Part One: Reflections on UPB: A Critique of Molyneux

[Sewblon]

Wait, I watched the video again and now it looks like you used "begging the question" correctly, sorry.

[Sewblon]

You used "begs the question" wrong, I think you mean "raises the question." "Begging the question" Means asking a question that presupposes the conclusion one seeks to demonstrate. As in asking someone "Is this the person you raped" to prove that they raped someone.  Other than that I basically agree with you.

[stayawile]

Nice intro - contrast betweeen your youthful good looks and his... well not quite so much of either :-> Have a look at the website for freedomainradio with a .co.uk domain instead of the .com for some insights

[kokopelli314]

You've made some good points although Molyneux might call you a relativist. Hardcore objectivists, (as if there's any other type) have a hard time with cognocentricity, or believing their own thoughts. Godel's incompleteness applies just as equally to our understanding and use of reason and proof. Claims of universality could be considered just another panacea, so the objectivist aspiration looks more like a travelling medicine show with it's promise of moral certitude.

[bigtarrose]

You are too young to worry about morality. Go out and get laid before you lose your hair. A lie is as good as the truth as long as you stick to your story. Tell the girls you have ten inches and falsehood wins every time.

[dubified89]

Is there really a point to any of this?

[Sepero1]

You misspelled "Reflections" in the title

[modelmark]

are you claiming the statement "truth is preferable to falsehood" is 'false' and I should change my mind?

[LaughingMan0X]

Yes I am

Imagine:

You live in Nazi Germany. Your best friend is Jewish & on the run from the Gestapo

You've agreed to let him hide from the Nazi's in your basement. Nazis come to your door, stick a gun in your face & say: "Have you seen any Jews. Answer me or I shoot"

You can either:

A) Die

B) Lie, & insist that you've "done your duty to the state," but haven't seen any Jews (you & your friend live)

C) Tell the truth (you live and your friend is sent to a concentration camp)

[LaughingMan0X]

In this situation would you suggest that truth is universally preferable to falsehood?

I certainly wouldn't want to die, (which results from abstaining from telling the truth; i.e. being silent [the Kantian position), and I wouldn't my friend to go to a concentration camp and be executed either (as a result of telling the truth).

Thus, to me (and I imagine for you as well) the preferable action consistent with my values would be to to lie in this instance; to utter a falsity.

[modelmark]

I just can't wrap my head around you saying truth is not preferably to falsehood and then continue to tell my my position is a falsehood and I should change it to be good.

I do not consider lying to a crook believing in a falsehood

[LaughingMan0X]

"I do not consider lying to a crook believing in falsehood"

Lying to a crook means you believe that you are intentionally describing (to the crook) a situation which you genuinely believe to be falsehood, because you prefer the predictable consequences of your actions to be preferable to telling the crook what you actually believe to be true

Lying a form of falsehood. Even if one tells a lie and it turns out to be the case in reality, one is still falsifying what one believes to be true

[modelmark]

UPB says that no one violating the NAP is internally consistent and universalizable and not doing so isn't. Truth is better than falshood.

Once people start violating the NAP against you or your loved ones, violence suddenly becomes self defense and lying is defense as well. The same actions are different before and after.

You and me are in a NAP state, yet you state both truth is not better than falsehood and I simultaneously need to change my false believes to true ones.

[LaughingMan0X]

1) I see no reason why pure consistency and universalizability constitute the necessary and sufficient conditions for a "true" ethical sentence, as it just begs the question: "why does this make it true." UPB provides no sound epistemic foundation for the true value of an ethical sentence

2) Even if I grant that lying is self-defense, it is still falsehood. Hence if the act of falsification (lying) in one instance is (contextually) preferable to telling the truth: then: truth-telling =/= UPB

[modelmark]

1)indeed it does not, but inconsistent theories are false.

2)there is a difference between wanting to know to truth. Every debate is build on the premise:you are wrong and you should change your mind to right.

[LaughingMan0X]

1) True, although I would argue that all moral theories are equally false.

2) You're assuming all debates are honest

[modelmark]

That runs in to the problem that if A is a moral theory and not(A) is a moral theory, that A=not(A)-false

This is a violation of logic. I can not convince you of logic.

[LaughingMan0X]

No it fact does not violate logic. Create a truth table and find out for yourself

According to the "Principle of Bivalence" every proposition must either be true or false.

Suppose for the we "P" for the proposition: The set of all moral theories are equally false.

| P| ~P|

----------

| T | F |

----|-----

|F | T |

[LaughingMan0X]

2.5) Truth Telling would be contextually preferable behavior.

3) If you hold truth to be universally perferable to, then to be consistant (per the conditions of my though experiment) you would either perfer death or your friend being sent to a concentration camp.

4) In this non life threatening instance I prefer the true to the false; although if the context of the situation was different, & if I were at risk, I may find lying perferable

5) You have to prove the NAP before invoking it.

[modelmark]

hmm not impressed, but I am getting a bit bored with these hangups.

[LaughingMan0X]

Either you concede the point or you're doing some mental gymnastics.

Nevermind, let me give you another thought experiment which doesn't involve anything that violates the NAP for simplicities sake.

Suppose I write a contract in which I propose we play a game of my choosing, but which does not violate the nap. Suppose you voluntarily sign it.

The game is simple: I ask you 4 basic questions.

1) What is your name

2) What city do you live in

3) Do you know Kung-Fu

4) Do you drink ginger ale

[LaughingMan0X]

This game has 3 rules:

1) You must give an answer to all 4 of my questions or you automatically lose.

2) If you respond to a questions with lie, you win $500,000.

3) If you respond to my question with the truth, you lose $500,000

If you tell 4 lies you stand to WIN $2,000,000

If you tell the truth 4 times you stand to LOSE $2,000,000

In this instance is truth universally preferable to falsehood?

[modelmark]

You could start be realizing we are debating something about which you say I believe in a falsehood and you want me to change me mind so it is more true.

I would respond there is a difference between telling the truth and wanting to know the truth. You game is just a variant on the jew hiding nazi visit. You could have made your game simpler by saying:

If you tell me a lie you get $100000.

[LaughingMan0X]

Try this

Supposed person X's best friend Y is recently deceased. Suppose X thought very highly of Y (viewing him as completely benevolent) and is very happy with his current conception of Y which he finds meaningful.

Suppose Y was an axe murderer. Suppose it is the case that X would find NO utility in knowing that Y was an axe murderer, and instead will experience nothing but prolonged SEVERE mental anguish and despair upon knowing it

Would it be UP for our fellow to "want to know the truth?"

[modelmark]

Do you prefer a truthful answer or a lie?

[LaughingMan0X]

In the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases i definitely prefer the truth to a lie; although there are probably (in some circumstances) answers to some questions where I might prefer a lie

Such as a true answer to the question: how to cheaply and easily create a super-virus capable of wiping out the human race

Upon the infinitesimally small possibility chance that I might go insane, I'd rather not have that knowledge

Such "answers" are of course "way out there," but I think you see my point

[modelmark]

There are some things I would also prefer not to know. What certain people do in the bedroom, how they look from the viewpoint of a toilet bowl, or how they look without clothes.

Although this is all part of reality, I prefer not to know certain things and given the fact that someone forces that knowledge upon me or force a lie about it upon me, I'd prefer the lie. That brings back the issue of force/nazis. Without force, I would consider the wish for ignorance, not equal to preferring a lie.

[LaughingMan0X]

I might prefer for someone to tell a white lie about my cooking; or for someone to exaggerate (another form of lying) if it makes a story funnier.

[modelmark]

@LaughingMan0X

Lots of people prefer lies to truth, is is almost universal. That is why we have religion and state.

[errorspending]

@modelmark exactly! It is completely illogical to argue that truth is not preferable to falsehood, while arguing that someone is wrong because they believe in a falsehood. It's exactly like the "nothing is certain" paradox...

[modelmark]

@errorspending I find it quite amazing that people can not see that. There seem to be a complete disconnect between what comes out of them and what goes into them. If something comes in, they say:"wait a minute nothing is certain and lies can be preferred to truth", but if something comes out of their mouth, it is truthful and certain. When you reflect their own statements back, by repeating them, they often claim again that it is not certain and true.

[errorspending]

@modelmark yeah...i just can't understand why on earth this guy would post this video if he doesn't believe truth is preferable to falsehood...especially when discussing philosophy. He would have to just love hearing himself speak for no reason whatsoever for his claim to hold up...in which case his claims would be completely ridiculous because they wouldn't be based on a preference for truth. Honestly I'm baffled...

[errorspending]

@modelmark And if truth is not preferable, then basically you have no reason for science or logic. Truth has to be preferable in regards to science or else you have no way to evaluate a hypothesis....

[modelmark]

@errorspending I listened to an audio book about morality today. The author stressed that for survival a good lie is sometimes evolutionary beneficial and can be made most convincingly when you believe it yourself.

Much of the confusion comes from this. I do not claim that people always tell the truth, just that in a debate, each party at least publicly claim, to pursue truth. And theories are evaluated to their truth value. How successful we are at this is another matter.

[LaughingMan0X]

@errorspending

No it isn't paradoxical. Imagine a logically possible world where Nazis come to your house, ask if you're Jewish (and suppose you are). Suppose for simplicity in this universe there are only three viable options

1) Tell the truth: go to a concentration camp

2) Lie (falsify): go free

3) Silence: go to a concentration camp

If you calim that truth is universally preferable to falsehood, then you claim there is not one instance where falsity is preferable; & you're off to the camp.

[errorspending]

@LaughingMan0X  The whole point of UPB is to examine the validity of ethical theories, not examine aesthetically preferable actions. Yes it would be in your best self interest to lie in that situation, but that does not mean that you've suddenly overturned the value of truth when examining science. UPB is just an extension of the scientific method into the realm of ethical propositions. Just because a person might lie in a situation does not mean they do not value truth. in fact it is a

[errorspending]

@LaughingMan0X it is a direct testament to the fact that the person does value true and objective reality, which is that the concentration camp is going to be a dangerous and life-threatening place to be put.

[errorspending]

@LaughingMan0X Let's try and spin this example another way....

If you were locked in a candy store over the weekend and all you had to eat was candy, and you chose to eat it rather than starve to death, would that mean that you valued eating junk food over eating healthily?

My point is that telling the truth and valuing truth for scientific propositions are two different things...

[errorspending]

@LaughingMan0X sorry, maybe my example isn't the best because you don't have the option to eat healthy in it......so let's just say that you choose to drink an energy drink because you have to get a lot of work done by the next morning even though you know that the energy drink is not good for you. This would not invalidate your valuing of eating/drinking healthily...

[rlvowell]

where can i get that shirt????

[Radclifferules89]

i officially rape this. MEOW.

[dieonyourfeetDEC16]

You should debate stefbot, you seem to know what your talking about. I think it would be an interesting and enriching debate.

[adjohnson916]

Univerbally preachable bullshit.

[Arcandrith]

Your links are imcomplete. Just thought I'd let you know.

[LaughingMan0X]

incomplete?

[Xandirfan]

Youtube automatically does that, you actually have to click the link.....

[LaughingMan0X]

thanks for the fyi; I got them fixed

[Dangerman5]

I saw the first bit of this debate and it was embarrassing.

Maybe your style tries to over complicate things. You need to work on speaking more clearly.

[paleocrat]

Relativism hangs itself after knotting its own noose. If held consistently, any belief, be it moral or epistemological (if one believes epistemology to be amoral), it would apply to the relativists alone. Were they to insist that we adhere to relativism as a moral or epistemological good, they are being grossly inconsistent with the very essence of their ruling assumptions regarding the relativity of both morality and truth.

Hearing or watching relativists debate one another is hysterical.

[LaughingMan0X]

If you think I'm a relativist THAT'S HYSTERICAL!

[paleocrat]

While I, being a Catholic Presuppositionalist, would insist that any and all opposing worldviews, when boiled down, are some form of relativism, it was not my aim to accuse you of advocating relativism in this video.

[fede2]

it's hard to escape what you call relativism. you should bare in mind, though, that moral relativism or nihilism being undesireable does not make it logically incorrect. i hope you're not clinging to catholicism simply because you don't WANT nihilism.

[paleocrat]

I would disagree. It is quite easy to escape moral relativism. Just start shooting and see how far you get.

Of course a thing being undesirable to someone doesn't, in and of itself, make it logically incorrect. I am reminded of this every time atheists, anarchists, or any other looney toon. They may not like Christianity, but its being the only worldview capable of providing the framework wherein reality, being, knowledge and ethics are intelligible remains irrefutable.

[paleocrat]

I am a Catholic because the Catholic worldview is the only worldview that isn't intellectually schizophrenic. People may espouse whatever they desire, but living in a manner that reflects what one espouses is an entirely different story. They can't and in many cases refuse to give an account for reality, being, logic, inductive reasoning, the uniformity of nature, meaningful communication, and a host of other things they make use of and rely upon in order to live, move, and have their being.

[yeahwotevaman]

"the Catholic worldview is the only worldview that isn't intellectually schizophrenic"

That would be the 'intelectual' tradition that embraces the doctrine of the Trinity, then? Or the well known religion based on a belief in the supreme rulership of an onmiscient, omnipotent, yet somehow benevolent (not to mention invisible) being? Or the well known idolatry cult whose followers worship graven images of their so-called martyrs? I'm confused here.

[napalmtube]

*facepalm*

[ReIgNoFrAdNeSs]

All moral relativists are really saying is that what people call "morality" is synonymous with opinion/preference. There is nothing self-contradictory about that.

[paleocrat]

This then would include rape, kidnapping, child molestation, genocide, and a myriad of other despicable things. Ah, they aren't immoral actions. No, it is just a matter of preference. Unless, of course, one invokes the indefensible and arbitrary notion of various exceptions. These typically revolve around the issue of violence and force. Never mind that even one's definition and application of the this principle is also relaivearbitrary. The questions cpm standards and authority are ignored.

[fede2]

one can rationally come up certain principles and have them be widely accpeted but they would not be infalible. as sapient beings we do not have access to a rounded-up objective understanding or reality. i find it strange that religion has the pretense of acomplishing this.

[D4Shawn]

Yeah... pretty much. Obviously, you don't LIKE relativism, but you've said nothing to indicate that it is flawed in some way (aside from the the fact that it offends your personal sensibilities).

On a personal note, I would wholeheartedly agree that "rape, kidnapping, child molestation, genocide" are not "immoral actions", because morality is a ridiculous concept and has no basis aside from the arbitrary preference of individuals.

[AestheticizeAnalog]

So, when people debate about values do they just shriek and say that they feel strongly that their values are correct? We engage in debate about values, and act as though they have a truth value, and it is painfully reductionistic to say that these are just expressions of emotion or approval. It is just a way of covering up for the fact that when we use these propositions, we are trying to make a statement that can be rationally assessed, but how that statement refers is unclear.

[D4Shawn]

"So, when people debate about values do they just shriek and say that they feel strongly that their values are correct?"

The way I would put it, is that moral arguments are always intellectually dishonesty. The fallacious arguments are designed to conceal (from the self and from others), the fact that one's personal preferences are nothing more than that.

At this point however, I am only an ethical skeptic. I am not an epistemological skeptic (though I'm open minded about the latter).

[AestheticizeAnalog]

I think you are taking a rather silly path in dealing with this problem. I can grant you that in general what moral propositions mean is often unclear to the speaker, and it is very difficult to concieve of how a moral proposition would refer and have a truth value. But with your ethical position, i dont see how you can care about philosophy, and thus by virtue epistemology. The problem is difficult to solve, but I don't think giving up in solving it is the right choice.

[D4Shawn]

I do not consider epistemology to be ethics (despite the fact that ethicists love to conflate the two).

The only way that argument can really hold water is if you then equate ethics with basic pragmatism (which is an extremely dubious position we hopefully won't have to explore).

So to be clear, I don't equate ethics/morality with:

a) personal preferences, nor

b) basic pragmatism ("oughts" derived from "ifs").

I don't believe anyone else does either, those often they claim to.

[AestheticizeAnalog]

Or you deny the metaphysical error of the fact-value distinction like I do?

You are working under the presupposition that evaluative claims can have no truth value, I will grant that there has been little good work done on this question, but I think it is more prudent to try to work out how they could be true or false, rather than just going with the intuitive answer that they are not.

[AestheticizeAnalog]

The problem is the pursuit of knowledge is contingent on values. So thus viewing epistemology and philosophy in general as a matter of importance, that is anything more than instrumental presupposes a value, that in your mind is arbitrary. Every choice we make is guided by preferences, values, if there is no way of rationally asessing them, than I see no reason to have a concern for truth. Convenience and pragmatism seem to become the real guide to choice.

[D4Shawn]

I don't see how you could possibly derive ethics (derive an "ought") from personal preference.

Yes, you can consider a preference to be an "if" (a goal/desire), and then derive "oughts" (options) from that. This is what we call pragmatism.

However, there is no legitimate reason to use the language of morality to describe basic pragmatism. We don't say, "If you want to cook a turkey, it is MORAL to put it in the oven."

People ONLY do this in order to later pull a bait and switch (equivocate).

[AestheticizeAnalog]

Well, I am not saying that we can derive oughts from personal preferences, that would presuppose that personal preferences are what ought to be.

And I understand why you say morality is a ridiculous concept, because the tradition of the enlightenment, and the thought that follows it makes moral claims impossible to resolve because you no longer have teleology.

[AestheticizeAnalog]

When someone speaks of a good watch, a good actor or even good eyes, they are speaking of the end or purpose of a thing, social role or body part. If one could develop an account of the purpose of human beings such or even particular human beings moral claims are no longer divorced from facts, but are a kind of fact. The purpose of a watch is not based in preference. This is shown by the fact that a watch an eye and an actor have their purpose given by the very definition of the terms at hand.

[D4Shawn]

I would say that morality is ridiculous, because "morality" (as a set of terms) is used to describe:

a) personal preferences

b) basic pragmatism, or

c) basic pragmatism as it relates to one's personal preferences.

Anyone who denies this is being intellectually dishonest (which isn't hard to demonstrate).

The ONLY reason one would use moral terminology to describe such things, is to obscure (mask) what one is talking about. Morality is intellectual dishonesty. Nothing more.

[DummyMagnet]

We could avoid these semantic problems if we would adopt English-Prime (see "E-Prime" @ Wikipedia).

You can't make declaratory moral statements without some form of "to be"; and you can't pass off your opinions as truths while adhering to the spirit (not just the letter; see external link by Kenyon @ Wiki article) of E-Prime.

If you memorize and avoid the following, and remain mindful of contractions, you should have no problem writing in E-Prime: am, are, be, been, being, is, was, were.

[D4Shawn]

Yeah... I think E-Prime is interesting.

[johannesgrimm]

Additionally, avoid nominalizations and reifications, er uh, I mean don't nominalize or reify.

[AestheticizeAnalog]

You are assuming that morality is used to describe a, b, and or c. So, I guess my claim that ethical propositions are speculative teleological claims is just intellectual dishonest?

You are just being dogmatic, and assuming that only kinds of propositions that are possible are one that adhere to the fact-value distinction.You categorically deny the possibility of moral statements having a truth value.

[D4Shawn]

Give me an example of a moral statement that you believe to be true.

[AestheticizeAnalog]

"When someone speaks of a good watch, a good actor or even good eyes, they are speaking of the end or purpose of a thing, social role or body part. If one could develop an account of the purpose of human beings such or even particular human beings moral claims are no longer divorced from facts, but are a kind of fact.

The purpose of a watch is not based in preference. This is shown by the fact that a watch an eye and an actor have their purpose given by the very definition of the terms at hand."

[D4Shawn]

I'm just not sure what the heck any of that has anything to do with anything. A car is designed to drive on a road. A car can function well, and people can like their cars. What the heck does any of that have to do with morality?

If you don't mind, I'm just going to repeat my request (since you ignored it):

Please give me an example of a moral statement that you believe to be true.

[AestheticizeAnalog]

The reason I am not giving an example of a moral statement being true, is due to the fact that I admit ignorance on the question of the truth value of moral statements. I don't know of any moral statement that could be true, without some metaphysical presuppositions that are at best arguable. My point is the question is still up in the air, and it is not clear that morality is just intellectual dishonesty, rather it relies on metaphysical assumptions that are still unresolved.

[Chomskyan]

you like to say i.e. a lot.

[LaughingMan0X]

it saves time.

[overmind25]

LOL! 5 stars.

[ChurchofMe88]

how big is your cock?