, there's no certainty or uncertainty, right?
A ball is a ball.
It's not particularly valuable.
Okay.
So if numbers and logic are perfectly true and the fact that the Earth goes around the sun is in perfect accordance with math and logic, wouldn't that make that perfectly true?
I still think there's a difference between, you know, philosophers will use terms like apodictic versus.
No, no, no.
Just go with me on the question, right?
I just need an answer.
If math and logic are perfectly true and the earth going around the sun is in perfect accordance with math and logic, would that not make the statement the earth goes around the sun also perfectly true?
Because it's in perfect accordance with that which is perfectly true, which is math and logic.
Yeah, I'm just not like sure what you mean by perfectly true here.
It kind of seems a bit empty.
Sorry.
So I don't think it is.
So math and logic are perfectly true, right?
Maybe like.
This is what you were saying.
Don't hedge me.
This is what you were saying.
Don't hedge me about when I'm repeating back to you what you said.
The only things that are perfectly true are math and logic, right?
Okay, yeah, that's fair.
Now I'm starting to get suspicious that you're not in a full-throated pursuit of truth when I quote yourself back to yourself and you're like, I don't know.
Quite the opposite because, you know, I just would want to kind of like qualify that a bit.
But yeah, I guess that is a bit, you know.
No, no, don't guess.
Don't guess, bro.
You said, and I'm not trying to catch you out here, but I feel like I'm trying to build a building here and you just keep whacking away the foundations that you yourself placed.
So it's a little confusing.
Mathematical judgments are true or logical judgments.
Yeah, yeah, okay.
You understand what I'm saying?
I'm not saying all logical propositions are all math, right?
Two and two and five is not valid.
Okay, we get that.
So math and logic have the capacity for perfect truth, right?
Sure, yeah.
No, no, don't sure me, bro.
Yes.
This is your argument.
Yes.
Why are you hedging?
I don't think I'm hedging, Stefan.
Sure.
He's pausing and sure, you know, that's not an agreement, right?
I said yes.
Okay, got it.
Okay.
So math and logic are perfectly valid and true.
If matter, the behavior of matter, is in perfect accordance with math and logic, and math and logic is perfectly true, then that is the closest possible state that the material realm can get to absolute truth, right?
I'm going to say yes, but.
Okay, no, if you disagree, then disagree.
I don't want to.
My concern is that I have a suspicion when people don't agree with every step because they're looking at the destination, because that's not honest, plain dealing, right?
If you agree with every step, you have to agree with the destination, but I think you're hedging because you don't want to agree with the destination.
That doesn't have a massive amount of integrity to it.
Sorry, go ahead.
Yeah, I think you have certain presuppositions that differ from mine, especially about what matter is.
What?
But is the Earth composed of matter?
Well, what do you mean by matter?
Atoms, bro.
Sure.
I mean, I think Adam.
You say sure, like it's some weird concession to say that matter is composed of atoms.
I mean, are you calling for an asylum here?
Come on, man.
What does Adam mean, like atomos, right?
Uncuttable, right?
But you can, in fact, speak.
Okay, an atom.
Are we really at the point, because you and I are manipulating atoms to have this conversation, right?
So we require atoms to have this conversation, right?
I need to move the air atoms.
They need to go into the microphone.
They need to go on the internet.
They need to be transmitted.
They need to come out your end, right?
So we're all relying on matter, energy, and atoms to have this conversation.
So then to say, well, I don't know what an atom is when that's exactly what we're relying on to have this conversation.
It's not.
I wouldn't agree with that, though.
Like, I think atoms are like theoretical postulates.
Okay, whatever.
Whatever.
Okay, if you disagree with the concept of atoms, I think you're not in good company with regards to physicists, but whatever, right?
Whatever there is a difference between matter and void.
You have to know that.
Otherwise, you couldn't make it out of a door because you'd be walking into the wall, right?
So you know the difference between matter and the absence of matter, right?
Okay, let me ask you this.
Can you get into a car?
Yes, I can.
Okay, so you know the difference between when the door is open and the door is closed, right?
Yes.
Okay, so you know the difference between the presence or the absence of matter.
What do you think about dark matter, right?
No, no, no, no.
You don't sit there and say, well, I can't get into this car because of dark matter.
Like, philosophy has to be practical.
It has to have some level of practicality to it, right?
Philosophers, we philosophers, we're supposed to be helping the people, right?
And not saying, well, I don't know what matter is.
I don't know what atoms are and there's dark matter between me and the fucking steering wheel is not helping the people.
The point is that these are like different levels of abstraction, right?
And I think our theoretical postulates are, you know, like a different level of abstraction than ours.
Okay, so you are, you've, you've studied the truth, right?
I mean, that sounds a bit pretentious.
I don't know if I would say that.
Okay, you've studied logic and you studied philosophy, right?
Yeah.
Okay.
Do you think that philosophy aims at the truth?
You know, sometimes.
Well, you think philosophy sometimes aims at lying?
That's sophistry.
That's the opposite of philosophy, isn't it?
Philosophy is supposed to be the study of wisdom, right?
Yeah, I think the division between sophistry and philosophy is often very thin.
Okay, so you've studied philosophy and you've studied logic.
Have you studied mathematics as well?
Yeah.
Okay.
And so you don't think that the purpose of philosophy is accuracy or truth?
I think maybe that's like one aspect of it.
Okay, what's the central aspect of philosophy?
What is the purpose of philosophy?
I don't really have a good answer to that.
How many years?
Okay, hang on.
For how many years have you studied philosophy?
Maybe like three or four.
Okay, so you studied philosophy for three or four years.
For how many years have you Studied logic?
About two.
Okay.
So are these embedded?
In other words, is it five to seven years in total, or is it three to four years with the two of logic embedded?
Yeah, embedded.
Okay.
So you have studied for three or four years philosophy, but you don't know what philosophy is for?
I mean, I think philosophy can be for like a lot of different things.
No, don't, don't sophist me, bro.
Come on.
You don't know what philosophy is for.
Saying, okay, so if you were a doctor, right, what is the purpose of medicine?
To make people well.
Yeah, to maintain or to regain health, right?
Yeah.
Now, if would you go to a doctor who'd studied medicine for a couple of years and said, I don't know what medicine is for.
I don't know what doctoring is for.
No, I wouldn't.
So why would anyone listen to you if you don't even know what philosophy is for?
I mean, just being blunt, asking the question, not trying to be offensive.
I'm just curious.
Yeah, I don't necessarily think I have like a lot to offer, like in the world of like self-help, you know, for people to listen to me.
No, no, I didn't talk about self-help.
I'm not sure why that term is brought in.
Well, like with the analogy to the doctor, right?
It's about helping people.
I don't necessarily think philosophy.
But doctors are not self-help.
You don't go to the doctor and he says, doctor, yourself, help yourself.
He gives you medicine or principles or advice or guidance on how to be healthy or how to maintain your health or regain your health, right?
Yeah.
Maybe I'm like wrong about what you're doing here, but I guess like I kind of would have thought your role would be, you know, give people principles or kind of like ethical guidelines that they can use to help themselves.
Yeah, but that's not self-help.
That's me giving ethical guidelines.
In the same way that a nutritionist will give you nutritional guidelines, they won't just say, ah, experiment, do what you want.
Okay.
This just seems like a semantic name.
No, it's not semantics.
I mean, the teacher doesn't say, just go help yourself.
And you brought in the self-help term, which is not what I'm doing.
And, right?
I mean, self-help is you do it yourself.
And being coached or guided or taught is getting external principles that you can apply to your own life.
Okay.
So let me ask you this.
How much do you think it has cost society?
I don't know.
Did you study this stuff in university?
No, I didn't study philosophy at university either.
Okay.
And so where did you study it?
On my own.
Okay.
And that's, I mean, no issue with that.
I'm not a credentialist kind of guy.
Okay.
And so why did you study philosophy for three or four years, do you think?
Well, I mean, I think there are a lot of reasons potentially.
For one, just because I kind of enjoy it.
You know, I like thinking about sort of abstract questions.
Okay, so you like thinking about certain abstract questions.
Now, were you relatively certain that the Earth orbited the sun before you started studying philosophy?
Yes.
Okay, so philosophy, your study of philosophy, has removed from you the certainty that the Earth orbits the sun.
No.
Like, what does certainty mean, right?
It comes from an Indo-European root that means to serve, right?
So refine something, right?
So I don't think certainty is something that's like ever absolute.
It's kind of like a process of, you know, refining your beliefs.
No, no.
You said that certainty is absolute in the realm of math and logic, right?
Sure, but those are like tautologies.
No, they're not.
Logic is not a tautology.
Tautology is in fact a logical failure, right?
I think all logical judgments are tautology or contingency.
Oh, so there is not this.
Yes.
So there's no chance of communicating any kind of absolute truth between human beings.
Is that right?
I don't think you can ever say anything universal within, you know, language, basically.
So I don't know.
Is it okay with you if I'm perfectly blunt?
It's up to you, of course.
Yes, absolutely.
I think you're an environmental toxin for people.
I think you're incredibly dangerous.
And I'm really glad we had this conversation because I think what you're doing is you're removing from people their certainty in the world.
And that's really dangerous.
That actually provokes a lot of mental ill health and crises among people.
And the fact that you would sit there and say, I don't know that the Earth goes around the sun is toxic and poisonous in the environment to people's minds.
And I think it's a way of pretending to be clever.
I think it's a way of not coming to conclusions.
I think it's fundamentally selfish.
It's about your particular pleasure, maybe a little sadism.
I'm just being honest.
I could be wrong.
And I think you enjoy dismantling people's certainty.
And I think it's a form of dominance and power.
Maybe you were bullied a lot as a kid and you want to get back in society.
I don't know.
But if you're around there dismantling people's certainty, I view you as extremely dangerous.
No, this may be just one conversation.
You don't do this very much.
But if you were at a dinner party of mine, I'd tell you to get the hell out of my house, to be honest.
Okay.
I mean, that's fine.
That's your prerogative.
I don't really agree with that assessment.
Well, the good news is I could be right.
I mean, if you don't even know that the Earth goes around the sun, I could be completely right.
Okay, I'm ditching that guy.
This gives me the deep bone marrow ick.
I view that as an assault upon reason and rationality.
And why on earth would I listen to someone about anything if they don't even know the shape of the solar system?
And they say, our logic and numbers are perfectly valid, but things in the universe that perfectly accord with numbers and logic, well, we can't be certain of those.
And then it's to have a statement or a requirement for certainty of material objects that they can't possibly achieve.
Like, what, every atom has to be its own syllogism?
Anyway, but a very worthwhile conversation, and I appreciate the person for being in.
But if you are around people like this who are working with every fevered, weirdo, bone marrow, breath to detach your brain from reality and to detach your certainty from the world around you, they are disarming you before some very dangerous enemies.
And in that, to me, they would be a traitor to virtue and reason, to me, right, to make that case, right?
Because there are very aggressive, dogmatic, fundamentalist people who are absolutely certain and they're wrong, right?
The ideologues, the communists, they're absolutely certain and they're wrong.
And if you're like, well, I don't know if the world is round or banana-shaped, I can't really, like, They're just disarming you in a very harsh world full of very aggressive people who will not at all hesitate to use the weaponry of their certainty against you.
And this kind of person just disarms you.
We have to be able to fight the fuck back.
And I really, really dislike, dislike.
And I'm, you know, this guy could have all kinds of issues.
So whatever it is, I don't know him, obviously, right?
But why you would be drawn to that kind of stuff and then work hard to communicate it.
And I also, you know, when I quote people back to themselves and they're hesitant to accept it, that's just a massive amount of stinking bullshit.
All right.
Lucas, I'm Olias.
What's on your mind, my friend?
Hello, Stephen.
I was just wondering about like the title of the conversation, Atheism and Morality.
Atheism as opposed to what?
Like religious belief or just the belief in God?
Sorry, what do you mean by as opposed to what?
If I say, let's meet in Philadelphia and you say, okay, let's meet in Philadelphia and then you come to me in Philadelphia and say, well, Philadelphia as opposed to what?
I mean, the topic is atheism and morality.
I don't know why we would say as opposed to what?
The question is, how do atheists justify their moral rules?
Compared to what?
What does it matter compared to what?
No, yeah, you're right.
So I'm an atheist, and I guess that my definition of morality is just basically the like, don't do to others what you wouldn't like to be done to yourself.
So I think that's enough.
Okay, so let's say that Bob is really good at lying and really good at exploiting resources, and he's willing to have everyone try it against him, right?
And he knows he's going to come out on top because he's a sweet talking son of a gun, right?
So he's perfectly happy to have a universal rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Yeah, I'll try and con you.
You try and con me.
You don't know anything about conning me, but I know everything about conning you.
So I'm going to win.
Yeah, I get your point.
Like, I mean, I like to believe it is.
I'm not one of those guys.
So I guess to me, it works.
But I'm just curious, what is your morality at your...
I've got my whole answers.
I don't want to go into my moral theories.
I'm just, this is why it's atheism and morality, not Steph's UPP and morality.
So do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Okay, so the strongest guy in the village says it is strength that should determine who gets to control the village.
And he's the strongest guy, so he's happy to universalize that.
This is my criticism of Kant's categorical imperative.
So it's nice that you have this rule, but what if somebody disagrees?
How do you disprove them?
How do you disprove it if somebody says, no, this is ridiculous?
I should try and get the maximum that I can based upon whatever tools I can get away with.
How can you prove them wrong?
Yeah, sure.
I guess.
Well, you know, I read a book from Sam Harris.
Look, I actually don't really like him a lot anymore.
But anyway, it's the moral landscape.
I don't know if you ever read it or heard about it.
I find myself somewhat allergic to Mr. Harris, but if you want to summarize the argument, I'm certainly happy to hear.
Yeah, sure.
So basically, he puts like morality in the same he equates morality to humans' well-being.
So there's, well, that's the basic concept of it.
And there's...
Thank you very much.
And they don't suffer at all.
They're very happy to have that power.
And if you try and take that power away from them, they probably try and get you killed.
Right.
So there are people who are flourishing.
They're flourishing extremely.
Hang on.
They're flourishing extremely well and seem to be very happy because they're certainly not trying to change their condition.
They have almost infinite power, almost infinite resources.
They're very happy with that.
Thank you very much.
So that's good for them.
It's just bad for everyone else, right?
Yeah, but that's not how we would judge their actions.
Like not only what are you doing to yourselves, but what are you doing to other people?
So if you're getting rich by, you know, starting a business and doing work and being, you know, I'm sorry, my English is not so good.
But if you're doing good things and making money, that's okay.
But if you're like fucking others over, then that fits the criteria that you, you know, you're diminishing other people's well-being and therefore that's not moral.
Well, but what does that have to do with anything?
If people are not agreeing with you, how do you disprove them?
That's the whole question with morality.
Look, if everyone agrees with you, then you don't need morality.
It's the people who disagree with you that you have to, you have to, hang on, I'm still talking.
There are the people who disagree with you that you have to be able to disprove their propositions.
So you say, well, you should be nice to everyone.
And other people say, no, I want to get what's best for me and my family and my friends.
And, you know, if other people want to try and screw me, that's fine.
But I'm going to basically run the central banks and print all the money I want and give the money to my friends while it's still at full value.
And right.
So you can say, well, that's not moral, but they don't agree with you.
So how do you disprove the lived principles of people who don't accept your definition of morality?
Well, it seems to me like the question you're actually asking is not how I define morality and, you know, how I deal with morality, but how should we enforce morality?
No, no, I didn't say anything about enforcement.
How do you disprove?
Disproving is not force.
So you say, well, I want to do unto others as I would have them do unto me.
And how do you disprove the people who disagree with you?
Do you just say, well, that's not very nice, but that's not an argument, right?
No, but I thought the point here was, you know, atheism and morality.
So how do atheists deal with morality?
Right.
So you have to have a proof of some kind, not this is what I like, how I like to live my life.
That's like liking cheesecake.
That's not a moral proof of anything.
The question is, how do you prove your morality to the point where you can disprove the ethics of others who have false morality?
I actually don't really see it as proving something.
To me, morality is something that you, you know, you put your foot down and say, look, I'm going to define morality this way.
If you diminish human well-being, then you're not moral.
Then what you're doing is not moral.
So this is what I take for morality, and I think others should take it.
Now, if they say, So if I say to you, you need to give me $1,000, otherwise I'm really unhappy.
And I'm going to be super, I might jump off a bridge, right?
Then do you have to give me the $1,000?
Because if you don't give me the $1,000, you are diminishing human well-being.
You're analyzing the situation very simplistically.
Like, if you give us, no, no.
Answer the question.
Don't call me simplistic.
That's rude.
I'm giving you a moral.
You said, you said, well, that which enhances, if you do things that diminish human well-being, that's bad.
Okay, so I say to you, give me $1,000, or I'm going to be super depressed and miserable.
And you won't be as unhappy giving me the $1,000 as I will be happy getting the $1,000.
It will be net positive.
Do you have to then give me the $1,000?
No, of course not.
Okay, so then it's not true that that which harms or diminishes human happiness or harms people is the good because you're not going to give up $1,000 even if I'm really unhappy, right?
So it's all just opinion.
It's just nonsense.
Yeah, but is in morality opinion?
What is no, it's not.
So how do you prove morality?
Okay.
Well.
I don't know how many times I have to tell people this is exploration, not answers.
All right.
Simon, you're up.
Going once, going twice.
You might need to unmute.
All right.
We're going to mute him.
Philosophy.
Philosophy Corner on X. Enlighten me, bro.
Hit me with your best thoughts.
Fire away.
Hi.
Am I on?
Yes, sir.
Hi, Stefan.
How's it going?
Well, thanks.
How you doing?
I'm pretty good.
I was listening to the conversation.
It gets heated at times, but it sounds very interesting.
And I popped into your room a couple of times.
And I like where you're going with things.
You know, you get a first impression of somebody.
I like it.
I like it.
I appreciate you saying what you like and don't like.
Do you have anything philosophical to discuss?
Yeah.
Okay.
So if you give me a couple of minutes, I'm going to ask you a couple of questions and let's see why.
Okay, don't ask me a couple of questions.
Ask me one at a time.
Right.
Thank you.
So I'm going to, if I show you an apple and a key and ask you what do you see, how would you respond?
I would say I see an apple and a key.
Excellent.
So that is, as we know, it's called the objective rational approach to truth.
It's also a representational form of truth.
That's excellent.
We know how they work.
But if I give the key to a child, it might turn into a toy.
If I give the key to an artist, it might turn into a work of art.
So that is called a contextual approach to truth.
No, it's not.
It's not?
No, it's not.
It's still a key.
It's just that the child is playing with the key and the artist is painting a representation of the key, but it's still a key.
Okay, so let's go a little slowly, if you don't mind, right here.
Is that okay?
I'm not sure what you mean by going slowly.
You came to a conclusion that was false.
I corrected you.
I'm not sure how that's going too fast.
Yeah, I'm going to expand on it.
So a key can have a symbolic meaning in a community.
If I showed you a key and said, "What is this?" But you happen to be living in a community that sees it as a threat or sees it as some As a threat.
A threat.
Or some kind of symbolic.
I don't understand.
I don't understand what you mean.
How is a key a threat?
Like a symbolic object.
Like, let's say it's a, I don't know, like a sacred.
Okay, let's say it is a sacred object.
Are you thinking on the fly here?
Because that's not going to work.
Like, if you, if you don't have actual arguments, it sounds like you're just thinking on the fly here.
No, I'm not.
I'm just trying to give you.
Okay, go ahead.
Now, look, look, look.
In certain traditional communities, they look at a tree and say, oh, I'm going to worship this tree.
You get what I'm saying?
Am I aware of animism?
Yes.
I am pushing 60.
I've studied philosophy for over 40 years.
I am aware of animism.
Go ahead.
Right.
So that's my example.
So if I ask you, what is this?
And you say it's a tree.
But if I ask this traditional community, what is this?
They might say it's a sacred object that we're going to worship.
And they'd be wrong.
Okay.
So let's go.
Okay.
So contextualism.
No, because they would say there's a God who lives in the tree, which we worship.
And I would say, the God does not exist in the tree.
It is a tree.
The worship exists in your mind.
The God exists in your mind, but the God does not exist in objective reality and does not live in the tree.
Okay, you know.
Okay, so let me preface everything by saying nothing that I'm going to say is going to disprove you.
Okay?
So nothing that I'm going to say is going to say that you're wrong about him.
Sorry, sorry.
Hang on, hang on, hang on.
What is the purpose of the conversation if we're not...
It's really annoying.
So what is the purpose of the conversation if we're not in pursuit of the truth?
We're in pursuit of multiple truths.
At least.
Multiple truths is just a truth and a whole mound of stinking bullshit.
The truth is the truth.
No, no.
If I say two and two make four, there is not multiple truths to that, right?
Can we agree on that?
Two and two make four, nothing else.
No, we cannot.
Look, look.
Godel's incompleteness theorem.
Oh, come on.
Does two and two make four?
It does for me.
It does for you.
And you know what?
Okay, look, look, look, look.
Okay.
Let me answer.
No, this is not philosophy.
You're right.
You're right.
This is not philosophy.
You are right.
This is a mental illness.
If you don't know that two and two make four, why would I listen to you about anything?
Okay, I agree with you.
You're right.
No, you just told me I was wrong.
No, I'm taking it back.
You're right.
Okay, so you don't know that two and two make four until I push back and then you agree.
So, you don't know whether two and two make four.
How old are you?
I'm 48.
So, you're pushing 50 years old, and you don't know that two and two make four?
I just told you it does.
No, no.
First, you said, so you made it to 48.
No, but you're putting words in my mouth.
You're putting words in my mouth.
You're putting words in my mouth now, and you're not willing to hear what I'm trying to say.
You're not willing to hear what I'm trying to say.
I'm trying to say there are multiple truths.
No.
I said, does two and two make four?
And you said, well, it does for me.
It does for you.
Gödel's incompleteness theorem.
Other people might, right?
So you don't know that two and two make four independent of what you and I think.
So you've made it to almost a half a century not mastering the math that they teach in kindergarten.
Why would you do that anything?
No, it's true.
You're telling me you don't know that two and two make four.
You said, well, it does for you.
It does for me.
It might not for other people.
Can we move on to a different example?
Or you're convinced that I have nothing important to say here.
Well, it's manipulative as hell.
If you're going to say, I don't know that two and two make four, I push back on it and say, no, no, no, I told you it does.
So you flipped your entire philosophy in 30 seconds.
There's something that's going on in philosophy right now called both and.
It means what you said is right, but what I'm saying differently is also right.
Okay, I'm happy to hear a concrete example of how a statement and its opposite can both be true.
Okay, so let's go there.
So we went to the stage where I said an apple and a key can be contextual.
It can mean different things to different people.
So that's called contextualism, which as we know is the dominant school in philosophy.
Do you remember my answer to that?
I know.
You objected.
No, no, but do you remember my answer to that?
You said it's always a key and an apple.
And what did I describe it in terms of the child and the artist has?
There's still keys and apples, but they do different things with it.
Yeah, the child is playing with the key, is treating the key as a toy.
It does not turn it into a toy.
It just means it's being treated as a toy.
And the artist is painting a picture of the apple, which turns it into a painting, but it does not change the nature of the apple.
Okay.
Great.
And you could use an apple as a weapon by throwing it at someone.
It doesn't change the nature of the apple.
Okay.
Here's the deal.
I'm going to speak for two minutes more.
See if it makes any sense to you.
Otherwise, you know, I'll move on.
That's fine.
Is that okay?
You've got the floor.
I'm going to hit my timer.
Go for it.
All right.
So now I show you the key and the apple again.
And you might say, hey, hang on, these are both the same.
And why would you say that?
Because they're made of the same subatomic particles.
And this is called nominalism, as you know.
Which is a lot of people.
Sorry, I don't understand.
Sorry, I apologize.
So you show me a key and an apple, and I say they're the same object?
They're essentially the same.
You might say that.
What do you mean by essentially?
That they're composed of the same atoms and the same.
Well, no, they're not composed of the same atoms because they're two discrete entities.
Well, it's the same essence.
It's the same.
Oh, so they're both composed of matter.
Yeah.
So because they're both composed of matter, they're somehow the same?
You could make that argument.
A lot of philosophers have made that.
No, I'm asking what argument you're making.
I'm making the same argument.
Okay, Nishi said the same thing.
Okay, so the apple and the key are both composed of matter, therefore they're kind of the same.
Like in the same way that water and, say, strychnine or arsenic are both composed of matter, therefore you can drink both.
I mean, essentially.
So don't put words in my mouth.
Essentially, they're made up of the same principles, the same subatomic particle.
They're all made of neutrons, protons, and atoms, right?
Sure.
Okay.
Now, the fourth type of truth I'm going to approach is, if I didn't ask you the question, would you respond to me?
So it's because I asked you the question, that's why you're responding to me, right?
So this can be called rhetorical truth, which is what Heidegger was obsessed about.
And it's just a different way of looking at truth.
So in that sense, there's a structural reality to everything.
And there is a truth underlying everything.
So if I ask you, is this a key or an apple?
Actually, you don't care because you're just focused on the underlying.
Sure, I don't care.
I can eat the key and try and use the apple to open the lock.
Why would I care?
I can eat the key.
Well, you're focusing on the utility, and I get it.
Look, it's not the utility, bro.
It's the actual atomic matter.
I can't digest a key.
I can't digest an apple.
I can't use an apple to open a lock.
I can use a key to open a lock.
It's not just, I mean, it's the actual matter.
Yeah, but we're not talking about the utility.
I never asked you what does a key do.
I just asked you, what is it?
No, but the key only exists because of its utility.
The key is made to open a lock.
The key only comes into existence because of its utility.
So saying that I want to talk about the key absent its utility, well, the entire purpose of the key, the entire reason it's created, is to open the lock.
So you can't talk about the thing absent of its utility because it only exists because of its utility.
Well, the reality is that we're living in a world where we are playing with all these philosophies.
And it's not just average humans, the philosophers themselves, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Levinas, all these guys, they objected to these standard philosophies.
And even Quine, right?
Quine said that there's no foundational argument in philosophy.
So everybody, all these people, the postmodernist school, everybody is struggling with something or the other and we're juggling with all these truths.
And then pragmatism comes along and says, well, you're right.
We can't resolve this, but let's just be practical.
So it's all great.
So look, I'm not trying to say you're wrong about anything.
You're not.
But I'm trying to say both and, which means you're right, but there is also another way.
That's what I'm saying.
Are you from India by chance?
I'm close here.
Yeah, yeah.
Okay.
South Indian?
South Asian?
Yeah, Indian philosophy is a lot of fortune cookie stuff in general.
And this is a lot of name-dropping.
Well, Heidegger and Nietzsche and the coin.
I just want to have prosaic arguments about facts.
And reality, and the idea that, well, it's true that that's a key and an apple, and it's true that they're both composed of matter.
Yeah, that's okay.
I accept that, but it's not true that they're fundamentally the same because you can't eat a key, right?
So I don't know what it is that people dive.
And it was the same thing with the previous call, they just dive beyond that which they absolutely need to survive.
You absolutely need to, if you can't tell the difference between food and metal, you're going to fucking die.
So, I mean, you just have to look at, you know, a fundamental question.
Many fundamental questions in philosophy are answered by whether you're alive or not.
Right.
So this guy who was like, well, I can't tell the difference between atoms and void is like, can you get in a car?
Well, there's dark matter.
The fact that you can get into a car means that you know the difference between the presence and absence of things.
Can you get out of your room?
Do you just don't just don't walk face into the door?
Just don't keep walking into the door.
No, you, oh, damn, at night, right?
You bump into the door, you open the door, oh, I'll go through, right?
If you think that everything is the same, then you would try to eat a rock or grass instead of a fish or a carrot, because everything's the same, but you don't live like that.
And I find it incredibly embarrassing.
Honestly, my bone marrow turns to cringe icicles when people come along trying to spew all kinds of absolute bullshit that's the complete opposite of how they live and trying to pass it off as some kind of esoteric subcontinent wisdom.
Oh, don't you know everything's we are all one and everything's the same.
It's like, oh, shut up.
You don't believe that.
If everything's the same, what I'd hear is this.
I wouldn't hear any modulation.
In order to communicate in language, you have to have sound and the absence of sound.
They're called sound waves.
It's a peak and a trough of sound.
I see it all the time in Audacity when I'm editing podcasts for 20 years straight.
So people come in completely detached from how they actually live.
The first place you need to look to for philosophy is all the things you've had to do to stay alive.
And to stay alive, guess what?
We have to know the difference between a key and an apple.
Because if we don't know the difference between those two things, we're dead.
Or we can't get through a lock because we're trying to push an apple core through it.
So I just find it cringe beyond words, embarrassing beyond words, when people haven't looked at how they live and said, huh, I wonder what the principles are that I've accepted in order to be alive.
And they try and spew all kinds of counterintuitive nonsense and bullshit, which they don't live by.
This guy, I guarantee you, whatever time of day it is in his neck of the woods, I guarantee you, he ain't sitting down to an ice curry filled with keys.
He wouldn't eat that.
If I ran a restaurant, I'd deliver a plate of keys to this guy and say, here's your dinner.
And he'd say, wait, this isn't my curry.
And I'd say, no, it's the same stuff atomic-wise.
So pay up.
And he'd be like, no, I can't eat this.
Anyway, but then he tries to say, oh, it's all the same.
Lord above.
Joe, save us from the fortune cookie nonsense.
Help me out, brother.
I hear wrestling.
Yeah, go ahead.
Hey, how are you doing?
I just wanted to thank you for exploring this topic as you put it.
And I guess while I have you on the line, thank you for exposing me to peaceful parenting way back in the day.
I have two kids, and I'd like to thank that you helped me out with that process.
But on this topic, you know, I'm amazed at your earlier ex post and this topic.
You know, I enjoy philosophical arguments.
I was hoping to hear some argument like you put it.
You know, you're open to hearing the argument where, you know, atheism can make a case for universal moral code.
And, you know, so far, everything I've heard so far is garbage.
Maybe that's kind of harsh for me to put it that way.
I don't understand why you think this...
Let's not insult garbage because garbage was at some point useful in the past.
Well, my simple point is this.
You know, if you're interested in the truth, why can't you just concede that atheism can't produce a universal moral code?
And then, you know, I guess they're afraid to cross that bridge on where that might lead.
And I would just encourage those people, you know what?
Cross that bridge and see where it leads and figure it out and stop, you know, closing your ears to maybe an alternative view.
And I think you're correct for what it's worth.
And that's all I wanted to say, really.
Well, thanks, Joe.
I appreciate that.
I'm trying to honestly figure out the difference between atheism and Satanism.
Do what thou wilt.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law is the essence of Satanism.
And all of the atheists are responding with, this is what I like.
This is what I prefer.
This is what I want.
This is what's beneficial to me.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
I don't understand.
It's really sad.
Yeah, I didn't mean to interrupt.
I agree with that.
I think there's a lot to it, unfortunately.
And I don't know.
I pray that they find God and get over it or at least, you know, have a love for the truth and hopefully, you know, check your premises.
But, you know, I don't really have anything to add other than that.
Thank you for what you do.
I love the fact that you're on X and in more public view, I guess.
Well, thanks.
I appreciate that.
And listen, brother, massive congratulations and praise from my heart to yours, from my family to yours for your adoption of peaceful parenting.
Because this is the funny thing, right?
Like, so for the two previous callers, it's like, you know, we have a plague of child abuse in the world, all over the place, all over the place.
Children are getting raped, beaten, stabbed, choked.
They're spacked, slapped, spanked.
They are screamed at, yelled, called names.
And the big philosophical thing is, I don't believe in the solar system.
It's like, what the hell, man?
It's a plague.
Get out there and do some good.
Or, you know, in India, whether he's from the subcontinent, the last guy before, okay, so what is it?
15 million little girls get killed every year in India because they're not boys.
But a key and an apple are the same thing.
And it's like, holy shitballs, bro.
You got some stuff to deal with.
You got some moral stuff to deal with rather than this esoteric pastiche of sophistry and spit-laden stupid syllables.
Anyway, I appreciate that, Joe.
Keep up with the peaceful parenting.
Spread it where you can.
Thanks, Stefani.
We cut.
Thank you.
Case, Case, unmute, my friend.
Save us from sophistry.
What's on your mind?
Hi, Stefan.
This is the first time I've gotten a chance to talk to you.
I've been listening to you for a, I'm going to glaze you for a second.
I've been a big fan since maybe 2015.
I was watching you on YouTube.
Big fan of your Truth About series.
I was upset.
I think it's all gone on YouTube.
I think I paid for the extra YouTube that doesn't have commercials so I could listen to it, you know, straight through on my headphones while I was at work or whatever.
And also, when you got off of previous Twitter, I was a big fan of your...
I still reference it all the time.
You had a tweet, women fight with words.
Men fight with violence.
So men ban violence and women fight with words.
So women ban words, I think is.
You know, that's a great.
Thank you.
I will repost that in some form.
That's a great tweet.
Thank you for reminding me.
Yeah, that was a great one.
And I don't know where it came from, but it was just drilled into my head.
And I might be out of my, you know, I've kind of always feared this day where I talk to you.
I might be out of my philosophical depth a little bit.
Cards on the table.
I was an atheist in the early 2000s.
You know, that was the popular thing to do, dunking on Christians and Muslims and shit.
Now I'm, I think I'm a Christian.
I think I'm a Lutheran.
I haven't been confirmed or anything like that.
It's just kind of what I align with.
But I want to attempt to make the atheist argument for morality as I would have understood it, maybe as like an exercise.
Okay, so the list of morals, you know, maybe if we can agree, thou shalt not steal, murder, envy, you know, lust.
I think that these can be mathematically proven to be advantageous for a society.
You know, I think we can work out mathematically how being jealous isn't advantageous.
You know, I'm not going to write the algebraic equation right now, but I think like, you know, for success of a society, if we're not stealing from each other, we can kind of sit down and prove minus God that this might be the path to greatest success.
And I guess success defined as best possible outcome for most possible people.
Are you vibing with me at all on this at all?
Or do I have to go keep digging?
You want to question me?
Keep going.
All right.
So, so, like, let's not kill minus God.
I think this could be proven, you know, mathematically.
And in our society, I think we should strive for truth.
And I can see no maybe greater truth minus God than mathematical certainty, right?
So why aren't we telling each other?
Well, if you kill me, I can't have a kid.
If I kill you, you can't have a kid.
If I kill your dad, your kid can't have a grandfather.
Maybe mathematically, these lead to greatest possible results.
You know, me having a father, you having a grandfather.
If I take that away from you minus life, if we can't prove a value for that, we can at least prove utility.
And so stealing, same deal, right?
If I'm enjoying my tractor and I'm producing food from work from the tractor, you come and steal my tractor.
Not only do am I mathematically missing something I earned, I worked for, but now maybe the community is at a loss because I mastered my tractor.
I earned my tractor.
You simply stole it.
And you could have earned one if you were as good of a farmer as me.
You're not now.
And now not only am I at loss, but maybe the community at large.
And maybe I can keep going into maybe other.
Am I on the right track?
Is this moral?
No, no, it's a form of utilitarianism.
It's a moral calculus.
And, you know, people have done a whole lot of mathematical work in this area.
And, you know, people have even said, you know, I don't know if you've seen this graphic.
It's, it's, you know, someone stole my bike, but clearly they desperately need it.
And they're happier or better off having my bike than I am keeping my bike.
I wasn't even really using it that much.
And so the net happiness of society has increased because someone took my bike.
Or as you say, the amount of energy that people put into, you know, raising kids or whatever, you kill someone, you're erasing all of that energy and you're creating a destabilized society and so on.
So yeah, you can do a lot of math on this kind of stuff, right?
Do you think that the math could eventually equal a moral, you know, a moral direction?
What does that mean?
Well, okay, so let's say Christians, for lack of any other input, we would derive our morals from the teachings, you know, again, thou shalt not steal, covet thy wife, whatever.
Be jealous.
And be jealous is maybe the hardest one to maybe prove in a mathematical sense, because I can't imagine the algebraic formula that could lead to certainty not being jealous is the better path.
So that's kind of why I end up as a Christian anyway, because you end up hitting these dead ends where it's like, well, I can't prove why I shouldn't be jealous.
It needs to be commanded of me.
And I grew up very jealous, very angry.
I had episodes of hate in my life, and it ended up with no better outcome.
Well, but jealousy can have a positive effect too, right?
I'm jealous of somebody's success.
Therefore, I'm going to become successful.
Maybe envy and jealousy are different, but you could certainly see some better stuff.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, yeah.
So as a motivating factor to perform better, or I wonder if that would be jealousy or if like, you know, inspiration maybe from a more positive.
Okay, I don't want to get too hooked on the quagmire of envy because envy is not a crime, whereas stealing and it's not moral evil, right?
Stealing and murder and assault, rape, these would be moral evils.
So I don't want to get too hung up on what's more aesthetic than what's more moral.
You don't think maybe envy would fall into a moral evil category?
No, no, no, no.
No, not at all.
No, my gosh.
Envy does not violate the non-aggression principle.
Envy does not hurt people.
Violently deprive them of life and property.
It's just a feeling.
All right.
Well, that's correct, I guess.
Good.
I think it is.
I think it is.
No, I agree with you.
Okay, so like all the moral calculus stuff, right?
Saying, well, if some guy steals your tractor, then society in general is better off.
Okay.
How does that disprove what the guy's doing?
Say, well, it's like, I'm better off.
I'm an individual.
There's no such thing as society.
I'm an individual.
I'm better off stealing than respecting property.
Now you say, well, but society as a whole, it's like, but how do you disprove the fact that this person, it's beneficial for them to steal?
It requires much less effort to steal than to create.
To earn is hard work.
Stealing is easier.
They get more resources for less effort.
And they don't have to pay taxes because it's stolen.
Right?
So it's beneficial to the individual to steal.
So if there's this abstract moral calculus and people want to do what's best for society, I don't know.
I mean, society might be better off if, you know, if somebody steals something, sells it and gets medicine for their dying wife.
I don't know.
You could come up with these scenarios.
But there is no abstract calculus in society.
There are individuals acting for their own benefit.
And from a Darwinian standpoint, of course, stealing happens all the time in nature.
I mean, birds give, like they lay eggs.
And then, you know, we've had ducks, right, as you know.
So birds lay eggs and then creatures come along, steal those eggs and eat them, right?
Happens all the time.
So nature rewards deception, theft, lying, fraud in a sense.
You think of the cuckoo laying its eggs in another bird's nest.
So you can talk about this moral calculus and that's fine, but thieves don't agree with you.
So how do you disprove their theory that they're acting on?
And how do you prove that your theory is the true and correct one?
Because each individual is acting in their own best self-interest.
And thieves obviously believe, and there's cases to be made, that it is in their best interest to steal if they can get more resources, right?
So politicians, should they tell the truth or should they lie?
Right?
And I mean, you can see politicians, the sort of very few vaguely honorable ones that might be left on the planet.
You can see them.
You know that they've chosen not to talk about certain topics.
I mean, do you think that the national debt came up at all during the Republicans and the Democrats in 2024?
Nope.
Doesn't get talked about at all.
So politicians lie and withhold all the time, get a lot of power.
They're very happy with that power because they keep running for re-election.
They're addicted to that power.
They love that power.
It's very positive to them.
They live and breathe that power.
You try and take it away from them.
They get really angry.
Right.
And so that's the question is, yeah, I mean, I get it.
If people respect a property rights, society as a whole is better, but the individual thieves are less better.
They got to get up and they got to work eight hours or 10 hours a day.
Right.
And, you know, this is interesting.
We're kind of swapping back and forth positions.
I started as the atheist, but I'm trying to steal a man, maybe an atheist position.
So as far as the stealing goes, the thief steals the tractor.
He might personally be individually better off, but I'm trying to achieve greatest possible outcome for the greatest possible amount of people.
Okay, how do you achieve that?
All right.
So I keep my tractor because I earn the traffic.
Okay, so you shoot or drive away the thief, right?
Yes, yes.
You just play the thief.
Or give him a job, right?
Well, you wouldn't give a thief a job.
You'd put him in jail, right?
Or something.
Maybe in like a Disney tale where I catch the thief and I said, hey, you know.
No, no, let's stay off les and deal with prosaic reality, right?
Some guy's running off with your tractor.
You call the cops.
Maybe you shoot him.
Maybe he gets arrested.
He goes to jail, right?
Right, right.
So this is my Christian creeping back in.
Maybe I imagine if I caught a thief trying to steal my tractor or maybe a tractor's not utility to steal, maybe a bale of hay or something.
And I say, hey, I caught you.
And your choices are, I'm going to report you or you're going to work off your debt, you know, because maybe you damaged the bale of hay and the theft.
Right.
So you believe in the principle of recidivism, which is not a valid principle.
The vast majority of criminals just stay criminals.
I mean, you know that, right?
Oh, of course, of course.
But, you know, in my romantic crickling, We're not writing novels here.
But there would be an inclination in my brain to want to cure and heal this criminal, right?
Like, hey, I need to teach you work.
Yeah, okay, but that's your, hang on, that's your personal morality.
That's not a, you wouldn't say everyone has to, right?
So that's your personal ethics of virtue is not a universal moral system, right?
The question is, what do you do with people who disagree with you?
Right.
So if you say thou shalt not steal, well, everyone who disagrees with you is disobeying God and is going to go to hell.
Right.
So there are serious, eternal, torturous consequences for that.
Right.
And they will be forever distanced.
Even if you don't believe in hell, they will be forever distanced from God himself, right?
So for atheists, if people disagree with your moral system and your moral theory, well, what happens and why?
Now, the most dangerous thing in the world are not individual thieves, but false moral systems.
And of course, with atheists, they're like, you know, honestly, it's fairly easy to point out the logical, empirical, and scientific contradictions in the religious worldview.
I mean, honestly, no disrespect to Christianity or any other religion, but it's not the most complicated thing in the world to point out scientific, logical, or empirical inconsistencies in the religious worldview.
It's pretty easy.
Now, what's tricky is to disprove false moral theories.
Now, if the atheists Had put the same level of effort into discrediting various statist theories, socialism, communism, the mixed economy, and so on, right?
If they had put the same level of effort into discrediting statism as they did in discrediting Christianity, say, they would have my respect.
But they didn't.
They went from discrediting Christianity to praising the state.
I pointed out on X that if atheists are so skeptical and scientific and rational, then why did 90% of atheists take the COVID vaccine and only 57% of white evangelical Christians?
In other words, it was close to twice, within the realm of twice, the compliance rate for atheists with a rational statist trust-the-science dogma, and Christians got it much more right as far as a rational skepticism about what was being claimed, right?
So are atheists motivated by skepticism of authority, by science, by reason, by evidence?
Nope.
No, because then they would turn that same skepticism towards statism, which they don't.
So listen, I mean, as far as the moral calculus goes, I think that's all well and good.
But people who are thinking of moral calculus are already good people.
What do you do with people who say stealing is good?
Stealing is fine.
If you can get away with it, do what thou wilt.
It shall be the whole of the law.
How do you disprove them?
Yeah.
I mean, you're absolutely correct.
I was just fascinating in like a moral joust for a moment.
One last kind of you delved into the COVID paradox with the atheists and how they were imprisoning people for not participating in the COVID charade, you know.
And again, the calculus I tried applying during that scenario.
And the conclusion real quick I came to, I don't want to take up too much time.
Mathematically, the proper solution for that would be if you are weakened or you're scared of the virus to stay home.
And the brave community as a whole would provide for you anything you needed.
We're delivering food, we're delivering medicine, whatever you needed.
And a step further would be you buy a hazmat suit.
If you need to participate in the planet, you get a viral hazmat hood, which are only $100, $150 with all the free money we got.
And you can participate as much as you want in society.
You're locked off in your hazmat hood.
You have no fear now.
But instead, they enslaved us more or less to participate and then punished us when we wouldn't.
I'll yield now.
Thanks for telling me.
I appreciate that.
And of course, the very rational, very rational atheists, suddenly natural immunity from prior infection no longer existed.
It just completely despawned.
One of the most ancient principles of germ theory and of our immune system, which is the imprinting of our immune system to be able to fight bugs it's already fought in the past, completely ceased to exist.
But science.
Oh, the most offensive, at least to me, during that whole debacle was the offense to our sensibilities, to our rationality.
It was, you know, of course, the non-aggression violation was the most in our face.
But when you really dug down, it was they were lying to us and expecting us to perform in a non-rational way.
It was just endlessly offensive.
Trust the science is for the atheist.
The Pope says for some religion.
All right.
Thanks, man.
I appreciate that.
Let's do, I think, one more.
Legion Aaron.
What's on your mind?
Going at once again twice.
Maybe we do two more because one is not talking to me.
Oh, abs.
Hello.
Hi.
How are you doing?
I just want to open up.
I don't really like what the previous guy did.
All respect to him with doing integrating mathematics with ethics and such.
I think mathematics.
Oh, no, he was not.
No, he was not integrating mathematics with ethics.
He was saying that mathematics somehow proves that the Earth doesn't go around the Sun.
Although you can't be certain of it because it doesn't have the same level of certainty, even though the fact that the Earth goes around the Sun is perfectly in accordance with math and logic.
Apparently, it's invalid because reasons.
Anyway, sorry, go ahead.
So what I mean is I think mathematics is a great thing.
It's a wonderful thing, but I don't think we should really apply them to like human science, like economics or what we're currently speaking of, which is epics, which is because I believe...
So basically, the greatest good for the greatest number is subjective.
Because if people who say, well, this is why I made the argument earlier about the $1,000.
Well, I'm going to be really sad if you don't give me $1,000.
Even though this guy said, well, you should act to maximize human happiness.
And I'm like, well, I'm going to be totally sad if you don't give me $1,000.
He still wouldn't give me $1,000.
He doesn't believe it.
Because if you say, well, the greatest good for the greatest number or the greatest benefit to society, all that will happen is people would just stop manipulating your system, right?
People change their behavior based upon the system.
It's called public choice theory.
The more welfare you put out, the more people go on welfare.
So you can't ever eliminate the poverty because you're subsidizing it.
So if people say, well, we should design society to give the greatest good to the greatest number, it's just a total midwit pile of nonsense because then everyone will say, well, I need, I need, I need, and then they'll get all this stuff and society goes bankrupt.
Sorry, go ahead.
And sorry to interrupt, but what you were saying, that this principle of we should help the most people as possible, it kind of also relies on some assumptions, some unchecked premises which aren't really identified, I think.
Well, or that we even know what's best for people.
Like, I don't know what's best for you.
I mean, I know that you shouldn't go around killing and raping and murdering and raising.
Sorry, go ahead.
Because when people do these things, they don't really establish, like, what is man's proper code of values.
And that is the question I think as ethics is trying to answer, right?
Okay, so I understand that.
We all understand that ethics is trying to figure out a proper code of behavior.
So what is the proper code of behavior?
And how is it proven?
And I was just kind of providing the things, the things that we define ethics before we go into it, right?
Okay.
So I think the proper code of values is like one's own life.
It's rational self-interest, as Ayn Rand would put it.
Rational self-interest, okay.
Not sure that gives us any particular moral rules.
I mean, if you want to get the most goods for the least amount of effort, it is in your rational self-interest.
steal.
I'm not sure I would agree with that.
Oh, no, no, no, that's true.
No, hang on, hang on.
You may disagree with the fact that it is in your rational self-interest, but it certainly is easier to steal.
Is it easier to grow the crops and make a loaf of bread, or is it easier to snatch a loaf of bread and run?
No, I definitely agree with that.
But since we haven't really established a proper code of values, we kind of need to establish like so the proper code of values should be based upon a person's life and that and how they are in existence.
So for example, for example, why doesn't morality matter really much to animals?
Because animals, they do not have, they kind of have to.
Okay, bro, bro, unless it's a central part of the argument, I don't want to get into animals because we're trying to figure out what's good for humans, unless it's a central part of your argument.
Oh, sorry, you still up?
Yeah, I'm still up.
Yeah, so I'm just, I just don't want to go off into animal ethics, and that's a whole other topic.
We're trying to figure out ethics for people, but go ahead.
I'm trying to think of how much best button to work, so it might take a while.
Okay, you think about it, and we'll come back to you, right?
Okay.
Tactical daddy, Yurana.
Lead us out of the wilderness, my friend.
What's on your mind?
Hi, Stefan.
Hello.
How are you?
I'm well.
How are you doing?
Okay, I'm fine.
I just want to do a simple and quick question.
I guess you're an atheist, right?
I'm sorry, I don't know you very much.
I don't know you very much, but I'm guessing that you're an atheist, right?
I mean, I would characterize myself as a philosopher, but I do not believe in God.
Yes, go ahead.
Oh, nice.
So you're familiar.
Sorry for my English, though.
You're familiarized with philosophy, right?
I think so.
Yeah.
Could you say that philosophers back then were familiarized with esotericism and magic systems?
What do you think of that?
Philosophers back when?
I mean, ancient Greek.
I mean, they certainly accepted that there was witchcraft and sorcery and esoteric philosophies for sure.
I mean, although he was not primarily a philosopher, Sir Isaac Newton was also very keen on mysticism and alchemy and so on.
So yeah, I mean, certainly philosophers are aware of the dark competition of mysticism and magical thinking.
Okay, so what's your position?
What's your position on believing that this kind of stuff exists, you know?
Okay, can you give me an example of what you mean?
I mean, different magic systems like mysticism.
Okay, so no, no, these are just words.
Give me an example of something concrete that you would believe would exist in the realm of mysticism.
Do you mean like ghosts?
Do you mean voodoo?
Do you mean telepathy, prognostication, telekinesis?
Like what is it that you're talking about that you consider mysticism?
No, no, choose one.
Choose one.
We can't do everything.
So choose one.
Goetia.
I'm sorry?
Goetia, goethia.
I don't know how to speak properly.
Okay, can you just use something that might be more familiar to people?
Ceremonial magic.
Okay, so what's your definition of magic?
Is it like an effect without a cause or the transfer of energy or knowledge without anything in the middle?
Or what is it you mean by magic?
I'm not an initiative person.
I'm not an initiated.
I'm sorry, what?
You're fading out there.
Can you try again?
I am not an initiated person, but I'm guessing that Your point.
You have a point.
But anyway, I'm just asking about the supernatural.
Okay.
So the supernatural is that which defies reason and evidence, right?
Correct.
Yeah, so it doesn't exist and it's false.
100%.
If it defies reason and there's no evidence for it, it's a square circle.
It doesn't exist.
It's invalid.
It's a contradictory concept.
It's an effect without a cause.
It's energy without any prior energy or matter.
It is transfer of knowledge or energy across space and time with no intermediary journey.
So it's all self-contradictory, anti-empirical, occasionally enjoyable nonsense, but it's not valid or true.
Okay, that's it.
Thank you.
All right.
That was quick.
Right.
Think for yourself.
Hit me with your thinking stick.
Hi.
You can hear me?
Uh-huh.
Okay, excellent.
Hi.
Thanks for having me on, Steph.
And I just wanted to agree with you about, well, some of the stuff you were talking about in terms of like the objective substantiation of some subjective experience.
And that I think is kind of like the basis from which you could start making some kinds of determinations of moral truths.
Like, I'll give you an example.
So like we were talking about how, well, I was thinking about how you could determine that somebody's subjective experiences one way or another.
Like, for example, somebody's colorblindness, right?
Having to do with their having a different number of rods and cones in their eyes, right?
Oh, yeah, sure.
I mean, somebody could say, I'm deaf, and it turns out they have no nerve endings in their ear or no hairs or whatever it is, right?
So yeah, you could certainly have some validation of some people's subjective experience for sure.
Right.
And I think that these truths that are maybe not exactly the same as, you know, mathematical or truths, but they're much closer to physical truth because the transduction of nerve signals has something to do with the existence of photons impeding or impinging upon neurons in some way.
In that same way, we can, I think, for instance, make the argument that punching every second person you meet or lying to every second person you meet in some way wouldn't be maximizing human well-being on a large scale.
You made the argument.
Hang on, hang on, hang on.
Hang on.
Sure.
So, maximizing human well-being.
Yes.
Okay.
I just not disagreeing with you, but I just need to know what that means.
Right.
Well, that's a good point because I think a lot of the previous speakers kind of missed the point of scale.
And a good question that you have.
But how would you determine, let's say you have a country of 300 million people.
How would you know what maximizes human well-being for every individual?
And of course, if they know that's your standard, they're going to claim that they desperately need their human being maximized by being given $50,000 or whatever it is, right?
If you have a system that says, well, we're going to apply resources to this is Marxism.
I'm not saying you're a Marxist, but from each according to their ability to each according to their need.
So if you're going to say, well, we want to maximize human well-being, but you can't judge that objectively, right?
You can't judge objectively what is best for each individual in a group of 300 million people, right?
Yes, I would agree that it's not like immediately obvious how to maximize human well-being.
Like you might just have to on a case-by-case basis.
So hang on.
So you review 300 million people's preferences.
Well, no, I think you might be able to evaluate a very practical instance.
Like just to keep it within the realm of philosophical example.
No, no, no, no.
We're talking morality is practical, right?
So are you trying to tell, like, you understand how many, like two-thirds of Americans are obese.
They don't even know what's in their own best interests, right?
They don't even know what's good for them.
So how is it, are you saying that there's a government agency that can evaluate the claims of 300 million people, all who have an incentive to lie and maximize what they say will make them happy?
You know, because everyone's going to say, oh, yeah, maximizing human well-being, I want a million dollars.
I want 10 million.
No, $50 million, right?
That's going to maximize my, they're going to all say that, right?
So how are you going to know what is valid or invalid when it comes to maximizing humans' well-being?
Well, I think that that's not necessarily a very simple question to answer.
I think that it has something to do with the scale of the scale on which you answer this question.
Because if you gave everybody a million dollars, right, like you could, you could do, well, you can't really do that, but the consequences of that, if it were done, right, would not actually maximize human welfare.
Okay, I get that.
So then how are you going to determine who gets the resources?
Everybody's like a chip, chip, chip.
They're little birds, right?
Their mouths are open and they want, they want, they want, right?
So how are you going to determine who gets what in terms of maximizing human happiness when everyone's going to claim that a million dollars is going to maximize their happiness?
You're going to have to say yes to some and no to others, right?
Yes.
So how are you going to judge that?
Well, I'll admit that I'm probably not the best person to ask this question, but I would like to attempt an answer.
And I think it has to do with at least two things.
One would be like the fundamental material, empirical, empirically determinable truths about like your consciousness.
Like it's not good to hurt people, at least generally, unless you want to get them to learn something about.
No, no, I don't know what you're talking about.
Sorry, we're back to maximizing human happiness and well-being, right?
Maximizing human well-being.
That's right.
Well-being is significantly subjective, right?
I think that it might have some objective elements to it.
No, what did I say?
You said significantly.
I didn't say all.
It's significantly subjective.
Okay, yes, I would agree.
Okay.
Now, let me ask you this.
Are there people in the world who are poorer than you?
Yes.
Okay.
Would they be happier if you gave them resources?
I don't think so.
I don't.
That's convenient.
So I wouldn't be happier if Okay.
Well, I think it depends on.
No.
Have you ever been really hungry, bro?
Have you ever been starving?
Okay, I think that indeed a starving person would be happier if they got a loaf of bread.
So would the starving person be more happy getting your loaf of bread than you would be sad losing your loaf of bread?
Perhaps so, yes.
No, are you saying to me, come on, let's not perhaps this, let's not get too relatively subjective, right?
So somebody is dying.
They get your loaf of bread.
The government comes and takes your loaf of bread, gives it, this happens, of course, foreign aid, right?
Although mostly it's just taken by bureaucrats.
So the government comes and takes your loaf of bread, gives it to the starving guy.
Yes.
And you're mildly unhappy that you've lost a loaf of bread, but he's ecstatic that he's not going to die of hunger, right?
Yes.
So that has maximized human happiness, right?
And that would only be one of the two elements.
Hang on, hang on.
That has maximized, in this particular interaction, that has maximized human happiness.
Is that fair to say?
Yes.
Okay, so why don't you give all of your money to those who are less well off than you?
Because they'll be a lot happier.
Let's say you're minus 100 happiness points by being much poorer, but they're each plus 100.
That's 100 people.
That's like, you know, a huge number, right?
So you're maximizing human happiness by taking your property and giving it to others.
So if you believe that virtue has to do with maximizing human happiness, why do you have things that you don't need that could go to others and save their lives?
Well, because I think that there is actually a second, there's a second variable that needs to be accounted for.
Hang on, turn it on.
Hang on.
Why didn't you account for it in the last example with the loaf of bread?
Well, because I didn't get a chance to talk about it.
My apologies then.
Go ahead.
Well, I think that the other variable in the calculus Would be human rights.
And here's probably a great thing that you'll enlighten me on in this case.
But I think that part of the calculus of morality, of moral truths, also has to do not just with the maximization of human well-being, but also the protection of human rights, like property rights in this case.
Well, okay.
Let's say that the government didn't do it, but you believe in the maximization of human happiness, and therefore you would voluntarily send your excess food and money to people who were hungry.
Well, I mean, that wouldn't violate if I if I thought that it was, you know, in my best interest to give all my money away, I could do that.
No, it was for the maximization of human happiness.
Nobody said in your best interest.
You said morality is the maximization of human happiness.
If you had less and others had more, you'd be less happy, but they'd be a whole lot more happy.
Therefore, human happiness would have been maximized.
Well, I don't think that human happiness would be completely SERPed simply by the or I should perhaps it's a good, this is a good question.
Perhaps the maximization of human happiness or the maximization of human well-being isn't the be-all and end-all of moral questions.
It's not the entire basis.
It's not how you live.
And I don't think that it's how you live.
How many people can you cram into your living space?
Quite a few.
Yeah, you could probably get a dozen or two dozen or more, right?
If you stacked them like courtwood or built bunk beds or something like that, right?
But you don't do that.
Even though they would be much happier, let's say homeless people would be much happier not sleeping in the street, but sleeping in your place.
You don't do that, right?
That's right.
Even though that would maximize human happiness.
Yes.
So it's always kind of curious to me, like, why would you have a moral standard that you do the opposite of?
I don't, again, wouldn't you work empirically and say, well, okay, if this is my moral standard, then I should pursue it because I want to be a good person.
If it's, if I'm not pursuing it, then either I'm a bad person, which is kind of weird to then talk about morality, or it's not a real moral standard.
It's not a valid moral standard because I'm not living that way.
Well, if I may respond, I think it's because the question of morality has more to do, well, not only to do with the maximization of human happiness.
I think there are, in fact, at least two principles that might be in competition with one another that, you know, in the end of the day, if you get the proper balance, then that is in fact the best way to living.
Hang on, you don't have any homeless people living in your house, right?
Yeah.
So the balance would be, well, you know, I need some living space for myself.
I need some rights of property.
So, you know, maybe half my place.
I'll balance these things out.
Like, you have zero homeless people living.
And I'm not criticizing you for that at all, right?
I don't have any homeless people living in my house either.
But I then also don't say that maximizing human happiness is somehow the moral ideal because that's not how I live.
And I don't want to be a hypocrite.
No, no, because I wouldn't want to maximize, only maximize human happiness either.
I would also want to take into account that my property rights have to do, and everybody else's property rights are, in fact, a legitimate basis for moral concern.
That's 100% of how you're living is the property rights thing, because you don't have any homeless people living there.
So why do you have this other standard that you don't live by called maximizing human happiness when that's not how you're living your life?
Well, because it's not the utmost concern is, in fact, only one of two issues.
Fine, we can keep going over this.
What percentage of your decisions are made by maximizing human happiness and getting homeless people to live in your house?
What percentage?
5%, 10%?
Like what percentage?
Because practically, it seems to me it's 0%.
Well, the balance would be zero of other people living in my house, though that has changed before.
I've had not homeless people, but people who didn't have another place to live.
that's besides the point.
I think that You were talking about social happiness.
So that's not intimate to you, right?
Yeah, no, no, no, no, no.
I'm talking about somebody who is in just aside.
It's not my family.
It's just somebody who I met in a program, who I invited to live as a tenant in my room.
But that's not the point.
The point, I think, is that there is only two.
If you wanted me to answer the question about the percentage, that's actually, I'd have to think about that for a little bit.
Let's just put it at 50-50 for the argument's sake.
I don't know 50-50.
So then half of your place, half of your place should be turned over to homeless people to live.
You keep the property rights of half your place and then half of your place is turned over to homeless people because that maximizes human happiness in your society.
Well, I actually think that the percent in terms of the letting other people live in my own home, I don't think that the balance is not.
No, no, no, no.
Hang on, hang on.
Listen, I'm not trying to be a nag at all.
You know where I'm going with this, right?
I mean, I don't know why you're fighting me on this because clearly this is not how you live.
And you don't want to give over half of your place to homeless people.
So maximizing human happiness in society is 0% of your consideration as far as this goes.
And if it's 0% of your consideration, why would you have it as a value?
Sorry, go ahead.
Well, you know, I'm willing to grant that perhaps that is in fact how I live my life.
I'm really only...
Don't give me these weird concessions.
It is how you're living your life.
You are not turning over half your place to the homeless people.
It's not a theoretical.
Okay.
Well, then perhaps I was too quick to point the balance at 50-50.
No, it's zero.
It's zero.
Right now, you're not turning over any of your place to homeless people and you're not sending everything.
You're not sending 50% of what you need to live on to people who are poorer than you.
And I'm not, listen, I'm not criticizing you for not doing those things at all.
At all.
I don't have a big homeless encampment in my house either.
But because I don't have a big homeless encampment in my house, I don't say somehow that maximizing human happiness in society is a big value because I don't live that way.
And it's not like how I live is the ultimate definition of what's moral or what's not moral.
But I can't define, like if I were to define, well, the maximization of human happiness is blah, blah, blah, then I'd have to, you know, I don't know how many people I could get into my place, but it's more than the company here, right?
So I just, the maximization of human happiness is a recipe for complete totalitarianism, right?
You know that, right?
Because you'd have to have some central agency that has control of resources, and it would then have to figure out how to apply those resources to, quote, maximize human happiness.
But it would all be corruption and falsehood and lying.
And it's central planning, right?
It's central planning for the economy, which is say that the government should control everything and hand it out to those they deem most in need of happiness, which is just utterly corrupt.
I mean, what you have is a pure recipe for totalitarianism, either on the left or the right.
Right.
So don't do that shit, man.
Don't talk about that shit that ends up, but it's all in gulags and enslaved.
Okay.
Like it's serious stuff.
This greatest good for the greatest number shit is just handing infinite guns to sociopaths to rule society with an iron fist.
Like, this is why I'm fighting you so hard on this.
This is some seriously dark shit that you've got going on here in terms of ethics.
The greatest good, the biggest happiness, the whatever.
That's all just a bunch of bullshit.
So the totalitarians get control of all of our resources and give it to their friends.
Well, I'm glad you brought that up because I think it wasn't the only concern I have, but I'm glad you're- I don't care.
It's the first one you brought up, and it shouldn't be part of anything.
Okay, well, would you like to talk about that?
No, because if you say, well, you know, I think we should poison some people.
It's like, well, but that's not the only thing we should do.
It's like, I'm still going to get hung up on the poisoning of some people, right?
Sorry, go ahead.
Well, you know, you're right.
I actually think I was wrong to even suggest that the maximization of happiness.
I don't really think about these issues that often, but then you should.
Hang on, hang on.
But if you don't think about them, you shouldn't talk about them.
Well, I apologize for talking about something that I don't know.
No, no, no, no, it's just that if you don't know what you're talking about, you're likely to spread some very bad ideas.
Well, I apologize for spreading any bad ideas if anyone happens to have thought that they were at all worthwhile even thinking.
But I enjoy this conversation.
I enjoy these conversations.
And I'm glad that I was even for a moment exposed to criticism because that's really what I value.
I want to know more.
I want to think better.
I want to be exposed to these ideas.
All right.
Well, thank you.
I appreciate that.
Interesting conversation.
All right.
Let's do a palate cleanser.
And let's see.
Oh, I'm on the wrong screen.
Hang on.
Oh, sorry.
Nine requests.
Richard Wright.
Let's have a palate cleanser.
And I'm sorry to be so harsh on everyone.
It's just that the ideas that people spread, especially ideas turn into reality, right?
And the ideas that people spread is the world my daughter is going to have to live in.
I mean, I'm not going to have to live in it, perhaps, because, you know, I've only got a couple of decades to go, but she's got a whole lot more.
So I am fairly fierce at opposing bad moral ideas because they could poison the entire world my daughter lives in and, you know, other considerations as well.
Richard, go ahead.
He's gone.
He's back.
I'm so sorry, Steph.
I accidentally clicked a button.
I didn't want to apologize.
You don't have any other headset or whatever.
You sound pretty bad, man.
I said, sorry, Steph.
I'm driving.
I accidentally clicked the button, I think.
I apologize.
Okay, no problem.
Hang tight.
Hello, Stefan.
I'll give you a palate cleanser.
I somehow doubt it, but go ahead.
So I'm assuming the last guy said that his base was maximization of human happiness.
I think it should be maximization of societal security.
Okay.
That's my base.
So let's say I'm an atheist and I just want to maximize societal security.
I can deny that I would want to have homeless people in my house on that basis.
Okay, I'm not sure what you mean by security, though.
Well, if you're saying the last guy should have homeless people in his house because his baseline was societal happiness, I would say that sounds pretty dangerous to have a bunch of homeless people in my house.
Okay, still don't know what you mean by security, though.
Security means your physical safety.
Okay, so then all that people do is they say, I'm in extreme danger if I don't get $50,000.
I need to build a security fence.
I'm being threatened.
I'm in danger.
And so they're just going to demand for the sake of security all this money.
And you're going to have to evaluate things one by one and blah, blah, blah.
Right.
But we would deny that.
We would say that that's not true.
You don't need $50,000 to be secure.
Okay, $5,000, $2,500, $1,000.
I just need to install a security system.
I need to get a gun.
I need to, whatever.
They'll just say, I feel unsafe.
You got to give me resources.
And then what?
Well, I'm an NCAP like yourself.
I deny Keynesian economics and the ability to just produce money out of thin air like yourself.
So I don't believe that we should just be creating money for these people.
No.
I didn't say creating money.
You could tax people and redistribute it.
And like you're saying, the society needs to be maximized around security.
Well, then women will say, listen, I feel unsafe walking around.
I need money for a hot Chippendale's guard to stroll around the bad neighborhoods with me or to come with me to bars to make sure nobody roofies my drink.
And it'd be great if he had abs and was six foot three.
Well, if taxation is theft, then we would say that's not safety, right?
We would say that that's a violation of safety.
Okay, so then the principle would be private property rights and not anything to do with security because security could be fake.
Like you could fake feeling insecure to get resources, right?
Well, it's private property rights and the non-aggression principle, as you know.
Okay, good.
So then we're private property rights, non-aggression principle.
So the whole security thing is kind of a red herring, right?
Well, that would encompass what security is.
Okay, so security, you just mean property rights.
And the non-aggression principle.
So if I have a bunch of homeless people in my house, I don't feel very safe and I'm probably going to be aggressed against.
Okay, got it.
All right.
So yeah, private property, non-aggression principle.
That's good, but the security stuff is a bit of a red herring.
I don't agree.
I think that that is what security is.
No, that's why we have the term private property rights, whether you call that security or not.
I mean, security usually has a different meaning to that.
Like if you say, I want to hire security, you're hiring guards, right?
That's not necessarily enforcing private property rights.
So this is different.
It's a different concept.
But anyway, I don't agree.
I don't agree.
I think if you're hiring security, you could hire cameras.
You could buy cameras.
You could do a bunch of things that don't involve hiring a guard.
Okay, listen.
I mean, we're talking about the same thing, just different terms.
I try to be, if I'm talking about private property, I want to talk about private property because security means a bunch of things to a bunch of different people.
So I just would rather stick with the terms that are more objective and commonly defined.
But I appreciate your call.
Thank you.
I appreciate you.
Thank you, man.
Unless you're willing to continue talking.
No, I'll get one more person.
All right.
All right.
Richard, Richard.
Noggin.
What's on your mind, my friend?
Take us home.
Hello there.
Hi.
First time, long time, as they say.
Welcome.
This is more of a question to you.
I don't know if you've been keeping up with the British news recently.
Well, I'll start with asking that.
Have you kept up with the British news recently?
Some.
Some, not a massive amount, but some.
Well, are you aware that immigration is starting to become more and more of a problem on a societal level?
Yes.
What would you say would be the solution to that?
Where, obviously, if you were to take out families, innocent people maybe caught up in all of that.
Is there ethically a morally good way of sorting out that problem that isn't quite as in the gray area as a lot of people would view it?
Yeah, I mean, so the question of immigration is a society should have entire private property, should be a private property society.
So there's no government property.
There's no government currency.
Like you're talking about a future 100 years from now, 200 years from now, anarcho-capitalist society.
Everything should be privately owned and there is perfect free speech, right?
So you have all the free speech except direct incitements to violence and libel and slander and things like that.
So with regards to immigration, there should be complete free speech and nobody should be forced to subsidize or fund or pay for immigration.
That's a violation of the non-aggression principle.
People should be free to move wherever they can secure their, to be able to purchase land or at least to rent places in a more temporary fashion.
So immigration right now, it generally tends to be a big government program and that money is transferred from local population, domestic population to immigrants, and there's lots of benefits and welfare and considerations and so on.
Someone from the Middle East can earn over 10 times a Middle Eastern salary, say, in a Western country.
And again, some of them work in all of that, but significant portions of them are not working in that way.
So yeah, it's just private property and no subsidies and a free market situation is the way that human movement should be dealt with.
But in the situation that the UK is in right now, where almost 25% of the population now is no longer British, obviously they aren't likely to follow the Anka viewpoint that everything should be private property and stuff like that.
Would you just assume that it's going to be almost self-defense on a societal level when that inevitably comes at a head?
Well, so you're sort of asking me about what happens in the long run with immigration.
But you see, philosophy is about prevention, not cure, right?
So philosophy is about, to me, it's a violation of property rights that has resulted significantly in some immigration problems in England.
And so it would be after people have significantly violated property rights in order to have these giant government programs, whether it's welfare or even the healthcare system in England or other things, what happens after that?
Well, if you're having a significant health crisis, you don't call a nutritionist.
A nutritionist is there to hopefully help you to prevent you from getting into a big situation.
When you get into big problems like this, the people to call are not philosophers because our solutions are way in the past.
And you don't like if you have a personal trainer and a nutritionist, right, they're there to have you exercise and eat well and hopefully prevent you from having some massive heart attack when you're 50.
If you're really overweight and you haven't exercised and then you have a big heart attack, you don't call the trainer and you don't call the nutritionist because they say, listen, you got to get an ambulance.
And I can't remember what you dial 999.
I can't remember what it is in the UK because it's been a long time since I lived there.
But yeah, so the solutions to all of that go to a different place than philosophy.
No, fair enough.
I just wondered if you would have an opinion on that.
But fair enough.
You make a good point.
Well, thank you.
I appreciate that.
And listen, thanks, everyone, for a just lovely, delightful chat.
I really do appreciate it.
Listen, all the people that I tussled with and all of that, I appreciate you calling in.
Never, ever feel nervous or bad.
I could be wrong.
And we all get to a better truth.
And I get to new truths and the audience gets to see a spirited debate.
I really do appreciate that.
No harm, no foul, no negative feelings.
I really do appreciate everyone who calls in.
And the people who disagree with me strongly are really the best of all because either I'm right, in which case you get educated or you're right, in which case I get educated.
Either way, the audience gets instructed in positive things.
So I really do appreciate everyone dropping by tonight.
We will see you tomorrow night for a live stream.
And that'll be at 7 p.m. Eastern right here.
Same bat time, same bat channel, 7 p.m.
Tomorrow night, Wednesday night live.
Lots of love, everyone.
Thank you, Emil.
Talk to you soon.
▲
Export Selection