Ethics Reloaded! - Universally Preferable Behavior

[peope1976]

I cannot see that you have put forward any persuasive argument against determinism. (Of course not talking about fatalism). And your model is then based on that prerequisite. It seems from your model that you are saying that the mind is only partially within the material world (or the real world. (or to extend the material world. All that is.). Is this correct? I assume you do not claim that the mind is more than all that is. How do you define the material world?

[hughtub]

Good, except for the implication that race is just as imaginary as gods. Humans are less related than dogs are to coyotes or wolves, according to their mtDNA difference. Race is absolutely real. Contrast Paul Bettany with KRS-One, or Dolph Lundgren with Jerry Stackhouse, or Cheryl Ladd with Whoopi Goldberg. Evolution is real. Human evolution is real. Intermixing between early homo sapiens and homo erectus was more widespread in Africa. Michael Jordan looks more advanced than other Africans, no?

[Scientisticsoviet]

So the fact that truth is "universally preferable " to falsehood I assume is an moral/ethical axiom, as opposed to a statement of fact: That people universally prefer truth to falsehood.

[Scientisticsoviet]

Dream elephants can exist in reality insofar as they are chemical and neurochemical states.

[Scientisticsoviet]

The problem is that in determinist system there can states that are preferred; ei that the raindrop goes left rather than right. Whether it will occur or not is another question. And to the extent that an observer within the deterministic system "prefers one outcome or another can also be deterministic as well. So we have the determined preference not matching up with the determined outcome.

[TreachMarkets]

Hi Stef, thanks for this 30,000 ft view, getting ready to read the book now!

[therookie93]

@Emil246 they obviously don't.

[Humpipe]

cont'd

But obviously i'd have to lay down that argument a little better, i'm sure you've had to deal with enough compatibilists to be pretty damn sceptical...

Otherwise, thanks Stef, you have convinced me of so much, and without a doubt have changed my life for the better.

[Humpipe]

Stef, you are the man. Brilliant ethical theory and all that wonderful stuff.

However, it does frustrate me that you believe that truth and preference don't exist in a deterministic worldview. If anything, truth is made STRONGER by determinism, since it confirms even further the stability and predictability of reality. And preference definitely still exists, as well as epistemologically binding logical preferences (aka upb)... if anything, i see UPB as rescuing ethics from determinism.

[DeeperBlueX16]

i dont get it. why is it universal? why does this define ethics? why cant it determine specific instances?

[stefbot]

Why not read the free book? :)

[ogirv101]

So you can't provide an awnser for this, so you deride him? Great jon being illogical. First of all, you don't know if morality is objective, most thoughts on morality are speculative. In fact they are speculative, ethics are all speculative in secularism. In a metaphysical naturalistic world, everything is subjective in morality, because existance itself has no purpose, and if it has no purpose each individual makes his/her own purpose and morality.

[nofearnolimits]

I'm not trying to prove that enforcing personal preferences is morally good. I'm saying it's neutral. There is no valid positive/negative moral theory in light of UPB if UPB doesn't eliminate the moral theory of neutrality.

Which page in UPB should I refer to for this argument?

Moral neutrality is a completely consistent theory. It's universally applicable. It passes the coma test. And it renders all the moral conclusions in UPB false, leaving moral subjectivity — which is where to start.

[nofearnolimits]

You know what also passes UPB's tests? Moral nihilism. I have read UPB, and moral neutrality is dismissed on page 70 with one sentence. And it takes for granted that enforcement of preferences is ALREADY immoral.

Some other issues are the dismissal of determinism, and the self-ownership argument that "proves" property rights by switching definitions of "own" halfway through the argument.

Clearly Stefan Molyneux is very intelligent, and I respect him, but I hope these things get addressed.

[RuddODragonFear]

> And it takes for granted that enforcement of preferences is ALREADY immoral.

You read selectively. It is very clear that he talks about enforcement of aesthetic or personal preferences, not about universally preferable behavior.

If anything, this framework is *absolutely against* moral nihilism.

[nofearnolimits]

And why would it be wrong to enforce æsthetic or personal preferences, if objectively moral or immoral doesn't exist? I acknowledge Stefan's distinction; I'm simply asking for the justification for it.

The framework itself is not *absolutely against* anything. It's an objective standard by which to judge moral theories for their ability to be universally applicable, their consistency, and so forth — and they either pass or fail. Please explain how moral nihilism fails any of those things?

[RuddODragonFear]

It would be wrong to enforce aesthetic/personal preferences because enforcing them would go against the Non Aggression Principle, one of the few valid moral theories in the light of UPB.

But don't let me tell you that. Just use UPB to validate the theory that "personal preferences are morally good", and UPB itself will give you the answer.

[awwurdead]

you seem to dismiss determenism very quickly, as if it is for some magical rason required for us to have our mind be seperate from the material universe

[stefbot]

as if -- and yet not... :)

[awwurdead]

i'm just using the same reasoning that you used against the existance of god (which i by the way found to be a very well layed out video) that for the concept of free will, having free will requires a person to posses some sort of alternate existance within themselves such as a "soul", but no such existance can be shown to manifest itself in our reality and further more is not made of matter or energy so in turn you cannot be anything more then yor physical existance in the material world.

[SansAuthoritas]

You keep saying that God is a self-contradictory concept. I ask you to explain what you mean. Precisely why do you believe the concept of God is self-contradictory?

[stefbot]

You can have a look for my video "Proofs for God"... :)

[SansAuthoritas]

I see. You say that in order for any entity to exist, it must have objective, measurable physical effects. Did the possibility of radio waves capable of transmitting sound exist before anyone had any cause to believe it existed? Did radio waves themselves exist before men were able to measure them?

While it is true that we cannot measure something that does not exist, the fact that we cannot measure something does not mean the thing does not exist.

[stefbot]

I don't think you understood the video. There is a difference between radio waves and a "square circle"... self-contradictory entities cannot exist...

[SansAuthoritas]

Stefan, you said that something does not exist if you cannot measure its effects in the physical world. Men could not measure the effects of radio waves. By your logic, radio waves did not exist. The existence of radio waves, following your logic, was dependent on men being able to measure them. So you say that God does not exist because men cannot measure his effects.

[RuddODragonFear]

> Men could not measure the effects of radio waves.

That's a weird statement to make. What do you think the eye is for?

[SansAuthoritas]

Stephan, lastly, I ask you to look up "The 5 Ways of St. Thomas Aquinas." They are his five proofs of God, arrived at by pure logic.

[eulercircles]

@SansAuthoritas No ... but radio waves, even before we had the ability to detect them, had the at least the potential to be detected. 'God', by definition, does not have even the potential. There's therefore no way to distinguish it, conceptually, from a non-existent fairy-tale character.

[SansAuthoritas]

Stefan, you cannot measure the amount of moral good you are doing by speaking the truth about the evil of the State. Yes, you may be able to hear people say, "The truth of what you said has changed my life." But how can you believe it? They are just conveying their subjective experiences to you, right? Well, you might expect to believe it if their beliefs changed, and as their beliefs changed, their actions correspondingly changed. Because of your words.

[SansAuthoritas]

So I think it entirely rational to say it is possible that billions of people throughout history who seriously believe in God are evidence of some real entity. Yes, yes. Unicorns and gremlins. Nobody has ever changed the course of their life after hearing a story about a unicorn or a gremlin. Those who have changed their lives because of myths did so because they recognized some objective truth in the tales. The unicorn and gremlins are toned-down media for conveying truth. God is total truth.

[awwurdead]

christianty covers about 1/3 of religious beleifs there are countless other religions that can be true by your logic and are more likely tob e true then yuor then, and again you can state the obvious where majority opinion does not decide truth (the whoel flat earth example)

[DaveDoggOwns]

"UPB is great.

But it is NOT OBJECTIVE! It's like math, and math is subjective."

No it is not subjective. Stef doesn't say "Since murder is wrong you ought not to do it". Think of UPB as a scientific method for moral theories. UPB doesn't present any oughts just as the scientific method doesn't present any oughts. All it does is determine which moral theories are true and which are not.

[good4usoul]

26:00- Essential Questions...

Internal consistency, space/time independence, Universal applicability, without unchosen positive obligations, passes coma test

Are these the questions UPB methodology uses to evaluate a moral theory?

[good4usoul]

18:30 UPB is for evaluating logival propositions; theories. "Morality" is a theory of universally preferable behavior. In a moral argument we accept the "value" of universally preferable behavior.

Do you mean here, "truth" or "value?" Scientific method cannot determine value; except as a matter of polling and statistics.

23:00 Moral theories are evaluated by UPB.

Is UPB, then, a goal (such as truth) or a methodology (such as the scientific method)?

[DaveDoggOwns]

1)He probably meant to say "the truth value". 2)UPB, is a methodology....not a set of philosphical beliefs such as Objectivism.

3)That's just a quick summary. Trust me,it's WAY more complicated than that.

[RuddODragonFear]

UPB would be a framework that co-opts the methodology in the scientific method. The goal is embedded in the agent that uses UPB. Who knows, maybe you want to do UPB for UPB's sake, or maybe your goal is to be informed impartially and without bias about what's good or bad.

[smthngdffrnt]

In philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings. For instance, it is true always and everywhere that '2 plus 2 equals 4'. A subjective fact is a truth that is only true in certain times, places or people. For instance, 'That painting is beautiful' may be true for someone who likes it, but not for everyone.

[good4usoul]

Mathematics is completely objective, dealing entirely in matters of truth or falsehood, but your desire to bother with it is subjective, depending on whether you think it is good or bad.

[DionysusAlS]

Stef, Great video, but what proof do you have that the mind (not the brain) is material? It's been my experience that the mind is most definitely NOT material. We agree to disagree I suppose.

[DaveDoggOwns]

"Great video, but what proof do you have that the mind (not the brain) is material?"

Because assuming that objective reality exists is an axiom of debating. If I or the distance between us was not real there is no point in correcting me about anything for as soon as you do your assuming objective reality.

Essentially, Stef is not *proving* objective reality.....he's just saying the only way you can argue against it is if you perform a contradiction and thus your opinion shouldn't matter.

[EntertainedWatcher]

And i say truth is but a tear on the face of our mind.

[firstlk420]

The images visually we see whether or not they fall into "Reality" do affect our way of thinking. Very true.

[Trandofir]

How is UPB incorrect?

[Rekopaa]

7:00. "How does religion cock up these balls, so to speak?"

:)

[good4usoul]

Ummm, I think he means caulk up these balls...

Just... maybe.

:)

[Trandofir]

UPB does follow certain principles. And I don't think is case-specific, although I'm not 100% sure what you mean by that; is it case-based reasoning?

[Sepero1]

"It is universally preferable to replace false ideas with true ideas"

This seems reasonable on it's face, though when rationally discussing with many religious people about the existence of God, it appears that they would rather be blissfully ignorant than seek the truth.

I think they prefer to not seek the truth in favor of social/peer acceptance. (they avoid being an outcast at all costs)

I just wanted to throw that out there. Anyway, I still thought this was a good video. Thx

[D4Shawn]

I think that often, when people say ethics is "subjective", they mean that our desires (the outcomes we desire) are subjective. When people say that ethics is "objective", they mean that the means to achieve one's desired outcomes are subject to the objective facts of reality. In cases where that (semantics) is the only disagreement, both sides (in my estimation) are correct.

[D4Shawn]

Would it be correct to say that a "universally preferable behavior" is "a behavior (or one of several options) that is necessary to achieve a desired outcome"? For example, if I want you to read this, I have to post this comment (or send you a PM, etc.). If I want to avoid starvation, then I have to eat or undergo cryonic suspension. Basically, it is the desired outcome that determines which behaviors are "universally prefered" (I think).

[lukeev]

Those aren't moral theories *per say*. If you said, it is 'better to avoid starvation' or 'immoral that people eat', then those might be applied to UPB to check for internal & external consistency (logic / evidence). So one could subject the statement 'IF people don't want to die, THEN they should eat' to UPB, but most moral theories, like 'murder is evil' usually don't need conditionals. I suppose 'IF you are a soldier, THEN murder is moral' can be subjected to UPB (and it would be epic fail).

[D4Shawn]

Here's my proof zat reality exists independantly of z mind. If zere's something wrong with it, let me know.

If reality was a product of z mind, zen we would be able to alter z nature/parameters of reality either consciously or unconsciously (zat's what "subjective reality" would mean by definition). We can't alter z nature of reality consciously (we can't fly, "manifest" things, etc.). If we could do it unconsciously, we'd see all kinds of paranormal (poltergeist) activity (which we don't).

[D4Shawn]

Stef, you might like z book

"On Intelligence" by Jeff Hawkins and Sandra Blakeslee (it's available on audible). It puts forth a model of intelligence as explained by z predictive abilities of z neocortex. Z book relates zis (somewhat) to other issues of consciousness & free will. Personally, I don't think z free will debate is a meaningful one (neither side is conceptualizing z mind/brain in meaningful terms). I think advances in neuroscience will provide us with a better conceptual approach.

[lukeev]

vee haf veys off maiking yu free!

[AnarchoSolipsist]

When you say "truth is universally preferable to falsehood", do you mean truth is always, everywhere and from all perspectives better and more benefical than falsehood?

[lukeev]

Just to add, that this is the best book I have ever read on this topic (ethics/morality etc), and in fact one of the best philosophy books I've ever read, full stop. I think this is truly a historic moment for rational philosophy, and the advancement of our species by the application of mind, logic and reason. How many people would have given their left nut for a single dialogue with a Plato, Kant or Nietzsche?!

:P

[Trandofir]

Not sure what you mean, how is this not principle-based philosophy? It also seems like a false dichotomy between Practical and principle-based philosophy.

[bobbincygna]

I'm watching and so far I think you've made one mistake, you said:

... there are no preferred states, and since truth is a preferred state, then there is no truth...

If there are no preferences, why would that mean truth doesn't exist?

I think the lack of preferences doesn't deny reality, and if there's reality, there is truth.

As I see it, the argument is useful to invalidate preferences in a deterministic world, but not the existence of truth. I just don't see any connection.

Am I wrong?

[stefbot]

I believe that there are preferred states - I am criticizing other philosophical approaches... :)

[bobbincygna]

I know.

What I wanted to point out is the flaw in the previous quote ("there are no preferred states, and since truth is a preferred state, then there is no truth"). It claims that as a consequence of the invalidity of preferences in a deterministic universe, truth doesn't exist. My point was that is not the case because for truth to be invalid, material objective reality must not exist. Even if all in that reality is deterministic, there is still the possibility of making truth statements.

[Trandofir]

Truth existences in mind. What is 'true' is that which is logically valid and empirically accurate in external reality. Truth doesn't exist in external reality, we can't go hunting jungles for truth. Truth is the alignment for mind and external reality. The degree of which an idea is 'true' is the degree in which it conforms to reality. Seeing that ideas, thoughts, preferences don't exist in the mind (+ they don't exist in external reality) from a deterministic stand point, neither does truth.

[lukeev]

Bingo.

[Walkwander]

Fantastic vid, as always. :)

[lukeev]

Cool, I've been waiting for some more UPB shiz.

[mcphilthy]

Haven't finished watching yet but - great presentation! I'm really enjoying it. The visual examples are really helping to reinforce my understanding.

[alaw911]

Can't determinism 'produce ethics' so long as you accept that it is nature who judges and rewards your decisions?

[Trandofir]

Decisions? If determinism were true, how do you make decisions?

[alaw911]

I do my best to process the situation and weigh the various consequences (would be one way to explain it I guess). Which is probably similar to the way you'd explain making decisions that you think of as being free willed.

As a human I have an enhanced ability to reason, and so I apply it to my choices. I don't really see why this means I necessarily have freewill. Could you explain that?

[Trandofir]

Well choice implies free will. Example: a rock rolling down a hill doesn't choose where to roll because a rock doesn't have the capacity for choice. From a deterministic stand point, we're the equivalent to the behavior of a rock rolling down a hill. Where ever the rock rolls, it rolls. Where ever it lands, it lands. There's no "choice" or "weighing up various consequences" or "decisions" or "ability to reason". No more so than a rock can display choice, consequence, decision and reasoning.

[alaw911]

Trandofir, I got an email with your reply but I don't see it anywhere.

Anyway, I don't see why choice implies free will any more than it implies determinism (since neither position denies that we make choices). Maybe you define free will as simply "the ability to choose." If so I'd agree we have it. (I'd also think dogs and roosters have it.)

If our choices are determined causally why does this mean it's wrong to perceive 'ethics' so long as you accept it is nature who determines them?

[Trandofir]

alaw911, my answer is here. Youtube messes up sometimes. At the moment it's at the very bottom of page 5 of comments. I answer your question in it.

[Trandofir]

I don't get how: Contradictions do not exist in reality, Mind exists in reality, but Mind can have contradictions...

[neutrinoide]

We can see a dragon in a movie but not in reality. No t sure if it help.

[Trandofir]

I'm not sure, maybe. Dragons in movies are just digital or a puppet or something. They represent the made up concept of a dragon. They still don't exist on screen, of course. I don't know, can you explain a bit?

[neutrinoide]

You can still create images and concept with element of reality (computer, camera, projector, a pen, your brain). But what define if this image represent reality is if we can see it happen material reality indepently from whatever you draw, believe or not.

[lukeev]

It's because the word 'contradiction' relates to a concept we have within the mind & becomes physical (in sound, vision or actually on paper etc) only after we communicate the concept to others. The mind doesn't 'hold' the contradiction (i.e a square circle) itself, it merely represents it; so it can 'see' a square, and a circle, but it can't unite them into one 'super-shape' no matter how hard it tries! Thus we can see that those conflicting ideas would be a 'contradiction'. Does this help?

[Trandofir]

I get that! Thanks lukeev.

[firstlk420]

images we see form 90% of what feel.

[D4Shawn]

Why don't I feel any different when I close my eyes?

[faszika]

you dont need ethics in a subjective world... cause you dont harm no one if you behead them in your imagination...

[D4Shawn]

Especially if you behead them by firing laser beams out of your eyes!

[DrKaoliN]

Are you saying that what happens in your mind is nor real?

[faszika]

its more real than whats outside , this guy is a bit confused... hes in the matrix

[lukeev]

lol

[brainpolice2]

I think this was a good expose.

[lukeev]

It was a pretty darn succinct account of UPB and it's common usage and applications, aye. How's qtronman, btw?!

:P

[D4Shawn]

What's the deal with Qbertman? Is he trying to take on stef or something? Has there been a dialogue/exchange?

[lukeev]

watch?v=z4kLHqT8MEE

one of many

[D4Shawn]

Interesting... but I don't understand the point of it. If he wanted to, Qbertman might actually be able to start some interesting dialogue. Obviously though, that's impossible when all he just blocks anybody who engage him. Why does he even make videos then? Why would he make a critique of Stefbot when he doesn't believe his critique should be critiqued by anyone else? It doesn't make any sense.

[lukeev]

What was lame is that he hyped this big thing about a 'critical analysis' of Stef's book & a possible debate (we discussed it on FDR, suggested some users & Stef emailed), then he basically read barely past the forward & openly slagged it off without any reasoning whatsoever. Pretty lame, especially knowing he might debating Stef. Why just slag someone off like that? Nasty. Plus the whole thing with Brainpolice too, calling all anarchists child murderers, & just totally losing it. Shame really.

[126altf4]

Can you please explain why you think that the mind isn't contained in material reality.

And can you please give an example of a behaviour that is univerally preferable.

Thank you.

[brainpolice2]

Yea, that was the only part that confused me. But I think I know what he means without leading to absurdity. I'd like to see him clarify this point.

[lukeev]

We can only 'be' in our mind, we can't attribute mind solely to external material forces without using mind to change our mind about mind in the first place ad nauseum. If you have only matter then there is no mind, and you throw out rational philosophy. If philosophy emerges inside mind, from matter, then what is it emerging into exactly? An apple is a concept in 'the mind', because it is also a physical tangible object, which doesn't make it any less of an apple, either in mind or in matter!

[D4Shawn]

The mind is the brain, but the brain can't receive stimulus from itself (hence the feeling that the mind is somehow separate from the body).

[lukeev]

Yeah, nice. It's a language barrier again I think, people say 'mind' as a concept, which encompasses things, but people take it to be a floating magical leprechaun 'outside of itself'.

[Ape65]

What do you call a headache?

[ReIgNoFrAdNeSs]

A headache.

Wikipedia h this to add:

"The brain in itself is not sensitive to pain, because it lacks nociceptors. Several areas of the head can hurt, including a network of nerves which extend over the scalp and certain nerves in the face, mouth, and throat. The meninges and the blood vessels do have pain perception. The membrane surrounding the brain and spinal cord, called the dura mater, is innervated with nociceptors. Similarly the muscles of the head may be sensitive to pain."

[ReIgNoFrAdNeSs]

This is a test of the W.A.M.C.P. system.

[brainpolice2]

Surely the mind exists in reality, otherwise it doesn't exist all. I think what's really meant is that just because the mind is in reality does not mean that there isn't an interaction between the mind and the other things in reality, I.E. a correspondance between the perciever and the percieved. The fact that the mind is subject to physical laws does not mean that within these restraints the mind cannot have an influence on that which is external to it.

[AnarchyIsForMe]

Its more like math then science if its only about testing theory consistency. Math is hugely important, as we can often discover things before we see them in reality.

[AnarchyIsForMe]

Psychology goes both directions.

[AnarchyIsForMe]

Platos forms seem to fit more into religion than into subjectivism, but its all bullshit I guess.

[ARCHETECTONIC]

Thank you stef - I am pretty sure your video's are the only ones i actually keep on watching subscriptions. .