Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux - Why is Morality Objective?

Dec. 11, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

30:50

Why is Morality Objective?

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Well, hello.
	Hello.
	How are you?
	It's DeMen Mohani.
	Channeling Asterian from Freedomaine, Freedomain.com slash Denate to help at the show shop.freedomain.com for your glorious Free Domain merch and peaceful parenting book to get your print copy of Peaceful Parenting, both the condensed version and the full version.
	So I hope you will check that out, free domain.com slash Denate for the show.
	Okay.
	So question: why is morality universal?
	Why does morality have to be universal?
	Why is it defined as universal?
	Why can't it just be a local preference, a personal preference, a cultural preference, a regional preference, whatever, right?
	Why does morality have to be universal?
	So morality arises out of a very simple dichotomy, or I suppose you could say, options, binary options, in human life, which is that we have the ability through language and reason to negotiate rather than use force, right?
	That is our choice.
	Those are our options.
	We can use force.
	And with force, I include threat.
	I include theft, fraud, and so on, right?
	This is all force.
	And the reason being that animals threaten each other, animals steal from each other all the time, and animals use deception or fraud all the time.
	That's what camouflage is to some degree.
	So in terms of getting resources, human beings have the unique ability, based upon language and our conceptual capacities.
	We have this unique in the universe as far as we know it.
	We have this unique ability to trade, to convince, to entice, to seduce, right?
	We have the capacity, unique among animals, to use language and concepts to convince rather than to force.
	Now, when it comes to enticing and seduction, there are a lot of animals who do that.
	There are, of course, these crazy birds.
	The males will build this big, elaborate nesting scenario and will try to entice the females to mate.
	I mean, there are, of course, a lot of animals that rape, you know, ducks and dolphins and so on.
	But there are a lot of animals who entice.
	There are mating displays.
	You know, the male peacock's giant tail is a big mating display and so on.
	My bubble butt, obviously, it's in the same category as a whole.
	So human beings, literally completely and totally among the animals, have the ability to use language and concepts to negotiate, to trade, to, I mean, I wouldn't even say specialize in terms of labor because ants do that, right?
	There are the worker ants, there are the soldier ants and so on, right?
	But that's all sort of built-in, programmed, and automatic.
	But we have the capacity to negotiate.
	We are not even alone in the capacity to use currency because there have been experiments where they have taught monkeys to use currency and given them sort of standards for currency.
	And of course, what happens immediately is the male apes start trading currency to the females for sexual access.
	It's kind of only fans, but a smidge area.
	Maybe Eastern European OnlyFans.
	So we have the option to not use violence to get what we want.
	We have the option to trade.
	We have the option to convince.
	We have the option to reason.
	And really, that's what language is for.
	Language is for the avoidance of violence.
	Because animals have little choice when dealing with other animals to use anything other than violence.
	I mean, violence also includes threat, right?
	Apes will threaten each other.
	Dogs will growl and bark.
	Cats raise their hackles and so on.
	So there is this threat scenario that animals use and human beings use it too, you know, do what I want or else, right?
	I mean, if somebody sticks a gun in your ribs and demands your wallet, it could just be an empty threat.
	Maybe it's a plastic gun.
	Maybe it's not loaded.
	Maybe he'll never pull it.
	But, you know, the threat is enough for you to do the cost-benefit calculation and say, well, I'd rather lose my wallet and keep my life.
	So we have the option to negotiate instead of using violence.
	If you think of animals that steal from each other, you could theoretically have an animal could go and gather food for another animal and then trade it for that animal's resources or something like that.
	Maybe there are a few isolated instances of this somewhere in the animal kingdom.
	Of course, there is sort of a codependency, not parasitical, but parasympathetic or something like that, where you kind of work to the benefit of each other.
	Like the egrets that are on the back of the hippo, the hippo kind of guards them.
	The egrets pick things off the back of the hippo that the hippo doesn't want and stuff like that.
	I'm probably getting fairly wrong, but you know what I'm talking about, right?
	So human beings have the option to trade.
	They have the option to specialize in their labor and trade with each other and negotiate and reason with each other.
	You go hunting for me today because I'm not feeling well, and I will go hunting for you the next time that you're sick.
	So we have to develop a sense of time.
	We have to develop concepts.
	We have to formalize reciprocity.
	And, you know, eventually we have things like contracts and so on.
	But even prior to all of that, we have the capacity to use language, not force, not deception, not theft, not fraud.
	And this is why morality is a uniquely human construct.
	So if we have the capacity to act in a manner that is peaceful and mutually beneficial, right?
	Because violence is win-lose, right?
	A guy sticks a gun in your ribs.
	He takes your wallet.
	You are down one wallet and you have lost.
	I mean, you've, quote, kept your life, but you had that anyway without the guy.
	Like before the guy stuck his gun in your ribs, you had your life anyway.
	So you get to keep your life, but you're down one wallet.
	So it's win-lose, right?
	He gets the contents of your wallet without having to work for them, and you get to keep your life minus your wallet.
	So it's win-lose.
	And the animal kingdom in general is win-lose.
	And to the degree that it's win-win, it simply evolved that way through trial and error, happenstance, and it's not negotiated.
	It's simply instinctual, right?
	So we have the capacity to negotiate.
	I will gladly pay you Wednesday for a burger you give me today.
	It's Wimpy from Popeye Popeye, I think.
	So that's a uniquely human capacity.
	No, is it better to negotiate rather than to use force?
	Is it better to negotiate rather than to use force?
	Or to put it another way, is it better to not use violence to get what you want?
	Is it better not to use violence?
	Now, we can't have UPB as a positive statement, a thou shalt.
	Like if I say, is it better to negotiate or to use violence or say, well, negotiation is UPB.
	Well, negotiation can't be UPB because there are times when you're asleep and you're not negotiating and so on, right?
	So it can't be university.
	But not using violence can be universally preferable behavior.
	So is it better to use violence?
	Is it preferred for human beings to use violence or is it preferred for human beings to not use violence?
	No, we can't really say that to animals because animals can't negotiate.
	They have no capacity to get what they want through negotiation because they don't have language in any conceptual way or any conceptual format.
	So only human beings can use language to negotiate.
	Is it better to negotiate or is it better to use violence?
	Now, if we were to say, well, and by using violence, I mean initiating the use of force.
	Just when I say violence here, I'm not talking about self-defense.
	I just, I don't want to say the initiation of forever, you know, I'm going to be 60 next year.
	I'm running out of time and I don't want to waste it with things that we all understand or reasonable people understand.
	So is it better to use violence or is it better to negotiate?
	If we use violence, then we are at the level of animals.
	We have a capacity to negotiate, but instead we use violence.
	And if you use violence, then you are at the level of an animal and you are like a rabid dog.
	And if you are operating at the level of an animal, then you will be treated as an animal.
	To earn the status of being treated morally as a human being with virtues and values, you have to not be acting as an animal.
	And so, you know, dogs will hump your legs, although I suppose they're not particularly dangerous.
	But a human rapist can rape you and leave you traumatized and bloody and bruised and broken and possibly pregnant if you're a woman.
	And so if you act as a human being at the level of an animal, then you will be treated according to your standard or lack of standard.
	So we all understand that if a man is being attacked by a large and dangerous dog, if a man is being attacked by a dog, the man is perfectly justified in shooting the dog.
	Or I don't know if you've got to, you know, kick the dog off a cliff if that's the only way you can sort of get to safety.
	But we sort of understand this with, you know, with the police, right?
	If they go into someone's house, they have to arrest him and a dog starts running at the policeman barking ferociously, then the policeman is probably going to empty a clip into the dog.
	You can't negotiate with the dog, right?
	So certainly it's more human to negotiate than it is to use violence.
	And of course, just to understand, you know, just to sort of make this point, I understand that there are people who are human beings who are acting like animals.
	It doesn't make them animals, but they're acting like animals.
	I understand that they're still human beings.
	I get all of that.
	Anyway, it's an analogy.
	It's a way of looking at it.
	If you act like an animal, you will be treated like an animal.
	Because when you act like an animal, you're saying, I cannot be negotiated with.
	So, a man can go to a bar and he can try to pick up a woman and convince her or entice her or seduce her into having sex with him if it's voluntary and she's not drunk or whatever it is, or they're not drunk, both of them.
	If it's voluntary, then she may regret it, but it is not rape, right?
	He may regret it too.
	And assuming that he's upfront about any STDs and things like that, right?
	And if he agrees to use a condom, he does, in fact, use a condom, you know, all that sort of stuff.
	So that is acting as a person, as a human being, with all the capacities of a human being, which is your capacity for language and negotiation.
	However, if the man goes to her place and then he holds her down and blah, blah, blah, and assaults her and rapes her, then he's acting as an animal.
	And what do we do with animals?
	We don't let them roam, right?
	We kill them or we cage them up, right?
	And that's self-defense and prison.
	Now, is it possible to have a rule which says we should reason with each other?
	Sure.
	Or basically, if we're not using violence, right?
	If we're not using violence to get our resources, how do we get our resources?
	Because, you know, we all need 2,2,500 calories a day to live, and we need our shelter and we need our heat when it's cold and all of that, right?
	So how do you get your resources if you are not using violence?
	Well, of course, the way that you get your resources if you're not using violence is you negotiate.
	So if you are hungry and you're out in the country, you can go to a farmer and say, is there any work that needs doing around here?
	I would love to get some food.
	Like, make me lunch.
	What can I do around here that would be helpful and useful in terms of labor?
	And if he's got nothing, you got to move on.
	If he's got something, or, you know, if he just takes pity on you and so on.
	And there tends to be more sympathy for people in need in the country because they're not, you know, drug addicts generally stay in the city where the drugs are and the begging is better.
	But if you say, I'm not going to use violence, what else can you do?
	Well, you can trade, you can beg, but you cannot force the other person.
	So what is better?
	Is it better to use violence or is it better to negotiate?
	Well, it cannot be better for humans to use violence because that's what animals do.
	If you have the capacity for reason and instead you use violence, then you are not using that which defines you specifically as human, which is the capacity to use language and negotiation and reason rather than violence to get what you want.
	I mean, this is what we say to people who are violent.
	I like an animal, right?
	And you're acting in that way.
	So why does morality have to be universal?
	Because if we say sometimes you can use violence, then we're saying something that is true for everyone who uses violence.
	Everyone who uses violence, most of the time, they're not using violence.
	They're playing pool, they're watching a movie, they're sleeping, they're working on their car, they're whatever, right?
	They're going shopping for Valentine's Day card.
	Like everyone who uses violence, you know, there's this sort of old, it's like a sort of silly meme or cliche.
	It's like, well, what do you mean I'm a murderer? says some guy, right?
	I mean, all of my life, except for two minutes, I spent not murdering people.
	One time, one time, one time, and I get branded, right?
	And the reason that that's a joke is we understand that even in an abusive relationship, right?
	Some take sort of the cliché of the guy beating up his girlfriend, most of the time in the relationship and in his life, he's not beating her up.
	Let's say he's a real monster and he beats her up twice a week, okay?
	So for 10 minutes each time.
	So it's 20 minutes out of a week, that is 24 hours, seven days.
	So the vast majority of time, he's not using violence.
	So if we say, well, you can sometimes use violence, That's a description of everybody who does use violence.
	And if you say you can sometimes use violence, of course you can in self-defense, blah, blah, blah.
	But if you say to someone, you can sometimes use violence, then the person has to say, okay, when can I use violence and when can I not use violence?
	And then you're negotiating a rule about the use of violence.
	But if the person is capable of negotiating a rule about the use of violence only on Tuesdays, right, then they're capable of using negotiation rather than violence.
	And therefore, violence is inhuman and dehumanizing.
	Or if you say you can use violence whenever you want, then you're saying, oh, you're an animal, because animals use violence whenever they want, because that's their instinct, right?
	Use violence whenever you want to get what you want.
	Again, some seductive creatures accept it.
	You can't say to someone, you must always use violence because it's impossible to always use violence.
	I mean, can you imagine trying to have a rule that said lions must always be killing their prey, always.
	They can't rest, they can't reproduce, they can't play with their cubs, right?
	They can't explore, they can't guard the edges of their territory, none of that, not any of that stuff.
	They must always be killing prey.
	Well, other than maybe blue whales with krill, right?
	Run away.
	There is no creature that is always and forever using violence.
	So the rule can't be sometimes use violence because that's true of everyone who uses violence.
	The rule, and you would need some standard other than what the will shall be the whole of the law, right?
	So you can't say sometimes use violence, because then you're either saying that somebody's exactly the same as an animal, which they're not.
	A human being is not just an animal because we have all of these capacities of language, reason, and negotiation that animals don't have.
	So saying that a human being is just like an animal is biologically incorrect because we have this big giant brain, right?
	2% of our body mass, 20 plus percent of our energy consumption.
	And I don't, you know, a thousand monkeys for a thousand years might type Shakespeare, but they can't write it.
	Saying that human beings can't reason is like saying lizards are warm-blooded and have fur.
	It's biologically incorrect.
	Human beings can reason, and it is our unique characteristic shared by no other creatures.
	Certainly in terms of conceptual reasoning, language, and negotiation, and trade, especially trade with a third party of currency or a neutral party.
	Well, it used to be a neutral party of gold or currency.
	So the rule can't be always use violence because that's impossible.
	The rule can't be sometimes use violence because then you have to have rules about when someone can or can't use violence, in which case they're capable of negotiating, in which case they should do that.
	And you can't say, you can't say always use violence.
	You can't say sometimes use violence.
	The only thing you can say and be logically consistent is never use violence.
	And that's the non-aggression principle.
	That's UPB.
	Don't use violence.
	Well, saying some people will use violence as if that's, you know, you say, well, UPB says don't use violence.
	And people say, well, some people will use violence.
	And like, yes, exactly.
	Exactly.
	And that's why we need morality, because some people don't obey morality.
	I mean, I've never quite understood this as any kind of gotcha, right?
	Which is, well, I mean, UPB is invalid because some people use violence.
	A completely incomprehensible position for me and logically ridiculous.
	Some people cheat on tests.
	Does that mean that tests are invalid?
	No, some people cheat on them.
	It's like saying, well, we have no need for the science of nutrition because some people don't diet.
	Some people just eat what they want.
	It's like it's a human characteristic to want to eat what you want, almost tautological.
	You want to do what you want to do.
	So some people will eat badly, and that's why you need the science of nutrition.
	And some people want to use violence and prefer to use violence.
	That's why you need the science of, or the discipline of morality, so that you know when people are justified in using violence.
	Because there can't be any rule called no people use violence, right?
	UPB is an evaluation of moral theories, not individual specific behavior, right?
	So there cannot be a rule that says nobody can use violence of any kind, because then some people will use violence and that rule is immediately broken.
	The question is, when is it valid to use violence?
	And the answer is in self-defense.
	For reasons I've gone into in my book, Universally Preferable Behavior, Irrational Proof of Secular Ethics.
	So why is morality objective?
	Because that's what it is to be a human being, is to come up with universal rules that are enforceable by an escalating series of soft negotiations, hard negotiations, ostracism, and direct violence.
	And also because if you say morality is subjective, you have created an objective and universal moral rule, which is we should tell the truth about morality, we should be honest about morality, and we should accurately label morality as subjective.
	And you should not say things that are false, such as morality is objective, right?
	So you've got a whole series of rules when you say morality is subjective.
	You have just made an objective moral rule, right?
	The moment you say something is, not I like, I prefer morality to be subjective, or I like to think of morality as subjective, right?
	These are all feeling statements.
	Whatever.
	Okay, fine.
	But I like blue is different from blue is one, two, four wavelength or whatever it is, right?
	So the moment you say something is, you are creating a direct correlation and a necessary virtue called tell the truth about that which is real and valid and accurate.
	So you cannot engage in any conversation about morality without deploying universal standards of preferred behavior, right?
	This is you cannot deny UPB without deploying UPB.
	So somebody who says, why or ask, and it's a fair question, it's a fine question.
	Why does morality have to be objective?
	Which implies that morality could be subjective.
	But if morality could be subjective or should be subjective, then you're still making a universal statement of preference for truth and honesty, which is itself a moral statement.
	Even in assembling the words in the way that you assemble them, you are also making, you are also deploying universality because you're not just saying random syllables, a wap, right?
	You're asking very specific, it's a very specific series of questions or a very specific question based upon very precise language that you're using.
	And you're also choosing to negotiate rather than force.
	You could theoretically grab a philosopher and force the answer out of him, right?
	But you don't.
	You are doing, which is great.
	You are doing that which is specifically human.
	And if you're saying, well, why should people who are human do what is specifically human or use characteristics that are specifically human, which is akin to saying, why should an elephant use its long nose?
	Why should a shark swim?
	Why should an anteater use its long tongue?
	Because that's exactly what it's for.
	Why should a baseball player use a bat and a glove?
	Because that's what the game is.
	And that's what they're for.
	So why should human beings use the giant brain that we have specifically evolved to give us options other than violence?
	You understand, it's kind of an incomprehensible question.
	Why should a bee use its wings or its stinger?
	Why should it gather pollen?
	Because that's what bees do.
	And if there was no need for bees to do that, they wouldn't have developed the ability.
	So that which is specifically human is language and negotiation.
	That's what separates us from the animals.
	That's why we have morality.
	And if you say, why should morality be objective?
	You're saying, why should human beings do that which defines them as human beings?
	Like, we're not defined by having two legs.
	Lots of creatures have that.
	We're not defined by having hair or arms.
	Lots of creatures have those, right?
	We are defined as humans fundamentally by our ability to reason and to negotiate.
	If you say, well, why should morality be objective?
	You're saying, why should that which defines human beings be acted upon by human beings?
	Because that's the definition of human being.
	It's literally like saying, or asking, why should mammals be warm-blooded?
	Why should reptiles have scales?
	Why should fish have gills?
	Why should whales have flippers?
	Because that's what they are.
	Now, I understand the whale's flippers is not quite the same as mammals' warm-blooded.
	Mammals warm-blooded, right?
	It's the definition.
	Warm-blooded, coated in hair, gives birth to life young, and so on.
	Why should mammals be warm-blooded?
	Because that's what mammals are.
	Why should morality be objective?
	Because morality is what defines human beings.
	If the capacity for morality is what defines human beings.
	And again, there are deviations.
	There are people who are born severely mentally disabled, and I get all of that.
	But those are deviations, right?
	Sometimes a horse is born with two heads.
	We don't sit there and say, well, now we have no idea what a horse is, right?
	That's a deviation.
	So human beings have the capacity to use language and negotiate.
	That's what defines us as human beings.
	Why should morality be objective?
	For the same reason that it is objective that mammals are warm-blooded.
	Human beings evolved a giant brain to reason rather than only use violence.
	And to say, why should human beings reason, is like saying, why should elephants use their long nose?
	Why should mammals be able to regulate their own blood?
	Because that's what a definition of a mammal is.
	You see, it's circular, right?
	Why should a creature manifest the characteristics that specifically define what that creature is?
	Why should the genetic definition of a creature, why should a creature do what its genetic definition is?
	It's like saying, why should a great white shark be a carcaridon carcarius, which is the Latin term for great white shark?
	Why should water be H2O?
	Because that's what water is.
	Why should human beings use language and reason?
	Because that's what human beings are.
	That's what defines us as human beings.
	And there is no way to ask the question, well, why should morality be objective?
	You just asked a moral question, which is we should advocate for what is true rather than what is false.
	You cannot escape it, except by using violence, in which case, your life will likely be nasty, brutish, bloody, and short.
	And no sane person will mourn your departure from society through jail or the world through somebody acting in an assertively self-defensive manner.
	So why should morality be objective?
	Because the definition of humanity is creatures who've evolved to use objective morality.
	And because there's no way to deny or question objective morality without using. objective morality.
	Why should human beings use language?
	Because that's what we've evolved to do.
	And you can't ask the question without using language.
	Why should human beings use language?
	You've just answered that by asking the question and using language.
	Why should morality be objective?
	You've just asked that using embedded moral statements, the preference of truth over falsehood, accuracy over inaccuracy, and so on.
	And by putting the words in the sequence that you have, you have also used UPB, which is to be comprehensible.
	So I hope that answers the question.
	I get that this is not quite the lovely, self-detonating arguments from scratch that I love to work with, but it's a challenging question.
	And I think the closest is to say that you cannot question morality without deploying morality in a universal fashion.
	If you say, I like the color blue, you are not demanding that everyone like the color blue.
	If you're asking, why is morality objective or is morality objective or morality is not objective, then you are demanding that everybody else conform to the truth, not to your personal opinion or perspective, right?
	That's what violent people do is they give me your wallet, right?
	Conform to a personal opinion and perspective.
	But you are asking people to think clearly, which I appreciate.
	It's a good thing.
	It's a good thing to ask people to think clearly.
	That's kind of the gig, right?
	It's my gig anyway.
	So you're asking people to think clearly.
	You're asking people to prefer the truth absolutely and universally.
	And then you're saying, well, why should we have any values that prefer truth and consistency?
	When by asking that question, you're asking people to review their own thinking to make sure that what they're thinking is both true, universal, and consistent.
	So if you're saying the highest value is that which is true, universal, and consistent, morality is true, universal, and consistent.
	But why is that which is true, universal, and consistent?
	Why is there a necessity for it to be true, universal, and consistent?
	Which is like saying mammals are defined as warm-blooded.
	Why is it required that mammals be warm-blooded?
	I think we're there.
	I think we're there.
	All right.
	Freedomain.com slash Renate.
	Love to get your feedback.
	And if there's any way I can explain it better, I would love to hear it.
	And if there are more questions, as I'm sure there will, I doubt I got all of this done in 36 minutes and change.
	Then please email me, support at freedomain.com, and I'd love to talk about it more.
	Lots of love, my friends.
	Take care.

▲