Part Two: Reflections on UPB: A Critique of Molyneux

[TheEfkk]

Molyneux can simply retract his position that "morality does not exist in reality, only in the brain" to save UPB.

[funwjoshnjenn]

you're right, I actually have respect for moral nihilist, not halfway, half-assed cynical arguments.

I'm still not sure where Molyneux stands.

[420fritz]

You are making some good points here. But It just appears that you are reading from 2 places. And not speaking to the people. Dry, and monotones, but good content, you will get better with time..keep it up!!

[fede2]

5.26 scared the shit out of me.

[norulers85]

well done laughing man! his reasoning is usually faulty (well, anyone who thinks capitalism and anarchy can coexist must have faulty reasoning, but thats beside the point).

[AnarchoSolipsist]

What is your meta-ethical position btw? You seemed to argue a pretty good case for moral anti-realism here but it might have been that you only refuted Stef's dumb arguments for ethical objectivism.

[LaughingMan0X]

My aim was to show that IF Stefbot's argument was applied consistently, (per his stated: necessary and sufficient conditions for "valid moral theories") that this would logically bring fourth: Moral-Anti-Realism (i.e. cognitivst nihilism). A position that defeats the deontological ethics Stef claims to hold

My own view is kind-of objectivist, but in a radically different context; it pertains more to the consistent application of values based sound evidence and reasoning (I may make a vid on it)

[Nellsing]

@LaughingMan0X Just wanted to ask--what do you think of universal prescriptivism or expressivism as semantic meta-ethical theories?

[ReIgNoFrAdNeSs]

I don't even think it proves hypocrisy. The hypocrisy is a straw man.

Aside from that, you did a really great job.

[LaughingMan0X]

Well, if someone claimed for instance: "all killing is wrong, but if Christians kill, there's nothing morally wrong with their actions."

We could show inconsistency via UPB, as the statement violates the law of non-contradiction, etc. However, UPB couldn't "invalidate" such a moral theory.

[D4Shawn]

Plus, no one would ever say such a thing. It's an obvious contradiction, and not how people express their views. What people do say is, "I support our military." I would not consider that to be a contradiction. I don't think people's feelings and preferences can be contradictory. They can only be made to seem that way by goading them to conform to a limited set of words, concepts, definitions, and logical structures/syntax that they would not themselves normall choose/use.

[LaughingMan0X]

Take the commonplace view the "theft is morally wrong" for instance. This view is found in most humans. However, most humans also view taxation to NOT be de-facto theft. Despite the fact that: taxation meets all the same criterion as theft.

As It:

1) Deprives people of the fruits of their labor, and is done with the intent to deprive them of such.

2) Is done through either: violence or threats of violence.

If we points this out to someone, we can prove personal hypocrisy.

[D4Shawn]

For one thing, by "morally wrong", people generally just mean "I don't approve of it."

That's about as coherent of a definition as you're going to get from most people.

So... if someone approves of government theft, but not private theft, well... that's not hypocrisy. It's no more hypocritical than wanting your home team to win a football game.

The hypocrisy is an illusion created by your logic, not by what the person actually thinks and feels. They were never actually asked.

[LaughingMan0X]

Its also likely that such a person will experience cognitive dissonance, a clear sign of personal self-conflict, indicating their unwanted hypocrisy.

[MonadPhilosopherKing]

+5 stars to you good sir!