I don't understand how Setf can be married. If I tried to have an argument this elaborate about the use of a simple phrase, my wife wouldn't talk to me for a week. The specificity of words that he uses should drive even the most sane of women totally mad with frustration.
Stef just feeds laughing man enough line to hang himself without ever presenting his own position. Stef just denies his own position and makes LM do all the work - which he has to otherwise the debate would break down.
The NAP is a principle, not a universal moral code. As you well know after ingesting everything stefbot says, most people want to think of themselves as being "good". If people steal, they will rationalize it into being good, otherwise they wouldn't do it, making the whole purpose behind a universal moral code pointless. The NAP will allow you to find the first offender, but it doesn't tell us anything about the is/ought gap. I never said the NAP is arbitrary but it kind of is ...
@ProDCloud ...because the first offender may be the family who treated the criminal poorly, or maybe the ancestors; the whole reason why you would stop looking down the causal chain and select a culprit is arbitrary; which is why you need judges and that supports the idea of polycentric law codes and private judicial agencies to judicate who the culprits are and how to restitute the victims involved.
Stefan, if i didn't agree with a lot of what you say (enough to where I don't frankly care to argue what inconsequential things I disagree with) I'd absolutely hate to argue with you- your argumentation is too reasonable and logical.
Who decides what properties are fundimental? After putting the hat on, you stop being a human, you become a human with a hat on instead. Human is just a description of one thing that you are.
Johns ideas are logically consistent but muddled Ownership of property is defined by social contract. We generally don't form those contracts formally, unless maybe living within a constitution that defines them for us. To turn ourselves into property that can be owned puts us on a dangerous path to those who would seek ownership of our property. Some things cannot be owned, including ourselves and others that we love. Freedom is a priori
John's basically right. What (I think) he's saying is that claims of *fact* or *logic* may be invalidated to the extent that they have real-world corollaries or to the extent that they follow logical rules, but that *value* statements cannot because value statements never have real-world corollaries except to the extent that those who hold the value behave in accord with that value. And, of course, we know perfectly well that people are capable of behaving in accord with illogical values.
let me just say to the kid: youre smart but dont get dragged into semantic arguments about nothing. you accomplished no objectives in this debate. Also stop accusing him of false equivocation if he wants to make dumb analogies, let him, it makes him look dumb
right entails that actions of a free man to be able to establish that he owns those things. The kid in conversation needs to be able to learn how to articulate better before i can spend my time watching anymore... 2242... enough... i mean you might have some good points kid but you spacing out and not using the right words...
I don't see a problem; the problem I believe to be the case is that people are putting the cart before the horse. You're determining what ownership is and then applying that term to self-ownership before going into how ownership is logically defined.
Self-ownership isn't a valid concept because of ownership; ownership is an valid concept because of self-ownership.
Ownership doesn't mean anything--other than connotatively--if the description of the means of ownership is invalid.
Stefbot's analogy to the theory about mammals was a false analogy. Laughingman's example was someone who believed in pacifism
and supported the state. Stef's analogy does not hold because in laughingman's example neither pacifism or statism are
disproven. Stefbot's context is a description of traits, which is not laughingman's context. Stef also refused to actually address the mind/body problem and explain how he concieves of self-ownership in the context of epistemology and metaphysics.
Stef did the exact same sleight of hand on the self-ownership question as he did for me. He refuses to address the is/ought gap and the actual argument, and merely repeats that he doesn't believe in rights, then goes on to make a UPB argument for rights by conflating biological/physiological facts with ethical claims. It's as if he wants UPB to seem like it's just descriptive. But that's not ethics!
Yep, he sneaks in his ought when he says that ethics is like a science, when really what he is saying is ethical systems ought to be like a science. Conceptual constructions like ethics, as well as much epistemology often presupposes an oughtness, that Stef's brand of proto-logical positivism wants to ignore.
The ought is implied through the act of argumentation, which requires logic and existential import. The ought of accepting logic comes from the preference for using logic.
Anyone choosing to argue presupposes universal behavior, that all people ought accept the conclusions of logic if they accept logic.
See, this does not make much sense, because ultimately you are saying because I prefer using logic (it is unavoidable in discourse) I should accept it, but that presupposes that I value consistency. There has to be a point at which you say x is good, otherwise I could just view logic as an instrument of my will in some contexts. You are trying to derive theory from practise, the problem is practise is always contextual and thus the instruments of practise do not lead to axioms of theory.
Logic is necessary communication. If you just value it to serve your ends of communication, but nothing else, you see a value in logic, but an instrumental value. Logic is like a hammer. Rather than being the core of rationality that guides your whole life. It seems like you are trying to say that if i use logic which i must, i must value logic universally, but that is a non-sequitur, because there are different modes of valuing. One can instrumentally value truth, or intrinsically value truth.
I don't see it as a non-sequitur. Let me see if I can give your position back to you in my own words.
If you value logic, but not universally, you can choose what you believe is true, whether or not it logically follows, whenever you don't feel like accepting logical conclusions. You can use logic when it suits your own ends, and lie when it suits your own ends.
I don't understand the dichotomy between instrumental value truth and intrinsic value truth. Can you expound?
John misses the point by maintaining that an ethical statement is not proven false by proving inconsistency in the proponent. That is not what stef is trying to assert, (that by disproving the messenger you disprove the message), but that the ethical statement can't be INTERNALLY INCONGRUOUS. You can't say universal then say not-universal. If you can't make an ethical statement in an internally consistent way, then the ethic can be dismissed on that basis.
sorry this is painfully boring, cant watch. But Im still an enthusiastic listener to Stefans solo presentations. As for John, you are ill prepared for this debate which is evident after 3 minutes of watching.
John seems conversant w/ many philosophical concepts, but lacks some of the complex understanding underlying & tying together logic w/ some of these issues. He's splitting hairs, &, in the case of the 2nd argument, completely fails to see how you've so clearly illustrated that he doesn't have an argument. On the whole, I think this was somewhat a waste of time; mine & yours, Stefan. I guess the prompt for your "debating tips" vid.
Hence, for Stef, when a moral theory shows that it is not UPB compliant then it is, by definition, ethically wrong
Hence, both Stef and John were correct in what they were saying as it pertains to their own definitions ... Just that Stef uses a different definition for Ethics as everyone else in the past
Just to clarify, in (Part 1 of 2), those times i posted refer to the "Intro To Philosophy 5: Ethics #1" video made by Stef; not this video ... that's where he redefines Ethics ....
Regarding this whole "Why won't Stefan debate anybody?!" discussion: first of all, I think a quick skim through his previous debates will either highlight an unrefined selection process when choosing debating partners, or plain bad luck.
The debates have been very one-sided, and frankly, I get the impression that most of the debaters are just people who want a chance at taking him on. So although I would like to see more debates, I would appreciate better-chosen opponents.
@stefbot@stefbot Riiight, like the way I was allowed? The first time I called in, I tried over and over to explain my argument, which you kept misunderstanding (and you kept repeating things I told you I already agreed with). The second time I called in you asked for my personal history. Then you said you didn't feel "motivated" to talk to me, and I was SHUT OUT from being on the Sunday call-in show. Reason NOT given.
Seriously, every UPB debate I've watched just sets up a strawman of UPB. Maybe just ask for peoples definition of UPB before starting the debate Stef.
@stefbot - Hi Stef, I think what your "opponent" was trying to say was that if a theory is logically inconsistent or the theory is consistent but is being applied inconsistently then UPB can point that out. But there can be many moral claims that aren't logically inconsistent like if I say, ALL UNFAITHFUL WOMEN SHOULD BE STONED, and then I iapply it consistently to ALL UNFAITHFUL WOMEN will this be an invalid moral theor??
In Math, if i have a theory that says "Zero divided by any number is zero" and then i find an exception, is the theory invalid? or is it just adjusted to say "Zero divided by any number is zero, except when divided by zero" ...
It seems to me that the example i put about zero divided by any number is an example that a logical theory can have exceptions ....so, in the government theory, "People with Green customs" would be the analogous with Zero ....
Math seems a better analogy to Ethics than Biology ... as Biology deals with actual real world things but Math and Ethics are about concepts in our minds ... any thoughts on this? Thanks ...
You're right, the theory is not automatically invalid from flawed logic.
However, Ethics is about applying logic and the scientific method to human interaction and coming up with theories of social agreements that generate a benefit in universal or semi-universal preferences in society (or "a" society/group).
So, you have to prove that the color of one's costume changes those variables enough for it to be more practical for the social agreements to reverse for this to be valid in ethics.
In order to debate, people have to be honest with themselves first.
How exactly can one debate morality while taking the devil's advocate position? It doesn't make sense to me. It's saying, "I'll debate you on what I believe is moral by arguing what someone else would argue." You can't contradict yourself if you don't actually hold a position.
No honest debater can reject UPB, and it really frustrates me when people try to separate preferences from the person in order to analyze them.
"People with green hats should kill and other people should not kill" is an internally consistent claim. You just have to have really bizarre values/preferences to think that way. It is an ideal that is logically possible to be realized so it's not contradictory. In contrast "Everybody should kill and not kill at the same time" is contradicory because it is logically impossible to happen.
Isn't the whole point of UPB to show the logical inconsistency of one person doing something that another cannot regardless of opinion/value/or preference? Yes, there are ground rules just as if I claim that I can kill and not kill by living in two universes simultaneously and you say that's outside the rules.
at 24.07 John proposes to use 'personal sovereignty' or 'individual sovereignty' instead of self owner ship, to prevent confusion of definitions. wikipedia says about self-owner ship:
'Self-ownership (or sovereignty of the individual, individual sovereignty or individual autonomy) '
That would claim there is at least some consensus that these terms mean the same thing.
This sounds like a debate between an ethicist and a biologist. I haven't read UPB, but I'm sure it has to be more than "my foot has 5 toes." I totally missed Stef's claim; is there a basic claim in UPB?
Yes, the basic claim is that you should follow the golden rule, because otherwise you're being hypocritical. It's dumb, I know, but that's what it is.
Oh I see; so it makes the case for internal consistency. So in other words it's saying nothing, just critiquing what others say. Now the comment about methodology makes sense. What separates humans from robots is a belief in something. Of course we all can effectively both sides of an issue, but what matters is one's stance on a particular issue. Without this there can be no debate. To focus on form only in is sophistry, and I can get that from a computer.
However it's easy to believe in something. A "belief" needs to have a backbone of empirical logical consistency to be valid, yes? Otherwise I believe I'm an expesive watch with wiskers.
True, but the empiricism need not be direct. For example, I could believe in the tooth fairy simply because my mother told me about her. More objectively, I could believe 1 + 1 = 3 until I experience the contrary.
We all have beliefs, and the expression of these is how we communicate with each other. I can't communicate with a hammer or a stick, thus I like to here claims in conversation.
Yes but I think we are trying to look beyond belief. One could not debate with any rational reasoning with someone who "believes" 1+1=3. One could communicate with them to some extent but it would be fruitless. Perhaps I am confusing belief with insight.
No you are correct. But then what is Stef's book attempting to accomplish? It seems to me (without my reading it I'll admit) that he's trying to objectify what you've just described, which seems to me to be impossible. Human behavior is irrational from an objective point of view, because nobody knows the mind or soul of the actor controlling the actions. Behavior stems from ethics, thus to get to the root of behavior, ethics must be evaluated. But only ethics can evaluate ethics. Is UPB ethical?
"Only ethics can evaluate ethics.". Why? You can easily evaluate ethics based on their effect if made universal, which is really what UPB is all about.
The key word you said is "if" which is an assumption you must make of what only the acting party knows to be true or false. In other words, values cannot be objectively evaluated.
The actions performed may or may not be reflective of the individuals values, thus though his actions may seem internally inconsistent and contradictory, the only evidence of truth is within the individual.
I suppose we only have our integrity and curiousity to guide us to answers. I get the sense that Stef is genuinely interested in truth and sharing his findings otherwise I wouldn't bother looking into his offerings. I'm not sure that debating is the best course of action. It tends to take the eyes off of the prize.
Also I would say that hypocrisy is "contradictory" to the degree that people are the same. But people aren't the same. So hypocrisy is not NECESSARILY contradictory.
I want to hear this point responded to, it was made by Shawn. UPB validates the ethic that everybody should do that which they have both the power and desire to do. This shows how pointless UPB is as a basis for libertarisn ethics. Any thoughts Stef?
Stef, you should really debate this r0ck3td34th guy. He knows what he's talking about, has read your work and seems to have some valid criticisms of UPB. Why not take him up on his offer?
I have read your books, and I believe I have a fairly accurate understanding of UPB. I am not ascribing different characteristics to similar objects. I am saying that EVERYONE should do this. UPB validates many ethical theories including those without private property (beyond self-ownership).
You know, the disproportionate number of thumbs up that me, Luke12000 and r0ck3td34th are getting suggests that, if down-thumbing the uploader's comments was possible, you would probably be getting down-thumbed in your own comment section. That's kind of embarrassing. If you'd like to take these guys up on their offer for debate, which they have given you repeatedly, you might be able to clear up some of these problems that people obviously have with UPB.
So, if there was a thumbs feature for the uploader, in your opinion, there would be a majority of thumbs down, and you think that the uploader should feel embarrassed about this event that hasn't happened?
Stef's latest video probably covers that:) Debating isn't about who wins it's about learning together what's real. If I debate someone and realize in that conversation that I'm completely wrong then that's a good thing. I've grown.
Such a statement is not a moral or ethical one. Like the statement "you should eat anything you want to eat and can swallow" is not a nutritional guideline.
It's a discombobulation of the descriptive and prescriptive. It gives no indication that anything is preferable to anything else.
He didn't destroy him, and he wasn't a joke. Look up the Frege-Geach problem that emotivism is faced with. UPB faces the same problem, in that if one accepts the fact-value dichotomy one is also thereby excluded from referring to values as contradictory. There are ways of getting round this, though.
You need to separate Rothbard's negative arguments (his trilemma on self-ownership) from his belief in rights. He believed rights could be justified, but his justification for self-ownership is much closer to negative demonstrations in Aristotelianism or deontological arguments. Rothbard might've called it a right, but his arguments were not typical rights-arguments.
I believe that he's taking the rational method seriously and that his aim is to uncover truth.
Sure, he might be lying about that aim but I don't think so. I think he's wrong sometimes because there are things that he doesn't get - maybe occasionally a type of unconscious denial. But I'm quite sure he's not consciously lying.
No, I can't prove it, it's my own impression from watching too man of those videos.
Like I said... it's an "assumption". All I'm suggeting is that you might want to reconsider some of your unconscious assumptions (in order to grasp the full scope of possibilities).
Yes it's an assumption, I believe he's not lying about his motives. I don't need to consciously consider all options, that would be an impossible work load every time you did any kind of interaction with other people. I'm sure my unconscious would tell me if "it" had a reason to be suspicious.
If you have a specific reason to not trust Stef's motives I'd be happy to hear about it, otherwise this is just pointless theoretical arguing about what might be.
Any time someone makes a valid point in a debate with Stef he immediately acts confused, casting a shadow on the person right-off, then asks them to expound, then when they expound, he asks then to expound on that; he does this until he gets his foot in the door, so to speak, then redirects the conversation wherever he wants, mking hmslf lok right, regardless of whether or not it'll have anything to do with the initial point(s). He creates a mess and then asks the other person to clean it up.
Let's replace "self ownership" with "automobile ownership". Does ownership remain "an is not an ought" with this substitution? Can we assert that anyone in posession of an automobile is the owner of the same? No? Then neither can we make that same claim with regard to our own selves without engaging in most egregious equivocation.
John messed up in saying that something can be universal and not universal; and not contradictory. This is not true, as it clearly is contradictory, in reality.
The thing John should have said is that "in some contexts certain rules apply, and in different contexts other rules apply".
For example, a person could logically say that murdering is not universally unjustified, and that in certain contexts, it is justifiable.
UPB is not synonymous with logic. I can certainly use logic to show that UPB is NOT logical (that it is a bogus/flawed argument). Of course, this would only matter to people who personally value logic, but if logic is our accepted standard, then yes, we can certainly use logic to disprove UPB (which despite your implications, is not the embodiment of logic).
Well... there's a theory going around that says you're only willing to debate weak-kneed opponents who you don't feel threatened by. Personally, I usually disregard those sorts of rumors. However, you're kinda making me wonder...
"Well... there's a theory going around that says you're only willing to debate weak-kneed opponents who you don't feel threatened by. Personally, I usually disregard those sorts of rumors. However, you're kinda making me wonder...
You're not afraid of little ol' me, are ya?"
I think it's pretty clear from this statement that you don't want to debate him.
If you seriously want to debate him then you should pursue it, I would just advise you that usually when you insult people it makes them not want to debate you.
Well... maybe I'm the one who's confused here. I'm perfectly willing to entertain that possibility. Perhaps you could do us all a favor and ask stef when the debate is to take place. If you can obtain that little bit of information, that would certainly dispel any misconceptions I might have about stef having "backed down".
Yeah... so just update me on the schedule, and we can go from there! I'd like to do it tonight.
Anyways... enough of this silliness. You challenged me to a debate (which by the way, was AFTER my accusation that UPB was "an argument"), so let's pick a time. I've got oovoo. We can do it in a half hour as far as I'm concerned.
When someone describes "morality", they are not describing something in reality that conforms to natural laws. Rather, they are making up a term, and defining it to mean whatever they want. If you want to define "moral" as describing "a quality that is ascribed to an entire category of action/behavior, irrespective of any other factors", well, all you've done is made up a definition. Thus, your demand for "consistency in evaluating a type of action" is simply a result of your personal definition
Just as you can show the claim that "killing is moral" to be absurd, I can just as easily show the claim that "killing is immoral" to be equally absurd.
There is no basis upon which either statement can be justified.
This is why people have pointed out on numerous occasions that UPB can not make a positive case for the existence of morality.
Just as "rights" are "unicorns" and constitute "magical thinking", so is/does "morality".
You might want to read the (free) book before criticizing the theory... And of course morality does not exist, neither does the scientific method - that does not mean that either is arbitrary or subjective... :)
The difference between UPB and science, is that science describes the natural world, whereas UPB describes it's own invention/logical construct (much like the Bible does).
When someone says "Murder is 'moral'", how could you possibly evaluate that claim?
To do so, you would have to either:
a) know what they mean by "moral", or
b) just make up your own definition (in which case, you are simply evaluating a construct that you invented in order to produce a given result when evaluated).
Since UPB can not evaluate a word in terms of meaning, all it can do (instead) is invent it's own construct called "morality".
You have argued (in this video) that morality exists as a "physical property" within human beings. This is the grounds upon which you argue that putting a hat on somebody doesn't alter their "fundamental properties" (a.k.a. "moral nature").
That is not my argument, although it is subtle. My argument is that you cannot create universal rules about preferable human behavior, and then arbitrarily exclude certain human beings - just as a biologist cannot create a rule that "mammals are warm blooded" and then arbitrarily exclude warm blooded creatures.
"Mammal" is just a word. Warm blooded animals are mammals simply by definition. A biologist certainly could change "the rule" (i.e. the definition [just as you change the definition of "self-ownership"]).
When you create two categories called "moral" and "immoral" in which you place different actions, someone else could certainly create two different categories, *or* use those two words to describe something other than types of actions.
It is based on the premise that a moral theory should be consistent for all humans like the theory of gravity should be valid for all masses. If you don't subscribe to that premise, there is nothing to base any moral claim on.
Well first of all... I know that "consistency" is a nice little buzzword you guys like, but it doesn't actually mean anything the way you are using it. You are referring specifically to "consistency in evaluating a given type/category of action".
I can easily come up with a consistent moral philosophy (one that applies universally to everybody), and yet allows different people to commit different actions:
"Everybody should do, that which they have both the power and desire to do."
"Everybody should do, that which they have both the power and desire to do."
This might be consistent but it's logically impossible. What one person has the power and desire to do may conflict with what another person has the power and desire to do. So people could not use this philosophy universally at all times.
"What one person has the power and desire to do may conflict with what another person has the power and desire to do."
If two people conflict, and reach a statemate (due to equal power), then neither of them had sufficient power to accomplish their desire (in which case the criteria was not completely met). If one person overcomes the other, then the other did not meet the required criteria (didn't have the power).
I never said that people "should have the power to do what they desire".
If two people conflict, and reach a statemate (due to equal power), then neither of them had sufficient power to accomplish their desire (in which case the criteria was not completely met). If one person overcomes the other, then the other did not meet the required criteria (didn't have the power).
OK, well this just seems to be more of a descriptive then a prescriptive statement. I don't see how a person could not follow this criteria.
"OK, well this just seems to be more of a descriptive then a prescriptive statement."
The only aspect of "ethics" that can legitimately be prescriptive is the aspect we call (basic pragmatism). We can derive "oughts" (options) from "ifs" (goals).
"I don't see how a person could not follow this criteria."
For that (fair) objection, I would add a bit on the end:
Everybody should do, that which they have both the power and desire to do, without regard for any other moral considerations
Are we talking about in my wildest dreams, or are we talking about the real world (where what I want really isn't that relevant in the greater scheme of things)?
Yeah, it would be nice to live on a planet where everybody agreed and there was no competition over resources or preferences, and everybody had everything they wanted, and everybody settled their disputes peacefully, and respected the wishes of others, even when they contradicted their own (which I guess is a logical impossibility), but that... has absolutely nothing to do with the planet we live upon.
I understand the current problem. I am asking if that is what you are for over peaceful exisitence, I am more interested in what you are for, not what others in a particular time period are for when I am asking you this question.
'The only aspect of "ethics" that can legitimately be prescriptive is the aspect we call (basic pragmatism). We can derive "oughts" (options) from "ifs" (goals).'
Is that a prescriptive statement from your side? Why can you prescribe others what is possible to say about ethics and what is your criterion for a true statement in these matters? How do you distinguish between a false statement on ethics (UPB) and a true one (yours)? Is there a general principle you use for that?
"Everybody should do, that which they have both the power and desire to do, without regard for any other moral considerations"
That can't be applied to all. Some people desire to act with other moral considerations. Since they don't desire doing things without regarding these, there is no desire to speak of which they should act upon, and so they still would be allowed to regard moral considerations, but they aren't allowed to do that according to the rule as well, which makes it inconsistent.
Firstly, if someone desires to do nothing, that does not violate the principal.
Secondly, since when is an ethical prescription invalidated because people don't want to adhere to it? If I said that people shouldn't murder, would that be "inconsistent" because some people want to murder?
If so, any prescription is easily invalidated, and there's absolutely no point at all to ethics. While I may agree with that conclusion, I don't agree with your reasoning.
"If I said that people shouldn't murder, would that be "inconsistent" because some people want to murder?"
No, but the claim wasn't that people shouldn't want to murder, and it is not contradictory to restrain yourself from murder even if you want to. But in the example people should have desires that they don't have, and that is an impossibility.
you can also say:"every one should murder" and claim it is consistent. Not everyone can show that behavior without it leading to a contradiction. That is another requirement for preferable behavior for humans: that every human should be able to show it and no on e is condemned to be immoral.
So your formulation is very clever. Still if the resulting actions encompass murder or theft, they would violate universality of property rights (simultaneous denial and acceptance of property rights)
Stef, are you implying that we can verify empirically whether a given action is "moral" or not?
I suppose that could be true depending on your definition of "moral".
For example, if I define "moral" as meaning "red in color", we can certainly verify empirically whether a given thing is "moral" (a.k.a. red) or not.
How then, are you defining "moral" in order to make this empirical verification possible? What physical attributes are being assigned to the term "moral"?
!(Lizard)==(Lizard + hat)
ariuszarim 6 months ago
I don't understand how Setf can be married. If I tried to have an argument this elaborate about the use of a simple phrase, my wife wouldn't talk to me for a week. The specificity of words that he uses should drive even the most sane of women totally mad with frustration.
ariuszarim 6 months ago
Stef just feeds laughing man enough line to hang himself without ever presenting his own position. Stef just denies his own position and makes LM do all the work - which he has to otherwise the debate would break down.
podrag 6 months ago
Comment removed
ProDCloud 8 months ago
@ProDCloud
The NAP is a principle, not a universal moral code. As you well know after ingesting everything stefbot says, most people want to think of themselves as being "good". If people steal, they will rationalize it into being good, otherwise they wouldn't do it, making the whole purpose behind a universal moral code pointless. The NAP will allow you to find the first offender, but it doesn't tell us anything about the is/ought gap. I never said the NAP is arbitrary but it kind of is ...
ExquisiteDoom 8 months ago
@ProDCloud ...because the first offender may be the family who treated the criminal poorly, or maybe the ancestors; the whole reason why you would stop looking down the causal chain and select a culprit is arbitrary; which is why you need judges and that supports the idea of polycentric law codes and private judicial agencies to judicate who the culprits are and how to restitute the victims involved.
ExquisiteDoom 8 months ago
at 25:34 John calls it UBP instead of UPB and stef's reaction is perfect.
aguscapo 1 year ago
Stefan, if i didn't agree with a lot of what you say (enough to where I don't frankly care to argue what inconsequential things I disagree with) I'd absolutely hate to argue with you- your argumentation is too reasonable and logical.
Yoni89 1 year ago
Who decides what properties are fundimental? After putting the hat on, you stop being a human, you become a human with a hat on instead. Human is just a description of one thing that you are.
SecularNumanist 1 year ago
hmmm, pointing out that two claims are contradictory doesnt mean one of the two cannot be true.
I think LaughingMan0x has changed his opinion an awful lot since this video was made but you definitely overlooked that, Stef.
SecularNumanist 1 year ago
The guy John has a channel called LaughingMan0x check him out, people.
SecularNumanist 1 year ago
Johns ideas are logically consistent but muddled Ownership of property is defined by social contract. We generally don't form those contracts formally, unless maybe living within a constitution that defines them for us. To turn ourselves into property that can be owned puts us on a dangerous path to those who would seek ownership of our property. Some things cannot be owned, including ourselves and others that we love. Freedom is a priori
kokopelli314 2 years ago
for someone.. right? who claims other people are condescending..right? to him.. right? , stef is a pretty big tool.... right?
Tuppington 2 years ago
It's really a shame Stef behaved as he did in this video - changes my perspective on him.
EsotericThrone 2 years ago
spoiler: argument over rhetoric of term "self-ownership" for first 24 mins!
sleeplessmind 2 years ago 7
stefbot got owned ? how ? Maybe some of you have to rewatch whole debate and THIS time PAY attention to his arguments.
MaikUniversum 2 years ago 2
John's basically right. What (I think) he's saying is that claims of *fact* or *logic* may be invalidated to the extent that they have real-world corollaries or to the extent that they follow logical rules, but that *value* statements cannot because value statements never have real-world corollaries except to the extent that those who hold the value behave in accord with that value. And, of course, we know perfectly well that people are capable of behaving in accord with illogical values.
aelffin 2 years ago
Yawn. Try debating an adult sometime.
Still, the young man holds his own.
aelffin 2 years ago
Stefbot got owned.
mitchrix31 2 years ago
let me just say to the kid: youre smart but dont get dragged into semantic arguments about nothing. you accomplished no objectives in this debate. Also stop accusing him of false equivocation if he wants to make dumb analogies, let him, it makes him look dumb
moneycrab 2 years ago
right entails that actions of a free man to be able to establish that he owns those things. The kid in conversation needs to be able to learn how to articulate better before i can spend my time watching anymore... 2242... enough... i mean you might have some good points kid but you spacing out and not using the right words...
jwiska 2 years ago
Here is the problem:
- Definition 1: Applied to Self: I am myself (Stef's definition)
- Definition 2: Applied to Self: I own myself (Common definition)
When stef says no one can argue against Self-ownership he is refering to Def 1; which makes perfect sense.
The problem comes when He then Applies Def 1 to external things:
- Def 1 Applied to others: I am this dog
- Def 2 Applied to others: I own this dog
We are clearly not dogs ; even when some women might argue otherwise lol
AncientMariner83 2 years ago 3
I don't see a problem; the problem I believe to be the case is that people are putting the cart before the horse. You're determining what ownership is and then applying that term to self-ownership before going into how ownership is logically defined.
Self-ownership isn't a valid concept because of ownership; ownership is an valid concept because of self-ownership.
Ownership doesn't mean anything--other than connotatively--if the description of the means of ownership is invalid.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
Stefbot's analogy to the theory about mammals was a false analogy. Laughingman's example was someone who believed in pacifism
and supported the state. Stef's analogy does not hold because in laughingman's example neither pacifism or statism are
disproven. Stefbot's context is a description of traits, which is not laughingman's context. Stef also refused to actually address the mind/body problem and explain how he concieves of self-ownership in the context of epistemology and metaphysics.
brainpolice2 2 years ago 4
Welcome back buddy. :)
overmind25 2 years ago
Stef did the exact same sleight of hand on the self-ownership question as he did for me. He refuses to address the is/ought gap and the actual argument, and merely repeats that he doesn't believe in rights, then goes on to make a UPB argument for rights by conflating biological/physiological facts with ethical claims. It's as if he wants UPB to seem like it's just descriptive. But that's not ethics!
brainpolice2 2 years ago 7
Oh shut up already.
tetraedronico 2 years ago
Yep, he sneaks in his ought when he says that ethics is like a science, when really what he is saying is ethical systems ought to be like a science. Conceptual constructions like ethics, as well as much epistemology often presupposes an oughtness, that Stef's brand of proto-logical positivism wants to ignore.
AestheticizeAnalog 2 years ago 3
The ought is implied through the act of argumentation, which requires logic and existential import. The ought of accepting logic comes from the preference for using logic.
Anyone choosing to argue presupposes universal behavior, that all people ought accept the conclusions of logic if they accept logic.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
See, this does not make much sense, because ultimately you are saying because I prefer using logic (it is unavoidable in discourse) I should accept it, but that presupposes that I value consistency. There has to be a point at which you say x is good, otherwise I could just view logic as an instrument of my will in some contexts. You are trying to derive theory from practise, the problem is practise is always contextual and thus the instruments of practise do not lead to axioms of theory.
AestheticizeAnalog 2 years ago
I don't understand how one could value logic but not consistency. If you value logic, doesn't that imply that you value logical consistency?
But are you saying that if you don't value consistency, you can give up logic any time and say, "This doesn't follow"?
Or are you saying that you don't have to value consistency between your actions and arguments?
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago 2
Logic is necessary communication. If you just value it to serve your ends of communication, but nothing else, you see a value in logic, but an instrumental value. Logic is like a hammer. Rather than being the core of rationality that guides your whole life. It seems like you are trying to say that if i use logic which i must, i must value logic universally, but that is a non-sequitur, because there are different modes of valuing. One can instrumentally value truth, or intrinsically value truth.
AestheticizeAnalog 2 years ago
I don't see it as a non-sequitur. Let me see if I can give your position back to you in my own words.
If you value logic, but not universally, you can choose what you believe is true, whether or not it logically follows, whenever you don't feel like accepting logical conclusions. You can use logic when it suits your own ends, and lie when it suits your own ends.
I don't understand the dichotomy between instrumental value truth and intrinsic value truth. Can you expound?
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago 2
I like laughingman, but he was woefully unprepared for this debate.
devourage 2 years ago 3
John misses the point by maintaining that an ethical statement is not proven false by proving inconsistency in the proponent. That is not what stef is trying to assert, (that by disproving the messenger you disprove the message), but that the ethical statement can't be INTERNALLY INCONGRUOUS. You can't say universal then say not-universal. If you can't make an ethical statement in an internally consistent way, then the ethic can be dismissed on that basis.
nathanjonessr 2 years ago
My comments always get deleted. I guess their too hilarious for you serious people to contend with.
garvess 2 years ago
Stef is MS Sam in disguise
LeekspinRelated 2 years ago
sorry this is painfully boring, cant watch. But Im still an enthusiastic listener to Stefans solo presentations. As for John, you are ill prepared for this debate which is evident after 3 minutes of watching.
Iseeyoursoul 2 years ago
John seems conversant w/ many philosophical concepts, but lacks some of the complex understanding underlying & tying together logic w/ some of these issues. He's splitting hairs, &, in the case of the 2nd argument, completely fails to see how you've so clearly illustrated that he doesn't have an argument. On the whole, I think this was somewhat a waste of time; mine & yours, Stefan. I guess the prompt for your "debating tips" vid.
dumbascus 2 years ago
(Part 2 of 2)
Hence, for Stef, when a moral theory shows that it is not UPB compliant then it is, by definition, ethically wrong
Hence, both Stef and John were correct in what they were saying as it pertains to their own definitions ... Just that Stef uses a different definition for Ethics as everyone else in the past
Hope this helps to clarify
guinnessman12 2 years ago
(Part 1 of 2)
In: Intro To Philosophy 5: Ethics #1 - by Stef
Ethics is not understanding right versus wrong (at 24:30)
Ethics is redefined by Stef later on the video:
Morality (i.e. Ethics) is defined as Universally Preferred Human Behavior (UPB) (at 29:50)
For John the validity of a moral theory is determined in terms of right or wrong
For Stef, thats not correct, since Ethics is defined as UPB compliance not in terms of the classical right versus wrong
guinnessman12 2 years ago
Just to clarify, in (Part 1 of 2), those times i posted refer to the "Intro To Philosophy 5: Ethics #1" video made by Stef; not this video ... that's where he redefines Ethics ....
guinnessman12 2 years ago
Regarding this whole "Why won't Stefan debate anybody?!" discussion: first of all, I think a quick skim through his previous debates will either highlight an unrefined selection process when choosing debating partners, or plain bad luck.
The debates have been very one-sided, and frankly, I get the impression that most of the debaters are just people who want a chance at taking him on. So although I would like to see more debates, I would appreciate better-chosen opponents.
Chameleon41 2 years ago
Of course, I have done an open call in Sunday show for years, where anyone can come and debate me, so these statements are pure nonsense... :)
stefbot 2 years ago 3
Stef, I think you are overlooking a few things here.
First off, the person who wanted to debate you can not even reply since you blocked him from your channel.
Second off, you are not even offering any information on how to contact you.
Third, how are you able to decide what is a "better quality debate"?
drew335533 2 years ago
Comment removed
nofearnolimits 8 months ago
@stefbot @stefbot Riiight, like the way I was allowed? The first time I called in, I tried over and over to explain my argument, which you kept misunderstanding (and you kept repeating things I told you I already agreed with). The second time I called in you asked for my personal history. Then you said you didn't feel "motivated" to talk to me, and I was SHUT OUT from being on the Sunday call-in show. Reason NOT given.
nofearnolimits 8 months ago
Seriously, every UPB debate I've watched just sets up a strawman of UPB. Maybe just ask for peoples definition of UPB before starting the debate Stef.
Trandofir 2 years ago 2
I quite agree! :)
stefbot 2 years ago
I would love it if you made a video explaining your views of the problems that users like "r0ck3td34th" and "Luke12000" raised here.
Some formal debates would also be really cool. I know you are an awesome debater and these people seem to be really into all this as well.
NoFeelingNowYes 2 years ago 2
Perhaps he doesn't debate because he feels like he's always right and has no reason to.
drew335533 2 years ago
@stefbot - Hi Stef, I think what your "opponent" was trying to say was that if a theory is logically inconsistent or the theory is consistent but is being applied inconsistently then UPB can point that out. But there can be many moral claims that aren't logically inconsistent like if I say, ALL UNFAITHFUL WOMEN SHOULD BE STONED, and then I iapply it consistently to ALL UNFAITHFUL WOMEN will this be an invalid moral theor??
MaribelTipton 1 year ago
@stefbot too bad I cant debate you because I agree with what you say :P.
sniped101 1 year ago
What about this? ...
In Math, if i have a theory that says "Zero divided by any number is zero" and then i find an exception, is the theory invalid? or is it just adjusted to say "Zero divided by any number is zero, except when divided by zero" ...
guinnessman12 2 years ago
It seems to me that the example i put about zero divided by any number is an example that a logical theory can have exceptions ....so, in the government theory, "People with Green customs" would be the analogous with Zero ....
Math seems a better analogy to Ethics than Biology ... as Biology deals with actual real world things but Math and Ethics are about concepts in our minds ... any thoughts on this? Thanks ...
guinnessman12 2 years ago
You're right, the theory is not automatically invalid from flawed logic.
However, Ethics is about applying logic and the scientific method to human interaction and coming up with theories of social agreements that generate a benefit in universal or semi-universal preferences in society (or "a" society/group).
So, you have to prove that the color of one's costume changes those variables enough for it to be more practical for the social agreements to reverse for this to be valid in ethics.
NoFeelingNowYes 2 years ago
he retreated to the devils advocate position after he got schooled by stef.
VCADD 2 years ago
He was playing devil's advocate to devil's advocate. If John had been honest from the start, we wouldn't have needed to go there.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago 3
In order to debate, people have to be honest with themselves first.
How exactly can one debate morality while taking the devil's advocate position? It doesn't make sense to me. It's saying, "I'll debate you on what I believe is moral by arguing what someone else would argue." You can't contradict yourself if you don't actually hold a position.
No honest debater can reject UPB, and it really frustrates me when people try to separate preferences from the person in order to analyze them.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
John seems to have no cohesive point and little argument. It was an extremely long non-debate.
Stefan, he could have answered all of these points himself by looking into the topic, as opposed to asking you to walk him through the logic.
uriahsw 2 years ago
"People with green hats should kill and other people should not kill" is an internally consistent claim. You just have to have really bizarre values/preferences to think that way. It is an ideal that is logically possible to be realized so it's not contradictory. In contrast "Everybody should kill and not kill at the same time" is contradicory because it is logically impossible to happen.
AnarchoSolipsist 2 years ago
Isn't the whole point of UPB to show the logical inconsistency of one person doing something that another cannot regardless of opinion/value/or preference? Yes, there are ground rules just as if I claim that I can kill and not kill by living in two universes simultaneously and you say that's outside the rules.
DCLugi 2 years ago
24 minutes to define a term. FFS! You've been told what Stephan means by self-ownership, move on. Sheeesh!
Textra1 2 years ago 4
What with all those peoples that try to stick an ethical prescription on others and refuse to just take the argument presented to themselves.
neutrinoide 2 years ago
at 24.07 John proposes to use 'personal sovereignty' or 'individual sovereignty' instead of self owner ship, to prevent confusion of definitions. wikipedia says about self-owner ship:
'Self-ownership (or sovereignty of the individual, individual sovereignty or individual autonomy) '
That would claim there is at least some consensus that these terms mean the same thing.
modelmark 2 years ago 2
This sounds like a debate between an ethicist and a biologist. I haven't read UPB, but I'm sure it has to be more than "my foot has 5 toes." I totally missed Stef's claim; is there a basic claim in UPB?
FranG1214 2 years ago
Yes, the basic claim is that you should follow the golden rule, because otherwise you're being hypocritical. It's dumb, I know, but that's what it is.
rainskullvids 2 years ago
Oh I see; so it makes the case for internal consistency. So in other words it's saying nothing, just critiquing what others say. Now the comment about methodology makes sense. What separates humans from robots is a belief in something. Of course we all can effectively both sides of an issue, but what matters is one's stance on a particular issue. Without this there can be no debate. To focus on form only in is sophistry, and I can get that from a computer.
FranG1214 2 years ago 2
However it's easy to believe in something. A "belief" needs to have a backbone of empirical logical consistency to be valid, yes? Otherwise I believe I'm an expesive watch with wiskers.
DCLugi 2 years ago
True, but the empiricism need not be direct. For example, I could believe in the tooth fairy simply because my mother told me about her. More objectively, I could believe 1 + 1 = 3 until I experience the contrary.
We all have beliefs, and the expression of these is how we communicate with each other. I can't communicate with a hammer or a stick, thus I like to here claims in conversation.
FranG1214 2 years ago
Yes but I think we are trying to look beyond belief. One could not debate with any rational reasoning with someone who "believes" 1+1=3. One could communicate with them to some extent but it would be fruitless. Perhaps I am confusing belief with insight.
DCLugi 2 years ago
No you are correct. But then what is Stef's book attempting to accomplish? It seems to me (without my reading it I'll admit) that he's trying to objectify what you've just described, which seems to me to be impossible. Human behavior is irrational from an objective point of view, because nobody knows the mind or soul of the actor controlling the actions. Behavior stems from ethics, thus to get to the root of behavior, ethics must be evaluated. But only ethics can evaluate ethics. Is UPB ethical?
FranG1214 2 years ago
"Only ethics can evaluate ethics.". Why? You can easily evaluate ethics based on their effect if made universal, which is really what UPB is all about.
newperve 2 years ago
The key word you said is "if" which is an assumption you must make of what only the acting party knows to be true or false. In other words, values cannot be objectively evaluated.
The actions performed may or may not be reflective of the individuals values, thus though his actions may seem internally inconsistent and contradictory, the only evidence of truth is within the individual.
FranG1214 2 years ago
I suppose we only have our integrity and curiousity to guide us to answers. I get the sense that Stef is genuinely interested in truth and sharing his findings otherwise I wouldn't bother looking into his offerings. I'm not sure that debating is the best course of action. It tends to take the eyes off of the prize.
DCLugi 2 years ago
I tried to erase that extra "u" in curiosity but I only damaged my screen.
DCLugi 2 years ago
Also I would say that hypocrisy is "contradictory" to the degree that people are the same. But people aren't the same. So hypocrisy is not NECESSARILY contradictory.
Luke12000 2 years ago
Did you dub yourself, stef?
DasGuntLord01 2 years ago
I want to hear this point responded to, it was made by Shawn. UPB validates the ethic that everybody should do that which they have both the power and desire to do. This shows how pointless UPB is as a basis for libertarisn ethics. Any thoughts Stef?
Luke12000 2 years ago 6
How does it validate that? Please use some examples using the methodology from from the free book. :)
stefbot 2 years ago
Stef, you should really debate this r0ck3td34th guy. He knows what he's talking about, has read your work and seems to have some valid criticisms of UPB. Why not take him up on his offer?
rainskullvids 2 years ago 9
I have read your books, and I believe I have a fairly accurate understanding of UPB. I am not ascribing different characteristics to similar objects. I am saying that EVERYONE should do this. UPB validates many ethical theories including those without private property (beyond self-ownership).
Luke12000 2 years ago
Saying something does not prove it.
stefbot 2 years ago
Stef, would you be interested in having a discussion via OOVOO on these ideas with myself? After all, I have donated :D
Luke12000 2 years ago 5
You know, the disproportionate number of thumbs up that me, Luke12000 and r0ck3td34th are getting suggests that, if down-thumbing the uploader's comments was possible, you would probably be getting down-thumbed in your own comment section. That's kind of embarrassing. If you'd like to take these guys up on their offer for debate, which they have given you repeatedly, you might be able to clear up some of these problems that people obviously have with UPB.
rainskullvids 2 years ago
So, if there was a thumbs feature for the uploader, in your opinion, there would be a majority of thumbs down, and you think that the uploader should feel embarrassed about this event that hasn't happened?
Valelacerte 2 years ago 2
UPB doesn't have the ability to validate anything external to itself).
This is why stef will debate this subject with me neither on video chat, nor in the comment section.
r0ck3td34th 2 years ago 11
I would like to point out on behalf of "r0ck3td34th" that he has been blocked by stef. May i ask why?
Luke12000 2 years ago 3
Stef's latest video probably covers that:) Debating isn't about who wins it's about learning together what's real. If I debate someone and realize in that conversation that I'm completely wrong then that's a good thing. I've grown.
DCLugi 2 years ago
Look in the comments section of this video: watch?v=4RvLUeHTS7s
FranG1214 2 years ago
@r0ck3td34th
Why don't you call into his sunday show?
TheCapitalistdog 1 year ago
I'm not stefan but here are my thoughts.
Such a statement is not a moral or ethical one. Like the statement "you should eat anything you want to eat and can swallow" is not a nutritional guideline.
It's a discombobulation of the descriptive and prescriptive. It gives no indication that anything is preferable to anything else.
WorBlux 2 years ago
questioning Stefs motives exposes a high degree of unfamiliarity with his body of work.
VCADD 2 years ago
Nice try.
r0ck3td34th 2 years ago
Stef 1--Blank Hole 0
VCADD 2 years ago
stefan why do you always bring on joke debaters and destroy them? LOL
Daedalus1337 2 years ago
He didn't destroy him, and he wasn't a joke. Look up the Frege-Geach problem that emotivism is faced with. UPB faces the same problem, in that if one accepts the fact-value dichotomy one is also thereby excluded from referring to values as contradictory. There are ways of getting round this, though.
Moragauth 2 years ago 5
You need to separate Rothbard's negative arguments (his trilemma on self-ownership) from his belief in rights. He believed rights could be justified, but his justification for self-ownership is much closer to negative demonstrations in Aristotelianism or deontological arguments. Rothbard might've called it a right, but his arguments were not typical rights-arguments.
Moragauth 2 years ago
That guy, John, is definitely one of the smarter people that have been debating with Stef.
He makes the very basic point, that you can't compare objective facts with values. I'm surprised that Stef doesn't get that point.
freedom3001 2 years ago 3
"I'm surprised that Stef doesn't get that point."
Who says he doesn't. That's an assumption, is it not?
r0ck3td34th 2 years ago 3
True, but he's a rational guy and should therefore acknowledge that the point is true.
freedom3001 2 years ago
There are no "shoulds" without "ifs" (goals).
How do you know that stef's goal is to convey truth?
Is that not another assumption?
r0ck3td34th 2 years ago 2
You want me to find specific quotes where he claims to be aiming at truth, 'cause I'm pretty sure I've heard that more than a few times.
That's not to say that Stef is right in his assumption, but I's my clear impression that his aim is truth and his mean is reason.
freedom3001 2 years ago
Isn't that a circular argument?
"I know stef is telling the truth because he says he's telling the truth"?
He would say the same thing if he wasn't telling the truth, wouldn't he?
r0ck3td34th 2 years ago 2
I think you misunderstand my point.
I believe that he's taking the rational method seriously and that his aim is to uncover truth.
Sure, he might be lying about that aim but I don't think so. I think he's wrong sometimes because there are things that he doesn't get - maybe occasionally a type of unconscious denial. But I'm quite sure he's not consciously lying.
No, I can't prove it, it's my own impression from watching too man of those videos.
freedom3001 2 years ago
Like I said... it's an "assumption". All I'm suggeting is that you might want to reconsider some of your unconscious assumptions (in order to grasp the full scope of possibilities).
r0ck3td34th 2 years ago
Yes it's an assumption, I believe he's not lying about his motives. I don't need to consciously consider all options, that would be an impossible work load every time you did any kind of interaction with other people. I'm sure my unconscious would tell me if "it" had a reason to be suspicious.
If you have a specific reason to not trust Stef's motives I'd be happy to hear about it, otherwise this is just pointless theoretical arguing about what might be.
freedom3001 2 years ago
Furthermore, his motives are not that relevent, I use my own knowledge and critical reasoning to accept or refuse his points.
freedom3001 2 years ago
Any time someone makes a valid point in a debate with Stef he immediately acts confused, casting a shadow on the person right-off, then asks them to expound, then when they expound, he asks then to expound on that; he does this until he gets his foot in the door, so to speak, then redirects the conversation wherever he wants, mking hmslf lok right, regardless of whether or not it'll have anything to do with the initial point(s). He creates a mess and then asks the other person to clean it up.
regresseur 2 years ago 4
Obviously, but it's what allows him to get on top.
Moragauth 2 years ago
He's a manipulator.
Glad people have found it out.
: )
DeathSephirot 2 years ago 4
Let's replace "self ownership" with "automobile ownership". Does ownership remain "an is not an ought" with this substitution? Can we assert that anyone in posession of an automobile is the owner of the same? No? Then neither can we make that same claim with regard to our own selves without engaging in most egregious equivocation.
banderfargoyl 2 years ago
i wanna debate =(
yourboycal 2 years ago
The point of UPB is to not waste time evaluating propositions like "Murder is Moral'.
VCADD 2 years ago
This was a pretty terrible waste of time...
LastTrueLiberal 2 years ago
laughingman is mumbling out nonsense and backpeddling. could we please get an articulate debater in one of these vids-
debate D4shawn or confed
Oppp2 2 years ago 3
I'd be happy to debate stef. UPB could use a good karate chop to the eye.
D4Shawn 2 years ago 6
John messed up in saying that something can be universal and not universal; and not contradictory. This is not true, as it clearly is contradictory, in reality.
The thing John should have said is that "in some contexts certain rules apply, and in different contexts other rules apply".
For example, a person could logically say that murdering is not universally unjustified, and that in certain contexts, it is justifiable.
Sepero1 2 years ago
UPB is not synonymous with logic. I can certainly use logic to show that UPB is NOT logical (that it is a bogus/flawed argument). Of course, this would only matter to people who personally value logic, but if logic is our accepted standard, then yes, we can certainly use logic to disprove UPB (which despite your implications, is not the embodiment of logic).
r0ck3td34th 2 years ago 2
UPB is not an argument, but a methodology, you might want to get the basic facts right first...
stefbot 2 years ago
"UPB is not an argument, but a methodology"
Ok, we'll go with that. However, if you stick with me, I'll debunk this line of thinking as well.
What is UPB a methodology for?
r0ck3td34th 2 years ago 2
Grab a mic, let's debate! :)
stefbot 2 years ago
When?
r0ck3td34th 2 years ago 6
well, read the book, and give me a shout :)
stefbot 2 years ago
Ok, I've read the book. When would you like to debate. In an hour? Tomorrow?
What say you?
r0ck3td34th 2 years ago 10
Oh, well if you think that UPB is an argument, read it again, and we can talk more...
stefbot 2 years ago
You're not backing down now stef are you?
I mean... this whole thing was your idea.
r0ck3td34th 2 years ago 12
haha no, i just can't imagine you had read my book and come to the conclusion you did. i'm trying to up the quality of the debates...
stefbot 2 years ago
Well... there's a theory going around that says you're only willing to debate weak-kneed opponents who you don't feel threatened by. Personally, I usually disregard those sorts of rumors. However, you're kinda making me wonder...
You're not afraid of little ol' me, are ya?
r0ck3td34th 2 years ago 5
"Well... there's a theory going around that says you're only willing to debate weak-kneed opponents who you don't feel threatened by. Personally, I usually disregard those sorts of rumors. However, you're kinda making me wonder...
You're not afraid of little ol' me, are ya?"
I think it's pretty clear from this statement that you don't want to debate him.
catsajak 2 years ago
I'm quite prepared to debate him. I'm not the one backing down. I think that's pretty obvious.
I would much rather pwn him in a debate, than have to pwn him for not debting me. Honestly.
r0ck3td34th 2 years ago
Right, because when you want to have a serious debate with someone you must first imply that they are a coward.
catsajak 2 years ago 2
Um...
HE is the one who challenged me to a debate. It was HIS idea. As soon as I accepted, he backed down. Was he just bluffing? Is he a coward?
I honestly hope NOT.
I would genuinely like to debate him. I'll debate him right now.
r0ck3td34th 2 years ago 3
When did he back down?
If you seriously want to debate him then you should pursue it, I would just advise you that usually when you insult people it makes them not want to debate you.
catsajak 2 years ago
"When did he back down?"
Well... maybe I'm the one who's confused here. I'm perfectly willing to entertain that possibility. Perhaps you could do us all a favor and ask stef when the debate is to take place. If you can obtain that little bit of information, that would certainly dispel any misconceptions I might have about stef having "backed down".
Yeah... so just update me on the schedule, and we can go from there! I'd like to do it tonight.
r0ck3td34th 2 years ago 6
Anyways... enough of this silliness. You challenged me to a debate (which by the way, was AFTER my accusation that UPB was "an argument"), so let's pick a time. I've got oovoo. We can do it in a half hour as far as I'm concerned.
r0ck3td34th 2 years ago 7
honestly this was pointless... i got nothing out of it..
id like to see stef face some 'real' intellectuals.. profs
sexdrugsRnR 2 years ago
When someone describes "morality", they are not describing something in reality that conforms to natural laws. Rather, they are making up a term, and defining it to mean whatever they want. If you want to define "moral" as describing "a quality that is ascribed to an entire category of action/behavior, irrespective of any other factors", well, all you've done is made up a definition. Thus, your demand for "consistency in evaluating a type of action" is simply a result of your personal definition
r0ck3td34th 2 years ago 8
Stef,
Just as you can show the claim that "killing is moral" to be absurd, I can just as easily show the claim that "killing is immoral" to be equally absurd.
There is no basis upon which either statement can be justified.
This is why people have pointed out on numerous occasions that UPB can not make a positive case for the existence of morality.
Just as "rights" are "unicorns" and constitute "magical thinking", so is/does "morality".
r0ck3td34th 2 years ago 7
You might want to read the (free) book before criticizing the theory... And of course morality does not exist, neither does the scientific method - that does not mean that either is arbitrary or subjective... :)
stefbot 2 years ago
I've read your book, and my criticisms are valid.
The difference between UPB and science, is that science describes the natural world, whereas UPB describes it's own invention/logical construct (much like the Bible does).
r0ck3td34th 2 years ago 7
Ah, then you should point out the logical contradictions, with references, and not just state things as if they are true.
stefbot 2 years ago
I can prove my point quite simply:
When someone says "Murder is 'moral'", how could you possibly evaluate that claim?
To do so, you would have to either:
a) know what they mean by "moral", or
b) just make up your own definition (in which case, you are simply evaluating a construct that you invented in order to produce a given result when evaluated).
Since UPB can not evaluate a word in terms of meaning, all it can do (instead) is invent it's own construct called "morality".
r0ck3td34th 2 years ago 3
"And of course morality does not exist"
You have argued (in this video) that morality exists as a "physical property" within human beings. This is the grounds upon which you argue that putting a hat on somebody doesn't alter their "fundamental properties" (a.k.a. "moral nature").
r0ck3td34th 2 years ago 5
That is not my argument, although it is subtle. My argument is that you cannot create universal rules about preferable human behavior, and then arbitrarily exclude certain human beings - just as a biologist cannot create a rule that "mammals are warm blooded" and then arbitrarily exclude warm blooded creatures.
stefbot 2 years ago
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.
"Mammal" is just a word. Warm blooded animals are mammals simply by definition. A biologist certainly could change "the rule" (i.e. the definition [just as you change the definition of "self-ownership"]).
When you create two categories called "moral" and "immoral" in which you place different actions, someone else could certainly create two different categories, *or* use those two words to describe something other than types of actions.
r0ck3td34th 2 years ago 4
'"Mammal" is just a word. Warm blooded animals are mammals simply by definition.A biologist certainly could change "the rule"'
You can generalize it to: Let Y be a unique defining property of X. Can not(Y) be a property of X as well?
modelmark 2 years ago
It is based on the premise that a moral theory should be consistent for all humans like the theory of gravity should be valid for all masses. If you don't subscribe to that premise, there is nothing to base any moral claim on.
modelmark 2 years ago
Well first of all... I know that "consistency" is a nice little buzzword you guys like, but it doesn't actually mean anything the way you are using it. You are referring specifically to "consistency in evaluating a given type/category of action".
I can easily come up with a consistent moral philosophy (one that applies universally to everybody), and yet allows different people to commit different actions:
"Everybody should do, that which they have both the power and desire to do."
r0ck3td34th 2 years ago 2
"know that "consistency" is a nice little buzzword you guys like, but it doesn't actually mean anything the way you are using it."
Very condescendingly put. Are you accusing me that I use consistency in an inconsistent way?
modelmark 2 years ago
"Are you accusing me that I use consistency in an inconsistent way?"
No. I'm accusing you of using the word in a way that is too vague to hold meaning.
r0ck3td34th 2 years ago
John struggles in this video with contradictions on the validation of theories. There
1.theories on physical stuff in reality
2.theories on morality
3.theories on theories of morality
He claims 1's can be validated/invalidated with the scientific method, 2's can not, but 3's can, namely upb is wrong and his is right.
Stefbot was inconsistent when he says at 3.55:rights for me do not exist in any form at all, while he made a video:the proof of property rights
modelmark 2 years ago
Was my moral philosophy "consistent" in the way you were using the word, or do you need to clarify what you mean by "consistent"?
Here it is again:
"Everybody should do, that which they have both the power and desire to do."
r0ck3td34th 2 years ago
"Everybody should do, that which they have both the power and desire to do."
This might be consistent but it's logically impossible. What one person has the power and desire to do may conflict with what another person has the power and desire to do. So people could not use this philosophy universally at all times.
catsajak 2 years ago
"What one person has the power and desire to do may conflict with what another person has the power and desire to do."
If two people conflict, and reach a statemate (due to equal power), then neither of them had sufficient power to accomplish their desire (in which case the criteria was not completely met). If one person overcomes the other, then the other did not meet the required criteria (didn't have the power).
I never said that people "should have the power to do what they desire".
r0ck3td34th 2 years ago 4
If two people conflict, and reach a statemate (due to equal power), then neither of them had sufficient power to accomplish their desire (in which case the criteria was not completely met). If one person overcomes the other, then the other did not meet the required criteria (didn't have the power).
OK, well this just seems to be more of a descriptive then a prescriptive statement. I don't see how a person could not follow this criteria.
catsajak 2 years ago
"OK, well this just seems to be more of a descriptive then a prescriptive statement."
The only aspect of "ethics" that can legitimately be prescriptive is the aspect we call (basic pragmatism). We can derive "oughts" (options) from "ifs" (goals).
"I don't see how a person could not follow this criteria."
For that (fair) objection, I would add a bit on the end:
Everybody should do, that which they have both the power and desire to do, without regard for any other moral considerations
r0ck3td34th 2 years ago
So do you personally want people to engage in violent force to accomplish what they want?
overmind25 2 years ago
Are we talking about in my wildest dreams, or are we talking about the real world (where what I want really isn't that relevant in the greater scheme of things)?
r0ck3td34th 2 years ago
Your values.
overmind25 2 years ago
I don't think the question has any meaning.
Yeah, it would be nice to live on a planet where everybody agreed and there was no competition over resources or preferences, and everybody had everything they wanted, and everybody settled their disputes peacefully, and respected the wishes of others, even when they contradicted their own (which I guess is a logical impossibility), but that... has absolutely nothing to do with the planet we live upon.
r0ck3td34th 2 years ago
I understand the current problem. I am asking if that is what you are for over peaceful exisitence, I am more interested in what you are for, not what others in a particular time period are for when I am asking you this question.
overmind25 2 years ago
I just don't really understand the question.
Are you basically asking, "If you were God and could create a perfect world, what would you have people do?"
r0ck3td34th 2 years ago
No, I am asking if you are for peaceful coexistence over aggressive violence. If you do not want to answer that is fine.
overmind25 2 years ago
'The only aspect of "ethics" that can legitimately be prescriptive is the aspect we call (basic pragmatism). We can derive "oughts" (options) from "ifs" (goals).'
Is that a prescriptive statement from your side? Why can you prescribe others what is possible to say about ethics and what is your criterion for a true statement in these matters? How do you distinguish between a false statement on ethics (UPB) and a true one (yours)? Is there a general principle you use for that?
modelmark 2 years ago
Comment removed
D4Shawn 2 years ago
"Everybody should do, that which they have both the power and desire to do, without regard for any other moral considerations"
That can't be applied to all. Some people desire to act with other moral considerations. Since they don't desire doing things without regarding these, there is no desire to speak of which they should act upon, and so they still would be allowed to regard moral considerations, but they aren't allowed to do that according to the rule as well, which makes it inconsistent.
Censeo 2 years ago
Firstly, if someone desires to do nothing, that does not violate the principal.
Secondly, since when is an ethical prescription invalidated because people don't want to adhere to it? If I said that people shouldn't murder, would that be "inconsistent" because some people want to murder?
If so, any prescription is easily invalidated, and there's absolutely no point at all to ethics. While I may agree with that conclusion, I don't agree with your reasoning.
goodwithgirls 2 years ago
"If I said that people shouldn't murder, would that be "inconsistent" because some people want to murder?"
No, but the claim wasn't that people shouldn't want to murder, and it is not contradictory to restrain yourself from murder even if you want to. But in the example people should have desires that they don't have, and that is an impossibility.
Censeo 2 years ago
you can also say:"every one should murder" and claim it is consistent. Not everyone can show that behavior without it leading to a contradiction. That is another requirement for preferable behavior for humans: that every human should be able to show it and no on e is condemned to be immoral.
So your formulation is very clever. Still if the resulting actions encompass murder or theft, they would violate universality of property rights (simultaneous denial and acceptance of property rights)
modelmark 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Stef, are you implying that we can verify empirically whether a given action is "moral" or not?
I suppose that could be true depending on your definition of "moral".
For example, if I define "moral" as meaning "red in color", we can certainly verify empirically whether a given thing is "moral" (a.k.a. red) or not.
How then, are you defining "moral" in order to make this empirical verification possible? What physical attributes are being assigned to the term "moral"?
r0ck3td34th 2 years ago 5