A Brief History of Ethics (Part 1) - Freedomain Radio

[ntoiyt]

Great video! It's very enlightening. 

[Eikus89]

I think stefbot has a point in saying that Rands view does not convince people who are immoral that they should change their ways, but I think Rand was right when she said that the moral thing to do is to do what benefits you on a principled level. The problem is that immoral people never think about principles. Bill Clinton doesn't live a good life, but he refuses to admit it, even to himself (money and power is not the same as happiness).

[heikophilo]

I know you are just gathering speed. So I am looking forward to part 2.

[BTownsend89]

Individuals are free to pursue what they please, as long as any action does not deprive others from pursuing what they please.

[lnd3005]

You read that in the instruction manual?

[BTownsend89]

Yes.

[Kingery4President]

Interesting thoughts.

[KevinSolway]

The only person who can know UPB is the perfectly wise person - who probably doesn't exist. Do you concede this point?

[DreadLaw2]

@KevinSolway No.. that's an arbitary axiom to try to place on the topic. UPB is understood, not known, it's a simple logically rational. I advice you read the book before saying anything else on the matter. Needless to say, understanding doesn't require wisdom, especially as most methedologies are taught not formed.

[PsyogiBottoms]

'...a simply logical rationale.' rational is the adv. rationale the Noun.

'I advise you' - not advice

Methodologies - not methedologies are taught not formed.

Exactly. I concur. lol

[DreadLaw2]

@PsyogiBottoms You're ability to correct the splling show you understand the original meaning, so there was no point correcting it. Perhaps if you corrected the content instead I'd have more faith in your opinion on the general consensus on spelling in the english language.

[PsyogiBottoms]

My point exactly. lol

[KevinSolway]

@DreadLaw2. UPB is known once it is understood. Who else but the most wise can be the most logical? "Understanding doesn't require wisdom". That's a laugh. Your system is doomed.

[DreadLaw2]

@KevinSolway My System? I'm confused.. I'm not Stefan Molyneux, and infact disagree with him about UPB in many major areas. It takes wisdom to understand WHY we need UPB (or a superior theory), but not to implement it in society. The current system in understood by many, and implemented fairly well, without the realisation of 99% of people. If people were aware then they wouldn't support it as it's a violent system of morality. You seem to think you don't murder because you read a book.

[KevinSolway]

@DreadLaw2, it takes wisdom to know or understand what is UPB - ie, to actually know what is universally preferable behaviour. And you can't implement it properly without actually knowing what it is.

[DreadLaw2]

@KevinSolway Not exactly. UPB can be passed on without "knowing what it is" because that's human nature and social evolution. As I said with the imposible to deny example of the current system, it doesn't take insight to follow and pass on morality. No, people do not have to be wise, or even know of UPB for it to to be implemened acorss humanity, that's just a silly made-up claim that ignores everything we do know about ethics and psychology.

[KevinSolway]

@DreadLaw2. I strongly disagree with you on this point. You say that it doesn't take insight to follow and pass on morality. But all of our religions prove otherwise. Religious people are extremely immoral precisely because they lack insight - despite having countless books containing their morality.

In the first case a supremely wise person is required to understand or know what is UPB, and in the second case supremely wise people are required to implement it.

[DreadLaw2]

@KevinSolway I think religion is a bad example. Firstly, it is an insight, taught explicity, in spite of reason and definetly not as the source of ethics. No religious child doesn't murder because of religious reasons, and crime statistics show they are more likely to. Secondly, religion is no longer precise. It's a vague and relatavistic topic, with few believers daring to pass on the core beliefs any more.

Sorry if I am blunt btw, it's hard to be friendly or verbose in a video comment.

[KevinSolway]

@DreadLaw2

If religion even began with a genuine insight, then the insight never made it as far as the followers of religion. That's because insights die when transferred to barren soil. Likewise with UPB. Even if there is a supremely wise person able to realize UPB, the realization won't find any purchase in the mind of fools, and will fall to earth.

[DreadLaw2]

@KevinSolway That's an unfair movement of the context of "insight". We were discussing followers insight of the ideology, not the ideologies insight of ethics. Religious people all "know" of religion, whereas the general population has no insight of the ethical principles which actually prevent them from murdering, attacking and stealing.

[KevinSolway]

@DreadLaw2

The "insight" I'm talking about is the insight into truth, and into UPB. An insight into religious dogma ("insight of the ideology") would be a contradiction in terms.

The only people who have insight into truth (and universal preferable behaviour) are the supremely wise. Everyone else is in the dark.

[DreadLaw2]

@KevinSolway I understood exactly what you changed the context to, no need to repeat it. An insight into an ideology is not a contradiction, however, i did use the term "know" intentionally so you wouldn't waste time making that point, I thought I was debating with someone who wanted to move forward, not argue.

You don't need insight, or even knowledge of the term UPB to have been brought up in it's system (which doesn't require wisdom) or to pass on your values. Same as religion actually...

[KevinSolway]

@DreadLaw2, you can't "know" something just by reading it in a book. Things need to be realized. That's what I mean by "insight". A system without such insight will be just as evil as religion.

[DreadLaw2]

Again, no reading neccessary! It's taught, it's a social persepective. I'm afraid I can hardly debate this anymore, we are starting towards areas where I disagree with UPB, so I concede that it can't be "known"

[RevolutionaryJam]

Stefan, to what extent (if at all) do you agre with Socrates/Plato's opinion that one has no choice but to act morally as they understand it, and therefore to know the good is to act the good?

Also what is your opinion on amoralism? Is it possible for someone to accept that morality exists but choose not to follow it or if they behave in that way do they "not really believe it's wrong" or have some kind of addiction/pathology?

[RevolutionaryJam]

Hobbes argument for a state based on a nasty human nature is self-contradicting because why on earth are u going to put one of these nasty bastards in a position where their action is law? how will it fix human nature as well? His counter is "A ruler is only as rich as his country" it'snot really a counter as thats not a motivation to take care of the ruled.

he was traumatised by the civil war though which shaped his opinion, he was still a great philosopher, lovely use of language as well

[natdavi]

I'd say objectivism is closer to the argument from happiness than from pragmatism. There's a lot of living life for its own sake, and as he says happiness is pursued for its own sake.

[lukeev]

OMG UPB FTW! Acronyms baby yeah! :)

[MaikUniversum]

very good analogy in the beginning :D nice

[KagarBeardtooth]

I like cigars...

[itscodyFTW]

I have always worked off of the concept that: everyone should strive to do whatever it is that makes them happy so long as it will not potentially infringe on another person's same right to strive for what makes them happy.

anyone please feel free to try and poke holes in this idea. always open to revising and rethinking my own way of living.

have a good evening,

cody

[deadman12078]

If there is one thing I have learned in my 30 years on this plant.

Kindness is almost always mistaken for stupidity.

[Individualism101]

Actually, right at the end, plenty of 'scientists' do claim that their theories are necessary for those exact reasons. The orthodoxy of modern academic science is very much a religion.

[FUZZYisBIG]

You are alluding to something very true, but a concept that most people do not like to grasp. Alot of the 'acintific and reason' crowd do not understand how they also ascribe to a different form of religion.

[Individualism101]

Blackhole theory for example is a creation story. Dark matter is to be accepted on faith. The 4 dimensional universe has no formal proof. -- There exists no proof that time is a dimension nor that it can be treated like a spacial dimension.

Wave particle duality, quantum physics, almost all of the academic work in science done in the last 50 years has turned up progress by accident only. The theories do not conform to reality, for the most part they are state funded religious nonsense.

[johnycannuk]

Bull shit.

Wave particle duality and most tenets of Quantum physics are accepted because they are, in fact demonstrable via experimentation. Dark Matter is inferred from actual observation of the reality of the universe. Time is the 4th dimension with plenty of evidence based on relativity, not just quantum mechanics.

All of this is not at odds with reality, but most accurately describes it.

That you don't like that description of reality doesn't mean its not true.

[johnycannuk]

BTW, actual black holes have been observed. They are not a story, they are fact.

And there are experiments that will be run on the LHC that will provide evidence of the 11 dimensional string theory, should it be real.

The difference between what science postulates and religion is that science observes and forms hypothesis based on observations while religion forms a hypothesis and then looks for evidence for that.

And scientific theory can be falsified, while religious ones cannot.

[Individualism101]

You confuse the phenomena with the explanation.

Einstein himself state that there is no reason matter should curve space-time.

And, again, a set of observable phenomenological events exist, but as to the theories which predict these events, most are ex-post-facto.

[Individualism101]

Ultimately physics has been hijacked by mathematicians. Geometry has shoved aside empiricism. Now if it doesn't fit the geometric model 'it's not real'.

[moonreft]

We made a light hole here on earth. It was in the news yesterday. No light could escape it. It had zero mass and no gravity. Was it a black hole? It can be observed as a black hole but it was indeed not.

[Chameleon41]

That's a big claim.

I await stacks of evidence.

[Individualism101]

I await evidence on the following:

1. That waves and particles are infact the same thing, being as waves can only be observed through particles.

2. That time is a dimension in the same class as spacial dimensions and therefore has geometric properties.

3. That gravity, a monopole force, can produce the exotic patterns we see in the universe today.

4. That Neuronium -- the hypothetical matter inside neuron stars -- actually can be made

5. That energy can be converted into atoms.

100,000 more...

[bigleady]

Do a physics degree instead of throwing out lazy youtube comments.

1) is verified through QED the most accurately verified theory in history

2) is a direct consequence of special relativity which was predicted and then measured empircally

3) Gravity isn't a monopole force in the sense you mean, read up on general relativity

4) Im tempted to give you this one, but I suspect that you can measure the mass, density and energy output and red shift from the stars to figure out what they consist of

[Individualism101]

1) QED spawned 'virtual photons' and the like, correct?

QED already assumes wave-particle duality. This has nothing to do with proving that waves and particles are the same thing. It is just a model built on another model which works some of the time -- like the rest of physics.

2) Another fallacy. A leads to B, B seems to be correct therefore A is correct? That's a fallacy.

3) Again, didn't answer my question. Eluded to spacetime, see #2.

4 & 5) You suck, don't waste my time.

[TDawg2002]

I'm very excited to read the book! I just downloaded it.

[dakshinamurti]

Desire Utilitarianism puts UPB to shame, namely, because it accounts for the scientific facts about the way we are motivated to act, namely, how desires are the only reasons for action there are, how we always act as to fulfill the more and stronger of our own desires given our beliefs, and a load more. It's still a personal preference to value this theory of course, since there are no objective (minf-independent) moral facts.

[bioshock909]

@dakshinamurti but if this is true then we only satisfie are strongest feelings ie. are primal instincts . eat 'kill 'survive 'multiply and there for why do we have fellings for outher things and why do we try to satisfie outher peoples fellings

[dakshinamurti]

Hi there. First, our desires mean any desires, and are not to be confused with primal instincts. Eating might be your stronger desire in a certain moment in time of course. Now the second part. There is not a reason why that happens. I guess you can say, because evolution made it so, but that's more of the cause than a reason. It is true that other people's feelings/needs are a huge motivator/desire for many people. That still works under psychological egoism.

[dakshinamurti]

It may be other person's desires motivating you at any moment in time, but you have to instantiate them and they must become your own in order for you to be motivated to action by them. That's why even mother Theresa was egoist like any of us. It's just that in her case, her most prevalent desires were other people's desires also.

[bioshock909]

ooo i see thank you for explain this alittle bit more simply

[bioshock909]

but then this whole topic was a waste of time

[ashtebula]

Great video! I should mention, however, that I think you have slightly misrepresented Kant's theory of ethics. It consists of several steps which touch upon two fundamental questions of validity. The first question is "are there any internal contradictions in my moral law when applied universally?" and the second question, assuming it survives the first, is "could I will that this be a universal moral law?" You mentioned the latter. Not to say that Kant's theory is not still problematic.

[bioshock909]

@ashtebula this is also true

[bitterlilraccoon]

The only tiny problem with your "argument from objective reasoning" is that it requires the arguee to divorce themselves from the other forms of arguments. Which merely tells me that we have a long ways to go before we evolve away that idiotic limbic brain.

[Fetchdafish]

The title made me laugh.

[TheYoungLibertarian]

I look forward to reading your book after my last exam, which is philosophy coincidentally.

One of my options is "theories and problems of ethics" and I do wonder how the examiners would respond to your arguments (although I do not intend to use them).

[enotdetcelfer]

lol, you're having waaay too much fun with the new title maker XD