All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 25, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
30:58
UPB Versus Evil!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Question, you provide a definition of morality, Seth, that equates to universalizable behavior, and then state that things that can't be universalizable, theft, are immoral.
But why?
They are inconsistent, sure, but how are you proving that they are immoral?
A fine question, and I appreciate the pushback.
And I love, love, love being able to sharpen the blades of my thought on the whetstone of disagreement.
So I appreciate that.
And let us see what we can do with this fine, deep, and juicy question.
All right.
It's not like I'm stalling, but I'm not doing the opposite of stalling.
All right.
So let us take this one on.
All right.
So the question, let me sort of rephrase the question, make sure it makes sense to everyone.
So I have proven that rape, theft, assault, and murder can never be universally preferable behavior.
So any theory that says rape, theft, assault, and murder are universally preferable behavior is false.
It's not even a little bit false.
It's not even false if you take certain things into account.
It is false by definition.
It is false without any reference to anything external.
So internal inconsistency is the best way of disproving a theory.
So if you have a theory that Aristotle said such and such, then you need to go and look up what Aristotle said in order to determine if Aristotle did in fact say such and such.
So if you want to know what the capital of Georgia is, well, first of all, you have to say the state or the country.
You have to nail that down.
Then you have to sing a few bars of Georgia on my mind.
And then, maybe then, at the end of it all, you end up with understanding or knowing what George is.
I don't like, I no like, I no like, I don't like arguments, philosophical arguments that rely on external lookups.
So there are historical arguments.
Augustus was an emperor of Rome or a leader of Rome.
Okay, that's a you look that up and find out if that's true or not.
That's nothing wrong with that.
But the best arguments are the ones that don't require any external lookup.
And they also don't rely on any subjective states.
They don't rely on anyone agreeing or disagreeing or anything like that.
If an argument is self-contradictory in its proposition, the syllogism goes, in UPB goes something like this.
If X is proposed as universally preferable, but X can never be universally preferable, then X cannot be universally preferable behavior.
So if theft is proposed as universally preferable behavior, but theft can never be universally preferable behavior because it is the unwanted taking of property, and theft means everybody must want to be stolen from and steal.
Well, if you want to be stolen from, the category vanishes, and you have realized that theft can never be universally preferable behavior.
So it doesn't require anyone's preference.
It doesn't require any historical examination.
It doesn't require any subjective emotional state.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Well, a con man and a liar is fine to have con men and lying or being a conning people and lying as the means of getting resources because he knows that most people are not con men and liars.
So he's going to have easy marks and make a lot of money.
Scammers from, say, Nigeria or India are fine to say scamming is a great way to get resources because they scam and other people don't, really.
And certainly it's a one-way street.
So then, if I define, so this is, you may say this is circular, but this is, I'll sort of take two runs at this, right?
So the first is that if I say morality is universally preferable behavior, then that which can never be universally preferable behavior is not moral.
This one's not, this is the easy one, right?
Again, I'm not saying it's easy to understand, but it's hard to focus on because we've got so many false moral theories yelling in our ears as we do things in this world.
But if morality is universally preferable behavior, then something which can never be universally preferable behavior cannot be moral.
Now, something that cannot be moral, does that mean that it is immoral?
Well, if you say, should we paint the baby's room blue or pink?
Oh, I choose blue.
Okay, clearly, painting a child's room blue is not universally preferable behavior.
It cannot be universally preferable behavior.
But it's not evil.
So just because something cannot be universally preferable behavior does not mean that it falls into the category good or evil.
Remember, there are three categories: UPB, APA, aesthetically preferable actions, and neutral, things which are neither good nor evil, right or wrong, positive or negative.
So telling the truth is aesthetically preferable, but it is not UPB.
If telling the truth prevents a UPB action, then telling the truth is better, right?
So if somebody says, where's your wife?
I want to go kill her, and you lie and say that your wife is somewhere where she's not, then you have prevented a murder, and that's good, right?
So, whereas if you murder someone, that's just unlawful or immoral killing, right?
Or you rape someone and so on.
There's no rape for the greater good, right?
So the first thing to recognize is that if morality is universally preferable behavior because it's binding upon others.
So morality is universally preferable behavior.
And therefore, if a moral proposition, stealing, is universally preferable behavior, where does the evil come in?
Well, the evil comes in when the action is imposed on another against UPB.
So say, respecting property rights is UPB.
Respecting persons and property, not initiating the use of force, respecting persons and property is UPB.
Okay?
A theory that theft can be universally preferable behavior is false because of the self-contradiction mentioned before.
So the evil comes in when somebody acts against UPB and pretends that they're not or is not honest about it or not direct about it.
That's not a great argument.
We have put our foot in the mire and the muck.
That's all right, it happens.
This is a, you know, we're working and working things out, right?
So the reason why proving that theft can never be UPB proves that it's wrong, first of all, we say it's a wrong moral theory.
The wrong moral theory is not harmful.
Somebody proposes a wrong moral theory.
That's not particularly harmful.
If they just make an argument and nobody really believes it, or they make an argument, people may believe it, but they don't act on it, and so on.
So, where does the evil come in?
Well, free speech says that it can't be evil to make a bad argument.
And so, where does the evil come in?
The evil comes in in the contradiction.
So, as I've said before, a thief wishes to both violate and maintain property rights at the same time.
You know, the old joke about like it's a sort of comic setup where the thief steals something and then someone steals what he stole from him and he's outraged.
How dare someone steal what I've stolen?
Or it's an old joke from Dr. Strangelove: Gentlemen, you can't fight in here.
This is the war room.
So, it is the contradiction.
The thief wants to violate property rights for others and retain property rights for himself, right?
So, in a fish called Wanda, Otto and the girl, the Jamie Lee Curtis character, I can't remember her name, they steal something and then it's stolen from them, and they're really angry, really upset.
They've got to get it back, right?
How dare someone steal what I have stolen?
So, that is the contradiction in practice, which is how you know that it is not universalized, right?
Because somebody is saying, I wish to violate somebody else's property rights and take what does not belong to me, but somebody else better not try and take what belongs to me or what I have, what I have in my possession, the stolen goods.
I steal some diamonds, but I'd be really angry and upset if somebody takes those diamonds from me, right?
So, the question is: why is it immoral to put forward inconsistent theories?
Why is it immoral to put forward self-contradictory theories?
Now, clearly, not every self-contradictory theory is immoral.
If I say two and two make five, that's wrong, but it's not immoral because there's no universal ought in I think that two and two make five.
I'm not putting a gun to everyone's head and saying you have to believe or say at least that two and two make five, right?
So, there is no universal ought in a personal error.
If I put forward a universal ought, then I am legitimizing the use of force because morality legitimizes the use of force, not the initiation of force, but morality legitimizes the use of force as a preventive measure against someone who's initiating the use of force against you, right?
So, this is the concept of self-defense, of course, right?
So, morality legitimizes the use of force.
What you label as evil, you can use force to defend yourself against.
So, if somebody is going to rape you, you can use up to and including, if necessary, lethal force in order to prevent yourself from being raped or murdered.
Assault is a little trickier because proportional levels of force and so on, right?
So, morality legitimizes the use of force.
If force is used in response to force, then that's not the initiation of the use of force, and the moral onus of the resulting coercion of the resulting force falls upon the person who initiates the use of force.
I mean, in common law, there is a standard wherein if Bob goes into a convenience store, pulls out a gun and says, you know, fill my bag with the contents of your cash register or whatever.
And then Doug, who's a customer, shoots at Bob, but Bob dodges, and the customer who's shooting at Bob hits another customer and that customer dies.
The person who's charged with the murder is the robber who's come in to rob the store because he set the events in motion that caused the other person to be shot and killed.
So morality is the legitimization of the use of force.
You cannot restrain someone from leaving your store, right?
If they don't buy anything, you can't hold them in some fashion.
You can't restrain them or retain them in your store in some fashion if they don't buy anything.
You can't leave the store unless you buy 50 bucks worth of stuff.
Well, that would be wrong.
Forcible confinement.
It's the initiation of the use of force.
However, if that person has stolen something, then you have the right to keep them in your store until the police arrive, until security arrives or something like that, right?
So morality legitimizes the use of force.
And the initiation of the use of force is not UPB compliant, right?
This is an overarching rape, theft, assault, and murder category.
The initiation of the use of force is immoral.
It's, well, it's not UPB compliant.
And the reason for that, of course, is that if you say the initiation of the use of force is universally preferable behavior, well, first of all, it doesn't pass the coma test.
A guy who's asleep is not initiating the use of force, but he would not be immoral.
And if we were to say everyone must want to initiate the use of force against others, everyone must want to initiate the use of force against others.
Well, two people cannot simultaneously initiate the use of force against each other.
Number one.
And number two, force is by definition unwanted.
I don't want to be stabbed unless I'm having a tumor removed from my neck, in which case, please stab me, right?
Cut me open.
It's not assault if you voluntarily submit to surgery and pay for it.
So it follows the problem of asymmetry.
Force, the initiation of the use of force is undesired.
Force is by definition undesired.
You don't want it, right?
If you want someone to make love to you, it's not rape.
So the initiation of the use of force can never be universally preferable behavior because it fails the coma test and because it's asymmetrical.
The force must be unwanted.
If we use violence, right?
I want someone to use violence against me.
Well, then it's not violence.
I mean, let's say you have some weird sexual kink that you want to be slapped around the armpits with a big wet fish.
Okay, well, I mean, hey, I won't say whatever floats your boat because you might want to look into early sexual imprinting on Captain Highliner, but I will say that it would not be force.
However, if somebody comes and slaps you around the head or the face or whatever, even the armpits with a big wet fish, that would be a form of assault because you don't want it.
You're not paying for it.
You don't agree.
You don't acquiesce.
You don't approve.
So the initiation of the use of force can never be UPB compliant.
Fails the coma test.
It's very difficult for two people to initiate force at exactly the same time.
It comes and goes.
It can't be universally applied.
And because force is by definition unwanted, it fails the asymmetry test in that you cannot want to initiate the use of force against others and you cannot want others to initiate the use of force against you because if you want them to initiate the use of force against you, it might be boxing, it might be hockey, it might be Black Friday, but it's not.
It's not force if you want it.
There are games, we have actually played these games as a family where you get a tacko or something like that.
So you put water in your mouth and you take turns whapping each other in the face with a thin tacko or whatever they are, sort of a falafel roll up or whatever.
And it's very funny, but it's not assault because it's wanted, it's preferred, it's fun.
In the scene from Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, where Cliff, whatever his name is, is talking with the Bruce Lee character, especially in front of my friends, right?
So they voluntarily make an agreement to punch each other as hard as they can.
Any man kills another man in a fight, it's illegal.
It's called manslaughter.
Pat Bit is very cool.
So there are all these witnesses looking at these two men and saying one of them says, all right, you give me your best shot, then I'll give you my best shot.
They're voluntarily acquiescing to be hit by the other as a sort of macho or machismo test.
Should be machismo because it's macho, but what the heck, right?
Machismo test.
So if you're saying why, or you're asking me the question as this person is asking, I appreciate you guys being patient with me while I work this out sometimes.
I don't have everything all formulated before I start sometimes.
So the initiation of the use of force fails UPB.
You say, well, why does that make it wrong?
Well, that's interesting, right?
So let's unpack that question.
So what you're saying is that my statement has failed to prove that something is wrong.
So the first thing I would say is you've got a category called immoral, and you're saying, I haven't proven that something is in that category.
So you already have a statement which says, if you fail to prove that something is in a category, then it's wrong.
And certainly wrong is negative, right?
Wrong is negative and right is positive.
So if you're saying, Steph, you haven't proven that statements that are not UPB compliant are immoral.
And I would agree.
Statements cannot be immoral.
Statements cannot be immoral.
Saying something like theft is UPB compliant.
It's wrong, but it's not immoral to say it.
But you've got a category called immoral, and you're saying, I have failed to prove that that which is not UPB compliant is immoral.
So you're saying that there is an inconsistency between the category and what I've proved, and it's wrong.
And that's negative, right?
Okay.
So if it's negative for me, if I failed to prove that something is wrong because it's immoral, because it's not UPB compliant, then you're saying there's a category called immoral that I have failed to correctly put the basketball through the net called immoral, right?
There's a basketball net called immoral, and I have shot my basketball of UPB, but failed to land it.
Okay.
So the fact that I have deviated from a standard is bad, right?
I've deviated from standard call proof that it's bad.
So you're using UPB already to say that something is negative, right?
Okay.
So it is not immoral to have an incorrect moral theory.
It is not immoral to have an incorrect moral theory.
What is immoral is the initiation of the use of force.
Now, I'm sure you're aware that is it propane or, you know, some sort of natural gas that people use for sort of heating in their homes, has no odor.
And so they add a stink odor to it so that you can tell if there's a leak.
And you don't just breathe like you would normally.
Maybe you have a lighter stove or maybe you smoke a pipe, you light up a cigarette or something, you blow up, right?
So the reason why they put the smell in the gas is so that you're aware of the danger when it leaks.
If you're not aware of the danger when it leaks, then you are much more susceptible to an explosion.
To, I mean, if there's a leak, right?
You're almost certain to have something really dangerous or horrible happen, right?
And the smell can be so strong that it might even wake you from asleep.
Otherwise, you might just asphyxiate or there's some spark when the fridge goes on and kaboom, right?
In the same way that your body gives you signals of damage through pain, discomfort.
If you've been sitting too long, when blood flow is impeded, you'll want to move, you'll want to change position and so on, right?
I was working out today and I did some pretty hard calf exercises, which I kind of need to do because if I'm playing racket sports, I'm doing a lot of forward lunging and I have a little bit of weakness in my calves that they can get pulled.
And so I did about 45 minutes of weights and then I did a half hour of cardio.
And towards the end, actually, to be fair, I only did 25 minutes of cardio because my right calf was cramping just doing cardio.
So I like to stop, right?
So, but that's good.
That's saying that I'm overusing my right calf and I'd better stop.
So if a person knows what they're doing is wrong, they may, I mean, they may or may not do it, right?
If they know what they want to do is wrong.
Is someone more likely to do evil if they think that it's good?
Is someone more likely to do evil if they think that it's good?
So let's take an extreme example, and this has actually happened in the world.
Some mother who's going through a psychotic break or psychotic episode genuinely believes that she must kill her children or they will be going to hell.
Like, so if she kills them right now, they'll go straight to heaven.
If she lets them live, they will go to hell.
And she believes that she is sending her children to heaven by killing them, that she's doing good.
Well, I guess it's an extreme form of the cry it out method, right?
But she believes that she's doing good when she is in fact doing evil.
And generally, if we could say she genuinely believed that, then we would probably give her a not guilty by reason of insanity, right?
So she's genuinely psychotic.
She believes that if her children live another day, they're going straight to hell.
But if she kills them now, they're going straight to heaven where she would join them after having done good and so on, right?
In the same way, are you more likely to injure yourself via exercise if your body doesn't give you any negative symptoms of injury?
Are you more likely to injure a muscle if you don't notice your muscle is getting very tired or is cramping a little or is feeling weak or something like that?
Well, you're more likely to injure yourself, of course, if your body is not giving you any feedback of injury, right?
If you have a hand that's resting on something very hot, are you more likely to damage your hand if you don't feel any pain?
Well, sure.
You're more likely to damage your hand if you don't feel any pain.
So if you believe that force is necessary for the maintenance of human society, this is a debate I had, I think, a week and a day ago with a fellow. who's like, well, you know, without the government, we can't resolve any disputes.
Okay.
So he believes that government force or political force is necessary for the survival and maintenance of society and that society cannot function and disputes cannot be resolved and everything will escalate.
You'll end up with a bunch of warlords.
You'll end up in civil war.
You'll end up with the rack and ruin of society and, you know, millions of people are dead, dogs living with cats, you know, the whole thing, right?
So if someone believes that the initiation of the use of force is a necessary and good virtue, are they more likely to support the initiation of the use of force?
In other words, if somebody believes that evil is good, are they more likely to promote evil under the delusion that it's good?
Let's take another sort of silly, silly example.
So let's say that a man genuinely believes that if he hits his son across the ankle, he genuinely believes that if he hits his son across the ankle hard, that the cure for cancer will fall from the sky.
Now, I think you don't have to be, you don't have to be overly pragmatic or utilitarian to say, you know, it's kind of worth it.
It's kind of worth it.
One smack across my kid's ankle, not going to leave any damage, not going to really even leave a mark.
And the cure for cancer falls from the sky.
Cancer is a great evil to, I mean, it's a great source of pain and suffering for people.
So I can get a cure for cancer.
I just have to whack my kid barehand across the ankle.
So if he believes that great good will come out of a violation of the non-aggression principle, is he more likely to hit his child across the ankle?
Of course he is.
I think all of us would do that.
So that's...
Now, if, on the other hand, he knew that there was a blood clot, let's just really take the extremes, right?
So let's say that this guy knew that there was a blood clot on his kid's ankle.
And if he hits his kid on the ankle, the blood clot will detach, hit his heart, and the kid will die, right?
Then he's not going to do that in any way, shape, even if he's angry, right?
He won't do it.
So, of course, that's a kind of consequentialism, but it's important because it's about incentives.
If somebody believes they get the cure for cancer by whacking their kid on the leg, they will almost certainly whack the kid on the leg, especially if their loved wife or husband is dying of cancer and this can be the cure, right?
They absolutely will do it.
They absolutely will do it.
I would.
So on the other hand, even if somebody believes that whacking the kid on the ankle is a good form of discipline, if the doctor has told them they have a big blood clot on their ankle, you must treat it very carefully.
You cannot give it any stress or trauma or pressure, then he's not going to hit his kid on the ankle, even if he's really angry and believes that normally he would, because the consequence will be that the child will die.
So that which facilitates evil is immoral.
And so if you have a false moral theory that facilitates and enables evil, that is immoral.
So you have a false moral theory called communism, which enabled a hundred million murders in the 20th century alone.
Is the communist theory immoral?
No, it's just ink and paper, it's just words.
Are those who advocate for it immoral?
Well, they themselves are not initiating the use of force.
It's the old Iago question.
Iago with Othello.
Iago tells Othello that Desdemona is cheating on him, and Othello goes mad with rage and jealousy.
Is Iago evil?
No, he's immoral because he's saying something that is false that drives Othello mad with rage and Othello then, spoiler, it's been 400 years, kills Desdemona.
So a false moral theory gives people the belief that evil is good and good is evil.
And if I create a GPS that guides people at night, tells them here's the safest route to travel, but actually guides them to drive off cliffs, you know, it starts to get pretty morally gray.
If somebody you know is going through a psychotic episode and you tell them that their neighbor is possessed by a demon who's going to end humanity, and then that person goes and kills your neighbor, are you liable?
Well, if you say things that are going to lead directly to violence, if otherwise peaceful actions result in violence, you're probably kind of liable.
I mean, it's not illegal to pay someone for something unless that something is a crime, like if you pay someone to kill someone, right?
You hire a hitman.
So if the language is immoral, immorality is putting forward a false moral theory.
If it promotes evil to, and nothing promotes evil more than false moral theories.
Nothing.
Nothing promotes evil more than false moral theories.
So if the initiation of the use of force is evil, which it is, and if false moral theories are that which directly leads to the most massive violations of the non-aggression principle conceivable to man, quarter of a billion people murdered by governments based upon people's belief in the necessity of governments for running society.
So the reason why I say that violations of UPP are immoral is because false moral theories are responsible for more violence, more violations of the non-aggression principle than any other single thing.
You could say, well, child abuse and so on, right?
But in terms of evaluating moral theories.
Or people who say spanking is necessary for children to be raised well.
Well, that's a moral theory that says violations of the non-aggression principle are necessary to produce virtue and goodness in the world.
Right?
Well, that's a false moral theory that is responsible for massive amounts of violence, of course, against children.
So that's why I say that self-contradictory, inconsistent moral theories are immoral, is because they lead directly to hundreds of millions of people being unjustly slaughtered through violations of the non-aggression principle.
And if that ain't enough for you, I say nothing is.
Freedom.com slash tonight.
Thanks a mill.
▲
Export Selection