@thevoice81111 However, he makes him self known on internet, while I never heard of those people you refer to. They probably hiding in their state financed ivory tower.
I wish Stefan would stop letting XOmniverse go off tangents. I was really surprised how XO just kept going redundantly about things like abstractions (having contradicted himself) and how concepts are more important than the essence to which it represents.
So, you're saying that Eudaimonia fails the UPB test because it's possible for someone to live a long and happy life while screwing up other people's lives. (Who put up with it because they're living by moral theories that also fail the UPB test.)
haha check out the confusion of stefan's face arround mine 30, haha he is like, "what tha fuck r u talking bout???".... heh,
this guy lacks ability to express him self, i kinda get what he says, but im not sure if he even knows what he means exacly, he needs to organize his ideas better.
Very good debate :) I enjoyd and it actually were very useful to see, why some people do not like UPB, as if it tries to steal their free choice. It doesn't. Like Stef said, it's a framework, a method. You can like it or not, but it is truth.
I see the solution of hedonism in Ayn Rand's Objectivist Ethics: "'Happiness' can properly be the purpose of ethics, but not the standard." That happiness, life, and each individual is an end in themselves. I see UPB as an attempt to define ethics while rejecting the individual--but each "relationship" ultimately breaks down to the "individuals," which Molyneux rejects. He brings up some pretty good overall points concerning ethics, but in reason, I see his primary as invalid.
I was waiting the whole time for you to pick up on the fact he misunderstood ethics. Ethics is inherently a social metric. If a given action has no effect on other people, it doesn't have an ethical connotation. This is why he kept criticizing UPB as a metric for decisions as a whole. A point I thought you could make sooner is that people use false arguments/ethics to justify unethical/immoral behavior and UPB deals with disproving them. Would have made it easier.
That was a great debate: mature, minimal one-upmanship, both Shawn and Stef seemed like they benefited. Sometimes it was too philosophically technical for me, but I really admire the clarity and stamina of both debaters in breaking down complex structures.
Shawn considers people, with no unhealthy habits, boring.
I would consider living as healthily as possible and avoiding damage to your own body as the ideal. So why is that way of life so often considered boring? Are these just the words of someone who is addicted to self damaging behaviour? Is it threatening to find no weaknesses in a person and relief to uncover them?
I found UPB to be a logical formula to weigh ethical theories not a system of behavior. Which is quite a handy tool to have in such an unethical world.
@Colilace1 Its free if you openly consent to it, and you have the choice to choose another, make your own, or none at all. The system we have in the US isn't free because the government implies consent through the "social contract".
I've read it, and have exactly the same criticism. UPB says ethical theories must be logically consistent, and it even states that every "ought" has a standard by which it is judged to be consistent or not. At the beginning it denounces the Objectivist idea that one's life is the standard of morality, yet it goes on to say that UPB is used to judge things in accordance with this same standard. It fails to identify the ROOT standard as being life - since all action depends upon one being alive.
About the part where you guys discussed whether or not it was okay to jump throught window...
When someone gets shot we don't blame the gun for their death but we blame the person who pulled the trigger. Taking this into account the home owner does not have a right to demand restitution from the guy who jumped the the window to save his life. But the homeowner should be allowed to demand restitution from the men that put the guy on the pole in the first place.
The man who jumped through the window was acting on instict......you can't reasonably expect him to allow himself to die just as you cannot expect a bullet to go to trial for murder. You blame the people who put the guy on the pole for damaging the window... not the guy that was forcibly put up there.
What are you talking about? I'm hardly asking anyone to re-write a book by asking for a brief summarization; and you must have spent what, 5 minutes responding to me, if that? Just, generally if people strongly believe in something, they're willing to at least partially explain it to others. I don't have a "problem" reading the book I just haven't got round to it yet. I'll go read it and then I will come back; I expect with the same question..
Erm, it takes rather a lot longer to read a book than it does to write a few lines in response on here.. Plus I find it more enjoyable to learn through discussion rather than just reading something. Anyway, that's not much of an answer. So why is murder immoral (or.. inconsistent) according to UPB? What is it inconsistent with?
I find it annoying how Xomniverse seeks to disprove the effectiveness of UPB without any proof at all.
Stef, you're absolutely right that avg people do not adhere to logic. Proving their own beliefs to be inconsistent makes a 1000 times stronger argument.
I like the way you seek to find "what works best". It is excellent and what everyone should strive for in every aspect of their life.
Great Vid. I hope you do more debate stuff like this.
The simple answer is because most peoples beliefs aren't logical, they're emotional (like religion and patriotism). If beliefs were logical, they wouldn't be so easy to conflict.
I don't think the "effectiveness" of UPB is particularly important; as you said 9 out of 10 people will be moved by strong emotion and this is no less the case here. The charismatic way in which Stef promotes UPB will doubtlessly persuade many people. That's not to say UPB has no logic in it, because I don't think it's far off the mark in many ways. Anyway, the important thing is whether it's right or not, something which I'll decide for myself once I read the book.
I don't think the "effectiveness" of UPB is particularly important
-D4rkReaver13
I disagree, but that's ok. And yes, Stef does appear more charismatic, though I don't agree with him on every topic (ie. procrastination).
The importance of 'right or not' is obviously first priority. The importance of 'effectiveness' depends on another goal- a goal that Stef and I closely share. That goal is the desire to change not only ourselves, but -Others-. Preferably in a way that benefits the future. :-)
Well, I personally wouldn't really want an idea spread around for the wrong reasons (especially if the idea is false). If people just go along with it without really understanding it then you're bound to see big problems later on. Believing in something which is true = good. Believing in something because it gives you a nice fuzzy feeling = bad (even if it's true). At least, that's my view. :)
effectiveness is important. Just like with a scientific method - it works, it is consistent and etc, so it must be true (well, not absolute truth, but for many situations). So if UPB is effective, and it is consistent - it is true, just like with scientific method. That's my opinion
Logic and empiricism.. But morality is a quality and therefore requires some STANDARD. The standard of heat is energy, the standard of age is time.. etc. Something is logically moral or immoral according to SOMETHING. What is that something? If there is no standard, there is nothing to observe and apply logic to, and thus no morality (this is not my view, but is the result of not having a standard).
Logic and empiricism are the methods, not the standard. You can't judge morality with logic and empiricism without a standard (i.e. without defining what morality actually is), that's like judging heat without defining what energy is.
So hence why I'm asking, by what standard does UPB judge this consistency? XOmniverse read it, and apparently he couldn't find an answer. He's an intelligent guy so I'm just going with that for now. UPB is the only book of Stef's I haven't read yet, and I do plan to, but I am very busy at the moment. I thought I could at least get a short answer to what I asked by now.
the Gilded Age was largely an age of unbridled capitalism wherein the government allowed businesses to do anything they pretty much wanted and mostly sided with them to the detriment of the public interest.
Monopolies naturally form in an unregulated, or poorly regulated, business environment because of externalities and an uneven playing field. Wealth also makes more wealth, and the lack of anti-trust regulation promotes the infamous vertical and horizontal integration practices of S.O.
"the government allowed businesses to do anything they pretty much wanted and mostly sided with them to the detriment of the public interest."
Thank you for proving our point. The rest of what you wrote DOES NOT follow from this. (Non Sequitur). It is the PRESENCE of regulation, poor or not, that ALLOWS monopolies to exist in the long term. Short term monopolies are always broken in the market as other products of a similar nature compete or even out compete the original.
The only type of person that you're going to convince to abide by your morality are those weak individuals that you are able to decieve that it is the "right thing to do," and then who find some kind of psychological comfort in doing the "right thing" just for the sake of it being the "right thing." Rational people, who live for maximizing happiness in life, will pay your moral principles no heed.
Yeah, I've read Nietzsche too, and his desire to justify for exploitation arose from weakness and fear, and he lived a miserable life. I'd be happy to send you a free copy of the UPB book, just send me an email through the web site... :)
No reasoned rebuttal, as I expected. I'll go on living with the purpose of having a long healthy and happy life, and only abiding by rules which are conducive to that. Your apparent claim that such a life plan leads to miserable life is absurd on its face. Send your book to someone more gullible.
I can tell you one thing brother - I can tell you that happy people are not so rude and insulting towards others. I have treated you with respect and kindness, and you sneer at me. That is not strength, or happiness, but fear, insecurity and self-loathing. Please do not post here again.
LOL. I can tell you one thing. Your face is the face of a depressed person if I've ever seen one. So many worry lines it looks like a road map. If you take my advice and live to be happy instead of "moral," you don't have to be so crestfallen. You'll be a new man. You don't have to listen to me. I'm just offering some friendly advice to a fellow man.
Whatever opinions you might have of stefbot, I can assure you, DackBev, that you are almost always a prick every time I see you comment on a video (and that includes my own).
If aggressing against someone helps preserve my life or make it more enjoyable, then why should I abide by your UPB? That's the issue. An ethical principle that ought to be followed regardless of the consequences to myself of following it, is useless and therefore, as an egoist, I'm going to discard it.
So your objection is that a sadist enjoys hurting people? So your objection is simply that you find what egoism leads to is disastful or offensive. That doens't refute they guy (Xomniverse) at all.
This was awesome! I'm fans of you both. This video also increased my understanding of UPB. Great discussion! It also goes to show that people named Shawn are usually totally rad.
I think these theories work together. I also believe that without egoism, UPB is mute. Egoism is the premise to everything and anything. Also UPB is based off of the principal of universality. if someone does not accept universal morality, UPB will not work. Someone can say "It is right for me to punch John because I am me. John can not punch back because he is not me." This makes it so it does matter where someone "plants their flag".
UPB cannot refute subjective preferences ("I don't like science"), since they are not universal statements. If, however, this is meant in the manner of "nutrition is irrelevant to me," then it can be refuted as false.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Not everyone who is poor lives in an apartment, and it's absurd to think they should have to rely on others who might or might also not be able to afford it.
Such basic needs should never be relying on a profit motive where they can actually deny you critical service if you can't pay.
That's one reason capitalism fails with healthcare as well.
By what standard does UPB judge whether something is moral or immoral? Logic alone can't judge something as either of these. Objectivism uses an individual's life as the standard, as it is the fundamental alternative that human beings face, and it goes from there. To me this is the absolutely key thing to consider.
Science goes by the standard of fact. Science is about what IS, but ethics is about what one OUGHT to do, and therefore requires a standard to judge by, since oughts don't exist otherwise.
"If we don't have something that does not require any agreement beforehand ... What I was trying to do was to say that I don't want any system of ethics that requires any prior agreement with anything ... What I wanted to do was to try and created an approach of ethics that could steamroller over anyone no matter what premises they accepted ... [One] where I could just take people like that down..." - Stefbot 32:50
Now, I haven't read your book, but how you intend on having someone in agreement with you about non-agression, while also not in agreement with - or at least in obeyance of - you... Well, that's something I'd have to see to believe.
If you're gonna have a "debate" then treat it like a god damn debate. Stef I want you to stop beating around the bush and respond to this guy like a man. He had some solid points but I can tell you were ready to pounce on some of his weaker points time and time again. DO IT! it will make for a powerful and meaningful debate. thx
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The problem with libertarians is that they only think of themselves. "Me me me, I can I can, I got mine, screw you." That's their philosophy in a nutshell as is evidenced by Ghostrider's assertion that he doesn't support x because he can take care of himself fine. Good for you. Most aren't that lucky. That's short-sighted anyway. Disgusting beliefs that put private property and freedom above public utility, despite the fact that you suck at the gub'ment teat while whining about how bad it is.
And why would an individual home owner not pay the fire department? If you can afford a house you can afford the fire department. It's certainly not a very expensive service. For a home owner it would really be a matter of personal choice and who are you or who is anyone to force me to pay for a service for someone that they would freely choose to go without.
And why would they go without it anyway? Home owners insurance rates would skyrocket if they did. It just wouldn't make sense
No, a private police and fire department wouldn't be adequate. Given it's not a public service, they have no incentive to supply the service if you can't pay for it. The bottom line. Imagine your house on fire and you can't pay the fire department to come put it out. Oh well! I guess your house burns down.
Same with the police. Cant afford their service? Only those who can will be protected! Too bad for the poor! Libertarian "fuck em" philosophy at work, yet again.
Technocratic, I am afraid I don't understand. Let's just look at this from a practical monetary standpoint. Most people who wouldn't be able to afford to pay the fire service would likely live in apartment buildings. Each individual resident wouldn't have to pay for the fire service, it wouldn't make sense, it's all the same building. So it would be a collective effort, likely to be included everyones rent.
I'll give you an alternative perspective: "ethics" and "morality" are entirely artificial constructs. Useful perhaps, in certain contexts, but artificial nonetheless.
I advise against assuming that "value" is universal. If, for example, a masochist values being abused now more than "health and life" later that's perfectly legitimite.
Even "happy" and "life" not fundamentally desireable goals. Some might not value those things. Allow people to make their own choices.
Suggesting that people are doing the "right" or "wrong" thing when busting windows or stealing apples is completely non-sequitor.
Assigning "right" and "wrong" is equally as subjective and aesthetic as preferring "happy" over "sad."
You may or may not choose to bust the window, or steal the apple. And the owner of that apple or window may or may not choose to seek restitution. There is no "right." There is no "wrong."
t3z2pulm: If there's no such thing as universal value (by which it seems you mean universal truth), how should I compare the usefulness of your extensive statements here to the usefulness of, say, a blow to the head with a blunt instrument?
(1) My mistake. (2) So upon what basis do I determine whether or not to listen to any of your arguments? I'd hate to waste my time, but if there's no objectively preferable method of separating truth from falsehood, then I'm not sure I can do anything BUT waste my time when talking about truth or falsehood.
Nowhere in the above do I even mention "truth" or "falsehood." Why are you implying that I did? In the above, I'm not meaning "right" as in "correct." I'm meaning it as in "you have a right to do this" and "your behavior was in the right" and "might makes right." These ideas don't have any more validity than our sense of preference gives them.
But this has nothing particularly to do with truth.
Any statement is either a true statement or a false statement. You don't need to mention it for it to apply to everything you say. But if you're saying that truth and falsehood are different per person, then I think it's scarcely worth debating any longer. If you're right, we're both fools to try to convince one another of anything, and if you're wrong, then one of us is a fool and it's not really a debate. Even if it's only a specific set of ideas that this subjectivity pertains to.
Now, to answer the question, I would repeat the answer I gave in (3) above. Evaluate as you choose. If you find a perspective useful, then by all means use it. If you don't, then feel free to discard it.
Could not a private fire department work just as well, if not better using a subscription fee? Why should I rely on the police to protect me if I have the right to protect myself?
If people had thought ahead and planned for to take care of themselves why would they need government health care?
The point I'm trying to make is that I could take care of myself, in all aspects of my life if only I didn't have to take care of everyone else thanks to the government.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The government provides valuable services to the population using tax monies. A theif doesn't give you anything. Ergo, the analogy with a thief is extremely flawed.
Moreover, most "anarchists" and "Libertarians" are absurd hypocrits, given they suck up government resources and services with glee while they spew their anti-government claptrap.
If we actually implemented your system, society would collapse back into the 19th century Guilded Age. We did that. Been there. Doesn't work well.
Robin Hood was a thief. He STOLE from the rich to give to the poor. Regardless of what one does with the money, the act of using force or the threat of force to confiscate the property of someone else is THEFT.
If I steal everything you have in the bank because my daughter needs an operation, is that not still theft? How is government funded health care any better.
How is it any better when the government is the one with the gun demanding your money than a common street thug doing so?
Too bad your Guilded Age was the birth of government created and maintained monopolies.
Sears provide the essential service of changing my tires, the doctor provides the indispensable service of professional health care and advice. Should these service providers be able to force me to pay for their services regardless of my choice to use them or not?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
So those that live off of the state are a minority, but the majority is the victim of it? That's fascinating, given that nearly everyone owes something to society and the government because they have used services and products provided by it, without which, their lives would be of lower quality.
That's fascinating because without the taxes that the general population pays to the government those services would be impossible to provide. So the government doesn't pay for anything, i hadn't seen the government as an agent making money, they just steal it. So we don't owe nothing to the State because they steal from as. No more than what you owe to a thief that mug you 1000$ and later on buy you a drink of 1 $.
"given that nearly everyone owes something to society and the government because they have used services and products provided by it" So if I showed up at your house and remodelled your kitchen without your permission, should I be justified in forcing you to pay me?
5 stars again. Just want to say this was a great debate. I was wondering Stef if you have the audio of the debate with the guy who advocated that the war on Iraq was moral and you used UPB and if you do, can you post a link here plz?
So it's a framework for validating ethical theories? I thought it was a rational proof of secular ethics. That was the subtitle, after all.
themadhatter114 7 months ago
@themadhatter114 A rational proof for ethical theories is more accurate I think.
andrewh817 5 months ago
I think Stefan Molyneux is a chicken shit. He never debates any intellectual theistic Philosophers like Dr William Lane Craig, Dr Keith Ward etc.
He just debates lightweights
thevoice81111 9 months ago
@thevoice81111 However, he makes him self known on internet, while I never heard of those people you refer to. They probably hiding in their state financed ivory tower.
TerrierBram 7 months ago
@thevoice81111 What arguments do they have?
sniped101 2 weeks ago
fun debate not very structured imo =P
Batta0909 9 months ago
Are there any ethics completely removed from consequentialism?
LordAgonis 1 year ago
0:55:31 war = immoral, link please?
chitchcott 1 year ago
ah man, i can't find my upi bee joke between the comments, ah wel, here it is again:
Hey guys, what's a upi bee?
mmm....seems less funny...wonder why
anarchiberty 2 years ago
kidding...clear debate!
thanks...
anarchiberty 2 years ago
I wish Stefan would stop letting XOmniverse go off tangents. I was really surprised how XO just kept going redundantly about things like abstractions (having contradicted himself) and how concepts are more important than the essence to which it represents.
blapperz 2 years ago
I don't think I have the ability to control his behavior in that way...
stefbot 2 years ago
Oh my god! I'm such a big fan!
I feel like a star struck school girl. Your "Death of Concepts" video changed my life! It actually inspired my comment.
I've noticed since then how often people confuse the conceptual representation of a thing with the thing itself.
You rock man!
PS I wish I could see more of the Badnarik debate, your opening was brillinat.
blapperz 2 years ago
lol, nice come back man
pelucas716 2 years ago
its k tho, first time he ever responded to one of my comments i almost pissed me pants as well :)
pelucas716 2 years ago
lol
glopur0 2 years ago
So, you're saying that Eudaimonia fails the UPB test because it's possible for someone to live a long and happy life while screwing up other people's lives. (Who put up with it because they're living by moral theories that also fail the UPB test.)
OldWhig1688 2 years ago
haha check out the confusion of stefan's face arround mine 30, haha he is like, "what tha fuck r u talking bout???".... heh,
this guy lacks ability to express him self, i kinda get what he says, but im not sure if he even knows what he means exacly, he needs to organize his ideas better.
pelucas716 2 years ago
Very good debate :) I enjoyd and it actually were very useful to see, why some people do not like UPB, as if it tries to steal their free choice. It doesn't. Like Stef said, it's a framework, a method. You can like it or not, but it is truth.
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
thanks, I agree, if everyone liked the truth already, we would not need philosophy! :)
stefbot 2 years ago
I see the solution of hedonism in Ayn Rand's Objectivist Ethics: "'Happiness' can properly be the purpose of ethics, but not the standard." That happiness, life, and each individual is an end in themselves. I see UPB as an attempt to define ethics while rejecting the individual--but each "relationship" ultimately breaks down to the "individuals," which Molyneux rejects. He brings up some pretty good overall points concerning ethics, but in reason, I see his primary as invalid.
runningfrog43 2 years ago
Some constructive criticism:
I was waiting the whole time for you to pick up on the fact he misunderstood ethics. Ethics is inherently a social metric. If a given action has no effect on other people, it doesn't have an ethical connotation. This is why he kept criticizing UPB as a metric for decisions as a whole. A point I thought you could make sooner is that people use false arguments/ethics to justify unethical/immoral behavior and UPB deals with disproving them. Would have made it easier.
enotdetcelfer 3 years ago
very enjoyable, thats for posting.
enotdetcelfer 3 years ago
That was a great debate: mature, minimal one-upmanship, both Shawn and Stef seemed like they benefited. Sometimes it was too philosophically technical for me, but I really admire the clarity and stamina of both debaters in breaking down complex structures.
Thank you both :)
Valelacerte 3 years ago
Shawn considers people, with no unhealthy habits, boring.
I would consider living as healthily as possible and avoiding damage to your own body as the ideal. So why is that way of life so often considered boring? Are these just the words of someone who is addicted to self damaging behaviour? Is it threatening to find no weaknesses in a person and relief to uncover them?
Valelacerte 3 years ago
I found UPB to be a logical formula to weigh ethical theories not a system of behavior. Which is quite a handy tool to have in such an unethical world.
DCLugi 3 years ago
wow
iSaBeL8439 3 years ago
Good video.
overmind25 3 years ago
OMG...Shawn, you need to learn how to pronounce Eudaimonia, if you are going to use it as the center of your ethical approach.
you-day-mow-knee-uh
AestheticizeAnalog 3 years ago
decision making is a process. a lot of writings on it, but simply it is just elimination and practiicality
KarakanKizilBayrak 3 years ago
being a nurse isn't an ethical decision
KarakanKizilBayrak 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
free market works?? not lately!
KarakanKizilBayrak 3 years ago
who said we have a free market
jblive1985 3 years ago 2
I do.
KarakanKizilBayrak 3 years ago
It's not free when it's regulated and taxed.
Colilace1 3 years ago 5
@Colilace1 Its free if you openly consent to it, and you have the choice to choose another, make your own, or none at all. The system we have in the US isn't free because the government implies consent through the "social contract".
ProDCloud 11 months ago
lmao at 31:16
turnbacktime 3 years ago
I WATCH THE VIDEO IN ITS ENTIRETY!!!!!
JetsMets4Life 3 years ago
I've read it, and have exactly the same criticism. UPB says ethical theories must be logically consistent, and it even states that every "ought" has a standard by which it is judged to be consistent or not. At the beginning it denounces the Objectivist idea that one's life is the standard of morality, yet it goes on to say that UPB is used to judge things in accordance with this same standard. It fails to identify the ROOT standard as being life - since all action depends upon one being alive.
D4rkReaver13 3 years ago 2
About the part where you guys discussed whether or not it was okay to jump throught window...
When someone gets shot we don't blame the gun for their death but we blame the person who pulled the trigger. Taking this into account the home owner does not have a right to demand restitution from the guy who jumped the the window to save his life. But the homeowner should be allowed to demand restitution from the men that put the guy on the pole in the first place.
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
The man who jumped through the window was acting on instict......you can't reasonably expect him to allow himself to die just as you cannot expect a bullet to go to trial for murder. You blame the people who put the guy on the pole for damaging the window... not the guy that was forcibly put up there.
DaveDoggOwns 3 years ago
What are you talking about? I'm hardly asking anyone to re-write a book by asking for a brief summarization; and you must have spent what, 5 minutes responding to me, if that? Just, generally if people strongly believe in something, they're willing to at least partially explain it to others. I don't have a "problem" reading the book I just haven't got round to it yet. I'll go read it and then I will come back; I expect with the same question..
D4rkReaver13 3 years ago 2
I find it bizarre that nobody seems to want to just explain the damn thing. Is it really so vastly complex that it can't possibly be summarized?
D4rkReaver13 3 years ago
Erm, it takes rather a lot longer to read a book than it does to write a few lines in response on here.. Plus I find it more enjoyable to learn through discussion rather than just reading something. Anyway, that's not much of an answer. So why is murder immoral (or.. inconsistent) according to UPB? What is it inconsistent with?
D4rkReaver13 3 years ago
I find it annoying how Xomniverse seeks to disprove the effectiveness of UPB without any proof at all.
Stef, you're absolutely right that avg people do not adhere to logic. Proving their own beliefs to be inconsistent makes a 1000 times stronger argument.
I like the way you seek to find "what works best". It is excellent and what everyone should strive for in every aspect of their life.
Great Vid. I hope you do more debate stuff like this.
Sepero1 3 years ago
If people do not adhere to logic, why would demonstrating that their beliefs are inconsistent (e.g. illogical) work?
XOmniverse 3 years ago
Thanks for writing in. :-)
The simple answer is because most peoples beliefs aren't logical, they're emotional (like religion and patriotism). If beliefs were logical, they wouldn't be so easy to conflict.
Sepero1 3 years ago
My point is people 1 out of 10 people will be moved by strong logic, but 9 out of 10 people will be moved by strong emotion.
Sepero1 3 years ago 2
I don't think the "effectiveness" of UPB is particularly important; as you said 9 out of 10 people will be moved by strong emotion and this is no less the case here. The charismatic way in which Stef promotes UPB will doubtlessly persuade many people. That's not to say UPB has no logic in it, because I don't think it's far off the mark in many ways. Anyway, the important thing is whether it's right or not, something which I'll decide for myself once I read the book.
D4rkReaver13 3 years ago 2
I don't think the "effectiveness" of UPB is particularly important
-D4rkReaver13
I disagree, but that's ok. And yes, Stef does appear more charismatic, though I don't agree with him on every topic (ie. procrastination).
The importance of 'right or not' is obviously first priority. The importance of 'effectiveness' depends on another goal- a goal that Stef and I closely share. That goal is the desire to change not only ourselves, but -Others-. Preferably in a way that benefits the future. :-)
Sepero1 3 years ago
Well, I personally wouldn't really want an idea spread around for the wrong reasons (especially if the idea is false). If people just go along with it without really understanding it then you're bound to see big problems later on. Believing in something which is true = good. Believing in something because it gives you a nice fuzzy feeling = bad (even if it's true). At least, that's my view. :)
D4rkReaver13 3 years ago
We agree
Sepero1 3 years ago
if it has fuzzy feeling is irrelevant, the most important thing is truth.
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
effectiveness is important. Just like with a scientific method - it works, it is consistent and etc, so it must be true (well, not absolute truth, but for many situations). So if UPB is effective, and it is consistent - it is true, just like with scientific method. That's my opinion
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
As an Objectivist, I think one's own life is the standard by which morality should be judged.
D4rkReaver13 3 years ago
Logic and empiricism.. But morality is a quality and therefore requires some STANDARD. The standard of heat is energy, the standard of age is time.. etc. Something is logically moral or immoral according to SOMETHING. What is that something? If there is no standard, there is nothing to observe and apply logic to, and thus no morality (this is not my view, but is the result of not having a standard).
D4rkReaver13 3 years ago
Logic and empiricism are the methods, not the standard. You can't judge morality with logic and empiricism without a standard (i.e. without defining what morality actually is), that's like judging heat without defining what energy is.
D4rkReaver13 3 years ago
So hence why I'm asking, by what standard does UPB judge this consistency? XOmniverse read it, and apparently he couldn't find an answer. He's an intelligent guy so I'm just going with that for now. UPB is the only book of Stef's I haven't read yet, and I do plan to, but I am very busy at the moment. I thought I could at least get a short answer to what I asked by now.
D4rkReaver13 3 years ago
the Gilded Age was largely an age of unbridled capitalism wherein the government allowed businesses to do anything they pretty much wanted and mostly sided with them to the detriment of the public interest.
Monopolies naturally form in an unregulated, or poorly regulated, business environment because of externalities and an uneven playing field. Wealth also makes more wealth, and the lack of anti-trust regulation promotes the infamous vertical and horizontal integration practices of S.O.
Technocratic 3 years ago
"the government allowed businesses to do anything they pretty much wanted and mostly sided with them to the detriment of the public interest."
Thank you for proving our point. The rest of what you wrote DOES NOT follow from this. (Non Sequitur). It is the PRESENCE of regulation, poor or not, that ALLOWS monopolies to exist in the long term. Short term monopolies are always broken in the market as other products of a similar nature compete or even out compete the original.
Kbiomech 3 years ago
Technocratic is one of the most state indoctrinated and totally enslaved "good citizens" I've seen lately. He grovels well at the feet of Marx.
tesla921 3 years ago
The only type of person that you're going to convince to abide by your morality are those weak individuals that you are able to decieve that it is the "right thing to do," and then who find some kind of psychological comfort in doing the "right thing" just for the sake of it being the "right thing." Rational people, who live for maximizing happiness in life, will pay your moral principles no heed.
DackBev 3 years ago
Yeah, I've read Nietzsche too, and his desire to justify for exploitation arose from weakness and fear, and he lived a miserable life. I'd be happy to send you a free copy of the UPB book, just send me an email through the web site... :)
stefbot 3 years ago
No reasoned rebuttal, as I expected. I'll go on living with the purpose of having a long healthy and happy life, and only abiding by rules which are conducive to that. Your apparent claim that such a life plan leads to miserable life is absurd on its face. Send your book to someone more gullible.
DackBev 3 years ago
I can tell you one thing brother - I can tell you that happy people are not so rude and insulting towards others. I have treated you with respect and kindness, and you sneer at me. That is not strength, or happiness, but fear, insecurity and self-loathing. Please do not post here again.
stefbot 3 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
LOL. I can tell you one thing. Your face is the face of a depressed person if I've ever seen one. So many worry lines it looks like a road map. If you take my advice and live to be happy instead of "moral," you don't have to be so crestfallen. You'll be a new man. You don't have to listen to me. I'm just offering some friendly advice to a fellow man.
DackBev 3 years ago
Whatever opinions you might have of stefbot, I can assure you, DackBev, that you are almost always a prick every time I see you comment on a video (and that includes my own).
XOmniverse 3 years ago 10
Glad to be of service.
DackBev 3 years ago
I will say that you're much more intellectually advanced and honest than this stefbot joker/street preacher.
DackBev 3 years ago
As if stefbot isn't a self-righteous condescending prick.
DackBev 3 years ago
He's better at it than you.
Kbiomech 3 years ago
@XOmniverse still a damn good debate even after 2 years! it was enlightening :)
sniped101 1 year ago
If aggressing against someone helps preserve my life or make it more enjoyable, then why should I abide by your UPB? That's the issue. An ethical principle that ought to be followed regardless of the consequences to myself of following it, is useless and therefore, as an egoist, I'm going to discard it.
DackBev 3 years ago
Scratch that. To add a missing word:
So your ethics DON'T rely on desires? You're a deontologist. Ridiculous.
DackBev 3 years ago
So your ethics depend on your desires? You're a deontologist. Ridiculous.
DackBev 3 years ago
So your objection is that a sadist enjoys hurting people? So your objection is simply that you find what egoism leads to is disastful or offensive. That doens't refute they guy (Xomniverse) at all.
DackBev 3 years ago
This was awesome! I'm fans of you both. This video also increased my understanding of UPB. Great discussion! It also goes to show that people named Shawn are usually totally rad.
D4Shawn 3 years ago 2
I think these theories work together. I also believe that without egoism, UPB is mute. Egoism is the premise to everything and anything. Also UPB is based off of the principal of universality. if someone does not accept universal morality, UPB will not work. Someone can say "It is right for me to punch John because I am me. John can not punch back because he is not me." This makes it so it does matter where someone "plants their flag".
aaron0883 3 years ago
UPB works on people who reject universal morality, because they claim to be making an objective truth statement ("UPB is false") which uses UPB.
stefbot 3 years ago
I'd be curious how UPB could refute the objective truth statement "UPB is irrelevant to me."
XOmniverse 3 years ago 2
UPB cannot refute subjective preferences ("I don't like science"), since they are not universal statements. If, however, this is meant in the manner of "nutrition is irrelevant to me," then it can be refuted as false.
stefbot 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Not everyone who is poor lives in an apartment, and it's absurd to think they should have to rely on others who might or might also not be able to afford it.
Such basic needs should never be relying on a profit motive where they can actually deny you critical service if you can't pay.
That's one reason capitalism fails with healthcare as well.
Technocratic 3 years ago
Who cares?
scineram 3 years ago
By what standard does UPB judge whether something is moral or immoral? Logic alone can't judge something as either of these. Objectivism uses an individual's life as the standard, as it is the fundamental alternative that human beings face, and it goes from there. To me this is the absolutely key thing to consider.
D4rkReaver13 4 years ago 2
Well you have to read the book I'd say...
stefbot 3 years ago
:P Don't worry Stef I'll read it. 'Tis the only one I haven't bought yet.
D4rkReaver13 3 years ago
By what standard does the scientific method judge whether a theory is true or false?
debaiona 3 years ago
Science goes by the standard of fact. Science is about what IS, but ethics is about what one OUGHT to do, and therefore requires a standard to judge by, since oughts don't exist otherwise.
D4rkReaver13 3 years ago 2
UPB's strongest quality is that it can destroy ethical theories in the same way the scientific method is used to disprove physical theories.
visioninverse 4 years ago 2
"Pursuing your own self-interest" Well this sounds like you Stef!
cosmanthony21 4 years ago
"If we don't have something that does not require any agreement beforehand ... What I was trying to do was to say that I don't want any system of ethics that requires any prior agreement with anything ... What I wanted to do was to try and created an approach of ethics that could steamroller over anyone no matter what premises they accepted ... [One] where I could just take people like that down..." - Stefbot 32:50
It's called government.
grantsinmypants2 4 years ago
Not at all. Governments use force. I do not.
But of course you know that.
stefbot 4 years ago
I do know that you say that about yourself.
Now, I haven't read your book, but how you intend on having someone in agreement with you about non-agression, while also not in agreement with - or at least in obeyance of - you... Well, that's something I'd have to see to believe.
grantsinmypants2 4 years ago
Wait... was that just a great compliment or did I misread something?
EntertainedWatcher 4 years ago
If you're gonna have a "debate" then treat it like a god damn debate. Stef I want you to stop beating around the bush and respond to this guy like a man. He had some solid points but I can tell you were ready to pounce on some of his weaker points time and time again. DO IT! it will make for a powerful and meaningful debate. thx
poncethegreat169 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The problem with libertarians is that they only think of themselves. "Me me me, I can I can, I got mine, screw you." That's their philosophy in a nutshell as is evidenced by Ghostrider's assertion that he doesn't support x because he can take care of himself fine. Good for you. Most aren't that lucky. That's short-sighted anyway. Disgusting beliefs that put private property and freedom above public utility, despite the fact that you suck at the gub'ment teat while whining about how bad it is.
Technocratic 4 years ago
continued...
And why would an individual home owner not pay the fire department? If you can afford a house you can afford the fire department. It's certainly not a very expensive service. For a home owner it would really be a matter of personal choice and who are you or who is anyone to force me to pay for a service for someone that they would freely choose to go without.
And why would they go without it anyway? Home owners insurance rates would skyrocket if they did. It just wouldn't make sense
TheUnworthy 4 years ago
The "problem" with libertarians is that they don't recognize anyone else has having a claim to their life.
Feel free to sacrifice YOURSELF to God or the state, leave me out of that compact with the devil.
Praise be to the state! Nothing is possible without him!
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
No, a private police and fire department wouldn't be adequate. Given it's not a public service, they have no incentive to supply the service if you can't pay for it. The bottom line. Imagine your house on fire and you can't pay the fire department to come put it out. Oh well! I guess your house burns down.
Same with the police. Cant afford their service? Only those who can will be protected! Too bad for the poor! Libertarian "fuck em" philosophy at work, yet again.
Technocratic 4 years ago
Technocratic, I am afraid I don't understand. Let's just look at this from a practical monetary standpoint. Most people who wouldn't be able to afford to pay the fire service would likely live in apartment buildings. Each individual resident wouldn't have to pay for the fire service, it wouldn't make sense, it's all the same building. So it would be a collective effort, likely to be included everyones rent.
to be continued...
TheUnworthy 4 years ago 2
stef is like a philisophical columbo lol! acts like he cant keep up but then decimates the arguements with overwhelming facts and evidence. lol
dittotl 4 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Shawn has an unpleasant voice.
qkholster 4 years ago
This is why guns were invented.
blastingcaps 4 years ago
I'll give you an alternative perspective: "ethics" and "morality" are entirely artificial constructs. Useful perhaps, in certain contexts, but artificial nonetheless.
I advise against assuming that "value" is universal. If, for example, a masochist values being abused now more than "health and life" later that's perfectly legitimite.
Even "happy" and "life" not fundamentally desireable goals. Some might not value those things. Allow people to make their own choices.
t3z2pulm 4 years ago
People who "value" imposing their will upon others are not fundamentally in a different position than those who value "long, healthy life."
"Desire to harm" and "desire to not be harmed" are both merely "desires." Valuing one over another, as you say, is purely an aesthetic preference.
The only "problem" comes in when people attempt to relate to others in manner contrary to their aesthetic preference. This creates "friction."
t3z2pulm 4 years ago
"Right" is an artificial construct. There is only "might" and "choice."
It may be in the best interest of people who prefer to not be controlled, to choose to gain power and wisdom sufficient to avoid it.
t3z2pulm 4 years ago
Suggesting that people are doing the "right" or "wrong" thing when busting windows or stealing apples is completely non-sequitor.
Assigning "right" and "wrong" is equally as subjective and aesthetic as preferring "happy" over "sad."
You may or may not choose to bust the window, or steal the apple. And the owner of that apple or window may or may not choose to seek restitution. There is no "right." There is no "wrong."
There is only power, and choice.
t3z2pulm 4 years ago
t3z2pulm: If there's no such thing as universal value (by which it seems you mean universal truth), how should I compare the usefulness of your extensive statements here to the usefulness of, say, a blow to the head with a blunt instrument?
dysurian 4 years ago
1) You are substituting words I used with words I did not.
2) "Should" is not a valid concept.
3) You may compare usefulness in any manner you choose, that you have the power to perform.
t3z2pulm 4 years ago
(1) My mistake. (2) So upon what basis do I determine whether or not to listen to any of your arguments? I'd hate to waste my time, but if there's no objectively preferable method of separating truth from falsehood, then I'm not sure I can do anything BUT waste my time when talking about truth or falsehood.
dysurian 4 years ago 3
Nowhere in the above do I even mention "truth" or "falsehood." Why are you implying that I did? In the above, I'm not meaning "right" as in "correct." I'm meaning it as in "you have a right to do this" and "your behavior was in the right" and "might makes right." These ideas don't have any more validity than our sense of preference gives them.
But this has nothing particularly to do with truth.
t3z2pulm 4 years ago
Any statement is either a true statement or a false statement. You don't need to mention it for it to apply to everything you say. But if you're saying that truth and falsehood are different per person, then I think it's scarcely worth debating any longer. If you're right, we're both fools to try to convince one another of anything, and if you're wrong, then one of us is a fool and it's not really a debate. Even if it's only a specific set of ideas that this subjectivity pertains to.
dysurian 4 years ago
Now, to answer the question, I would repeat the answer I gave in (3) above. Evaluate as you choose. If you find a perspective useful, then by all means use it. If you don't, then feel free to discard it.
You don't need my permission.
t3z2pulm 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Don't call the police or the fire department. That's theft! Better make sure you never need unemployment insurance. That's theft!
Screw those people who require government-funded medicare! Fuck them!
The Libertarian mascot ought to be Scrooge McDuck.
Technocratic 4 years ago
Could not a private fire department work just as well, if not better using a subscription fee? Why should I rely on the police to protect me if I have the right to protect myself?
If people had thought ahead and planned for to take care of themselves why would they need government health care?
The point I'm trying to make is that I could take care of myself, in all aspects of my life if only I didn't have to take care of everyone else thanks to the government.
Ghostrider616 4 years ago 7
And yours ought to be a mother with a gun
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The government provides valuable services to the population using tax monies. A theif doesn't give you anything. Ergo, the analogy with a thief is extremely flawed.
Moreover, most "anarchists" and "Libertarians" are absurd hypocrits, given they suck up government resources and services with glee while they spew their anti-government claptrap.
If we actually implemented your system, society would collapse back into the 19th century Guilded Age. We did that. Been there. Doesn't work well.
Technocratic 4 years ago
Robin Hood was a thief. He STOLE from the rich to give to the poor. Regardless of what one does with the money, the act of using force or the threat of force to confiscate the property of someone else is THEFT.
If I steal everything you have in the bank because my daughter needs an operation, is that not still theft? How is government funded health care any better.
How is it any better when the government is the one with the gun demanding your money than a common street thug doing so?
Ghostrider616 4 years ago 3
The rich he stole from were state elites, i.e. thieves themselves.
Moragauth 4 years ago
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
EntertainedWatcher 4 years ago
True that, but is he really any better?
Ghostrider616 3 years ago
Too bad your Guilded Age was the birth of government created and maintained monopolies.
Sears provide the essential service of changing my tires, the doctor provides the indispensable service of professional health care and advice. Should these service providers be able to force me to pay for their services regardless of my choice to use them or not?
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
Radnet rules! haha.
thorsmitersaw 4 years ago
Best ISP evar!!1
XOmniverse 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So those that live off of the state are a minority, but the majority is the victim of it? That's fascinating, given that nearly everyone owes something to society and the government because they have used services and products provided by it, without which, their lives would be of lower quality.
Technocratic 4 years ago
That's fascinating because without the taxes that the general population pays to the government those services would be impossible to provide. So the government doesn't pay for anything, i hadn't seen the government as an agent making money, they just steal it. So we don't owe nothing to the State because they steal from as. No more than what you owe to a thief that mug you 1000$ and later on buy you a drink of 1 $.
LatinYoung20 4 years ago 7
The government always runs in the negative and forces people to pay to cover its costs (or they just print-borrow money)
AzraelsJudgement 4 years ago
"given that nearly everyone owes something to society and the government because they have used services and products provided by it" So if I showed up at your house and remodelled your kitchen without your permission, should I be justified in forcing you to pay me?
sumadartsan 3 years ago
how did he make this 85 mins?
SasukeUchihaBlood 4 years ago
5 stars again. Just want to say this was a great debate. I was wondering Stef if you have the audio of the debate with the guy who advocated that the war on Iraq was moral and you used UPB and if you do, can you post a link here plz?
Thx again and great great video. ;)
LatinYoung20 4 years ago
Go stef!
Durgeofcerberus 4 years ago
5 stars
GabeTheArchAngel 4 years ago
Every time you hear the inaudible parts or distortion in XOmniverse's voice, it looks like Stef is turning a knob on his control deck. Haha.
qtronman 4 years ago 5