0:00 - Introduction to Analytical Philosophy
1:02 - Analyzing the Moral Treatise
1:54 - Evaluating the Theory's Opening
3:22 - Defining the Nature of a Manifesto
4:47 - Manifesto's Profound Purpose
8:24 - Critiquing the Anti-Subjectivist Position
9:26 - The Promise of Poignancy and Power
13:24 - Establishing Basic Statements about Reality
18:19 - Addressing Ethical Goals and Intentions
24:25 - Proving the Second Claim
26:10 - Importance of Logic and Rationalization
27:53 - Laws of Logic and Objective Reality
38:27 - The Default Ethical Environment
41:51 - Arbitrary Selections and Rational Basis
48:23 - Arbitrary Selections in Personal Pleasures
52:36 - The Downfall of Modern Ethical Theories
In today's session, we delved into the analysis of the anti-subjectivist manifesto, focusing on the importance of clarity and precision in philosophical writings. We discussed the need for humility in presenting philosophical ideas, aiming to engage the audience effectively through coherent communication. Our exploration led us to examine the relationship between anti-subjectivism and moral realism, emphasizing the significance of logical consistency in philosophical arguments and the accessibility of ethical theories to a wider audience.
As we navigated through the text, we uncovered the author's intent to avoid manipulation and uphold reasoning and evidence in constructing a compelling manifesto. We delved into foundational aspects of reality and existence that form the basis of ethical theories, highlighting the necessity of shared agreements in ethical discourse. Our discussion extended to the subjectivity of reality and the philosophical underpinnings of normative ethics, promoting the use of clear and accessible language in presenting complex ideas to readers.
The podcast delves into accepting objective reality and challenges solipsistic views, stressing the importance of establishing a foundation based on objective reality, logical laws, and the amorality of living creatures for ethical theory development. The speaker explores the concept of the state of nature, drawing parallels between the Hobbesian and anti-subjective interpretations, and emphasizing its crucial role in ethical theory construction. Critiquing theories that overlook the state of nature, the podcast encourages critical thinking and debate on ethical theory foundations.
Moreover, the lecture discusses the validation of concepts by comparing creatures without man's conceptual ability, emphasizing reason and evidence in determining the validity of ethical theories. It transitions to the role of logic in science and ethics, highlighting the need for non-arbitrary principles to ensure logical consistency. By critiquing arbitrary selections in ethical theories and warning against their potentially harmful consequences, the speaker underscores the importance of rational justification in ethical reasoning to avoid anti-rationality's detrimental impact on civilizations.
In conclusion, the lecture proposes three key aspects necessary before constructing an ethical theory, promoting debate on the practicality of such requirements. The speaker advocates for greater clarity and accessibility in presenting complex ideas to engage a broader audience effectively. Emphasizing the significance of delivering on promises to maintain audience interest and credibility, the lecture stresses the importance of transparent and engaging communication in philosophical discussions.
[0:00] Good morning, hope you're doing well. It's bright and early in the AM, and we are going to do a little bit of work of dry analytical philosophy. Now, this may lack some of the fire and brimstone of my other kinds of philosophical teachings and live streams, but sometimes I think there's a certain amount of detail and precision that's just very helpful to go through, and so let's do something. Maybe just a tiny bit dry, but... for me kind of the heart and essence of philosophy so this is something someone sent to me called the anti-subjectivist manifesto the case for consent and here is how i go about analyzing a document i've given it a quick skim i haven't finished it but let's do it live um it's a nice quote from socrates it is not difficult to avoid death gentlemen it is much more difficult to avoid wickedness for it runs faster than death. You know, it's interesting and fun. It doesn't help you much in life, but it's kind of fun. All right.
[1:03] So we start with this is going to be a moral treatise. So this is similar to UPB or the Nenekimahian Ethics from Aristotle or I guess the case for normative ethics from Kant and so on. So we're going to have a look at this and see how it does.
[1:55] So he says, for the theory. So he says, Right. So, that's interesting to me. I look at the form and the content of an opening paragraph with great detail, because that's your hook, right? That's what you're trying to get people to be interested in. I generally find that humility is one of the things I'm looking for. And humility is to recognize the skepticism of the person who is reading the piece. So if, as I did with UPB, you claim to have solved the eternal problem of secular ethics, of ethics without God's commandments, references to evolutionary adaptation, the benefit of the organism, or the arbitrary fists of the laws, if you have solved the problem of ethics for all time, people are going to be skeptical. Of course. Absolutely, completely, and totally. And, you know, when I was out in the software field, I wrote the best software, around for the field that i was in but of course i would understand that people had doubt about that so i would approach with all humility say i'm going to make some pretty wild claims here but i'm going to try and back them up so of course i opened upb with i understand why you'd be skeptical that i've solved this problem now that's not a fact but if you're going to make a claim that that you've solved the eternal problem of ethics.
[3:22] Don't just assume you have and that it's kind of no big thing in a way, because it is the very biggest. It's the Holy Grail and the final prize of philosophy. So what do we say here? The nature of the manifesto is to inform others.
[3:36] Well, here's the thing. If you don't know what a manifesto is, I'm not sure you'd be reading a manifesto. And so if I say that the purpose of my writing is to communicate, I'm not sure that that's really necessary in a way, you know, that, of course, to inform others. And that's not specific or detailed enough, right? The nature of the manifesto is to inform others. Well, we have a category error at the very opening sentence, right? Because the nature of all communication is to inform others. I mean, it could be to misinform others, but certainly to pass information across. So the nature of the manifesto is to inform others. And is it to inform others because that's not precise either because if you have an announcement that your flight has moved from gate 57 to gate 59 you're being informed but that's not an argument it's got nothing to do with ethics it's not a manifesto so if you're going to say to inform form others, then you'd have to say why a manifesto is different from all other forms of information transfer. So, it's a little imprecise.
[4:47] It says, to profess some great insight, motivation, or cause in a manner that is both poignant and powerful.
[4:54] Okay, so this is going to be like the sort of rousing workers of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains. Insight, motivational, cause, and a math, poignant and powerful. Okay, so this is a big claim. So, right, they say we've got this manifesto, and then they say it's going to be powerful. This is going to be a call to arms. This is going to be rousing, passionate. Okay, so it's not really informing. It's inspiring, you could say, on the other side. He says, I'll go with this piece, right? Why is it being called a piece now?
[5:26] So we say this is a manifesto. You say, the nature of the manifesto, the goal with this piece. Okay, so we've got, now it's being called a piece. Why would you define it as a manifesto and then call it something else in the third sentence? Seriously, not. For an ethical theory known as anti-subjectivism, a theory that not only offers a normative framework for determining the rightness and wrongness of a given set of actions, but also a meta-ethical logic used to evaluate all ethical theories in a growing breadth of creators and philosophers. Okay, so now we have, to me, some significant problems. We've got great insight, we've got motivation, we've got cause, and now it's a theory and also a normative framework for determining the quote rightness and wrongness of a given set of actions. Not a given action, a given set of actions.
[6:18] Now he says so they say here first of all don't use the word normative for most people they don't know normative means in accordance with particular norms or objective standards so i don't use that because you want ethics to be available to the general population so you have to write at the level that the general population understands so don't use technical terms like normative, So here, what I think is interesting is they say a normative framework for determining, now why are quote rightness and quote wrongness? Why would they be in quotes? I don't quite understand that.
[6:57] I mean, if you were to say in engineering, you know, this is a methodology for figuring out whether a building will, quote, stand. It's like, well, no, I want the building to stand. I don't want the building to, quote, stand.
[7:11] You know, if you're a salesman and you come back to your boss, he says, how was your day? And you say, oh, I made a, quote, sale. It's like, what? That's confusing. Why are you putting quotes around things? Now, the other thing I find confusing, it's not the rightness and wrongness of an action, a given set of actions. Now, the rightness and wrongness of a given set of actions is a moral theory, right? So, is it right to violate the non-aggression principle? That's a given set of actions, you know, rape, theft, assault, murder all violate the non-aggression principle. So, it says here, it's a normative framework for determining the rightness and wrongness of a given set of actions, but also a meta-ethical logic. Yeah, what does meta-ethical logic mean? I don't know. I couldn't tell you for the life of me. Used to evaluate all ethical theories. So it says it's not only, like an ethical theory is that which determines the rightness and wrongness of a given set of actions, right? So it's precision. An ethical theory is that which determines the rightness and wrongness of a given set of actions. So we say it's not only, given that these are synonyms, like ethical theories and the rightness and wrongness of a given set of actions, these are synonyms.
[8:24] So it not only offers a normative framework for determining the rightness and wrongness of a given set of actions, but also meta-ethical logic used to evaluate all ethical theories.
[8:34] All right? So these are the same things. Right, so if it said the rightness and wrongness of a particular action, okay, that's one. So it's like a biologist saying I have a way of not only defining mammals but also defining mammals so this is not particularly precise so he says the term anti-subjectivism in modern philosophy holds deep connotations to the moral realist positions on the nature of ethical truths this is not a position of the anti-subjectivism, we here shall propose, Rather, this theory was constructed under the notion that ethical realism is an unfounded position, and as a result, none of her arguments will rely on a conception of any ethical, quote, truths woven into reality, nor power beyond our comprehension which has created any such truths.
[9:26] Okay, so here we go back. So the purpose of the manifesto, to profess some great insight, motivation, or cause in a matter that is both poignant and powerful. Oh, we've got some poetry, we've got some passion, we've got some exhortation, some enthusiasm, some inspiration, except we don't.
[9:46] We don't. It's like saying a manifesto is there to poetically inspire people to greatness and then, you publish your laundry list or your shopping list or whatever, right? It doesn't match, right? So the promise is this is going to be both poignant and powerful, right? And you better start delivering, right? So now we're into it paragraph and a half and there's nothing poignant or powerful. All right. The term anti-subjectivism in modern philosophy holds deep connotations to the moral realist positions on the nature of ethical truth. What does this mean? Remember, you're talking to people about the nature of goodness. And if you're talking to people about the nature of goodness, please, please, please talk in a language that they can understand. Please, I beg you, talk in a language that they can understand. If people cannot understand the language, then they're going to tune out. Define your terms, build from the ground up, start with kindergarten ethics, show how it's going to matter in people's lives. All right. So here, the term anti-subjectivism in modern philosophy, this is not a position of the anti-subjectivism we here shall propose. So what they're saying is, there's a term called anti-subjectivism, and we're going to completely redefine it.
[11:11] So i guess then my question is why would you hijack a well-known term and redefine it for your own purposes right i mean if i were to say i'm going to redefine subjective as objective so i'm going to say that subjectivism now means a belief and acceptance of objective reality it's like well why would you use the term subjectivism and then redefine it to the opposite right so So, again, this is kind of murky, and how does this help the average person understand morals? And how is it poignant and powerful? All right. Okay, so I understand none of our arguments will rely on a conception of any ethical truths woven into reality, right? So this is the Humean is-ought distinction, right? You can't get an ought from an is. Nor power beyond a comprehension which has created any such, quote, truth. So this is religious ethics. Okay, got it. So it's not the nature of reality that we're getting our morals from and it is not a divine commandment that we're getting our morals from our goal is not to dupe, swindle, trick or manipulate our way into a popular adoption of these ideas, instead we would like to present to you the arguments which have compelled us by the force of reason alone to construct this manifesto for you today.
[12:26] Alright. So for a moralist to say his goal is to be moral, or for a moralist to say, I know this more than one person, but I'm not going to keep doing the they-them, who wrote this. So when a moralist says my goal is to not dupe, swindle, trick, or manipulate you, I always get a little suspicious with that. Because if you're not going to swindle me, just don't swindle me. Right? But if you say, our goal is to not dope, swindle, trick or manipulate our way, I don't know, it's sort of odd. Like if someone comes up to you in a business meeting, shakes your hand and says, my goal in this business meeting is not to dupe, swindle, trick or manipulate you, it'd be like, well, isn't that kind of a given? Like, why would you say that? But before we dive into the discussion of anti-subjectivism directly, we feel it important to lay out some basic statements about reality that may be useful to help contextualize this philosophy.
[13:25] Okay, I'm still not seeing this poignant and powerful stuff.
[13:29] Establishing requirements. We believe there to be three key aspects of the universe and our existence in it that must be directly addressed and agreed on before any ethical theory can be built. Okay. Rights. Okay. Honestly, I appreciate the effort. I really do. And I don't want to sound condescending. A lot of effort goes into that kind of things. But if you're going to make a case for ethics, right? If you're going to make a case for ethics, you cannot start with, we believe. You cannot start with, we believe. You know if you say to a little kid do you believe in santa claus and they say i believe in santa claus does that have anything to do with objective reality it is a statement of subjective, acceptance of a truth that is unproven like i don't believe that two and two is four two and two is four so we believe there to be three key aspects that must okay but why is it your belief or is it a fact, right? And this is a problem, right? Okay. Reality obs... Um...
[14:37] The reality exists subjectively. The three laws of logic are a necessary foundation for any ethical theory. The default ethical environment of all living creatures is amoral. Okay? So, that's fine. This is saying, here are the things that need to be established, right? So, I would say, rather, there need to be three key aspects of the universe and our existence in it that must be directly addressed and agreed on. Okay, but why? If you already agree on stuff, you don't need ethics. Ethics is for people who completely disagree with you. Right? The ethical theory would be for people who disagree with you. So if you say, well, we need to agree on these things and then we can move forward. I mean, honestly, this is like in a court system, if the prosecution says to the defense or the prosecution says to the accused, well, all we have to do, okay, let's agree that you're guilty and we'll move on from there. And it's like, whoa, whoa, whoa. What are we in the Stalin show trial here? so you can't just say we need to agree on these things and then we can move forward.
[15:41] No if you're at a yard sale and there's an old lawnmower there and, somebody comes up to you from the yard sale and says okay so we agree that this is a million dollars and you'll pay it so just if you could give me the money right how do we agree already right, All right, so, sorry, this is kind of, okay. So, one, reality exists subjectively. For the first claim, it is necessary for any system of normative ethics to accept, even if done so arbitrarily, that reality exists in an objective manner. Why? So we've gone from we believe to it is necessary.
[16:26] Necessary um so so for the prosecution to say to put you in prison the prosecution it is necessary for them to prove to the jury that you're guilty and for the jury to vote that you're guilty right, so it's for you to go to prison it is necessary for the jury to vote you're guilty so but but that still doesn't mean that you're guilty it just that is necessary but how is that true, For you to accept what I'm saying, it is necessary that you believe my argument, you accept my argument, and so on, but that doesn't mean that my argument is true. So, for the first claim, it is necessary for any system of normative ethics to accept, even if done so arbitrarily, that reality exists in an objective manner. What the heck does this mean, even if done so arbitrarily? So, again, this is diet books for thin people. This is people saying, hey man, I want you to accept reason and objectivity. So, the way that we do that, as I say, it is necessary for you to accept reason and objectivity.
[17:29] Well, that's not, why would I? I mean, the whole point is, what if you don't? How do you get people to accept it if you don't, right? There exist large swaths of claims in support of the contrary. To the contrary of this position, however, none of these claims bridge the inability for solipsistic or ideologically similar worldviews to facilitate any ethical theories. What the hell? I'm going right back up here, too. Is this... I told me to laugh. Come on, guys. You say this is going to be poignant and powerful, and you get into this... What is a technical word salad that's undefined? There exist large swaths of claims in support to the contrary of this position. However, none of these claims bridge the inability for solipsistic or ideologically similar worldviews to facilitate any ethical theories. What the hell? Okay.
[18:20] Our response to any individual who would reject this assertion of objective reality is a simple one. There is no amount of argumentation, logic reasoning, or civil conversation that could bridge the gap between the claims presented in this essay and a rejection of reality wholesale.
[18:37] Our response to any individual who would reject this assertion of objective reality is a simple one. There's no amount of argumentation, logic, and reasoning. Okay, if any reader exists as a solipsist and would like to participate in a consistent ethical theory with their imaginary companions, we encourage them to continue reading and perhaps live this theory out in their own world. However, this manifesto will prove highly lacking in cogency and explanatory power for any with a pre-existing perspective as such. Okay, so they're saying the solipsistic is, you know, the world is me. It's to some degree the Cartesian brain in the tank stuff. It's a narcissistic worldview.
[19:22] Well, but you have to find a way to push back on people who don't believe what you're saying. You can't say, well, okay, we just have to accept that reality exists objectively. You have to find a way to get people to accept that reality exists subjectively. Now, of course, they'll say, well, if you reject that reality exists subjectively, then you can't be convinced. That's what they're saying. Like, we have to agree that reality exists subjectively, otherwise we can't have a conversation. But if you say, my theory is true if you accept all of my premises, right? So they've got three premises, right? The reality exists subjectively, three laws of logic, and living creatures are amoral. And so you have to establish these things. Because if they have an ethical theory that relies on these things, and we say, okay, if you assume that all of my premises are true, but the whole point of debate of a philosophy is you have to assume that nobody believes in what you're saying. And you have to establish it from first principles, right? Okay. So, yeah, saying this, this manifesto is not going to make any sense if you're narcissistic and don't believe in objective reality. It's like, okay, reality. So Philip K. Dick reality is that which when you stop believing in it doesn't go away. All right.
[20:38] So, this is how they deal with reality objectively. They say, well, this is required for our theory. Which, again, these are people that have just never been in any kind of objective business situation. Right. So, what I mean by that is, they have not... Let me just make sure the recording is still going here. Yeah. So, when you go to get investment into your business and you say, here's my income, here's my expenses projected over five years, right? Then, if they're interested in your business, then they're going to wrangle with the numbers, right? So, if you say, well, I'm going to spend three million, we're going to make five million. I'm going to spend three million, but I'm going to make five million, right? And if you go into them and they say, okay, so you have to, in order to invest in my company, you have to accept these numbers. And they'd say, well, why do I have to accept these numbers?
[21:36] We have to wrangle about these numbers. I need to see the proof. I need to see the research. I need to see your experience. I need to see market conditions. I need to see competition. I need to see earnings before taxes, EBITDA, taxes, interest, EBITDA, earnings before interest, taxes, deductions. I can't remember, EBITDA, right? So, you need to see, I need to see all of these things so you can't just say, well, you need to accept my business projections in order to find my company valuable. It's like, I actually don't have to accept these things. You have to prove them to me. You have to, right? If you go up to a woman and say, well, you have to accept that I'm the perfect man for you and you can't do any better in order to go on a date with me. And she'd say, well, why do I have to accept that? Like, don't you have to kind of establish that? that, so. All right. The three laws of logic are a necessary foundation for any ethical theory.
[22:30] Now, that is a radical statement. Because getting from the three laws of logic to morals prior to UPB was an insurmountable task. So that is a very, very radical argument. To say that you can get to an ought from an is. That you can get from logic to ethics is a massive, massive, massively... I mean, Aristotle didn't do it, Plato didn't do it, Kant didn't do it, and Ayn Rand didn't do it. I mean, so, it's a big thing, right? So, all right, regarding so, this is a radical claim, and radical claims require radical proof, right?
[23:14] Regarding the second, oh, sorry, so just go back up here. So, reality exists objectively. How do you prove that to people who don't believe it? Well, you point out that them denying your claim requires that they use objective reality. Right, so that's how you do it, right? So, if somebody says to you, I don't believe in objective reality, well, you've just said I. You've made an argument using sound waves, relying on my hearing, using the medium of air in objective reality, using language that is defined objectively. And so you can't deny the existence of objective reality to someone without utilizing and accepting the existence of objective reality and that's how you prove it to people right now people can say no to that as well but then they're obviously wrong to everyone right it doesn't matter so much if people are wrong to if they accept that they're wrong what matters is other people accept except that they're wrong, right?
[24:08] So, if somebody says, if somebody on a street corner says, I have three invisible space aliens standing on my head, you can't probably convince them otherwise, but everybody else understands that they're crazy, and, right, so that's enough for the ethical theory to spread. All right.
[24:26] All right. Regarding the second claim, so it's a claim, it's not proven, right? So they're saying it's a claim, which means that they've got to prove it, right? Regarding the second claim, and without the ability to apply logic and rationalization in a consistent manner, there is no way to construct any ethical theory. Why?
[24:45] There absolutely are ways to construct ethical theories. Right? You can say the greatest good of the greatest number, pragmatism, utilitarianism, there's the...
[24:59] Kant's categorical imperative. There is Ayn Rand's That Which Is Good for Man. There is the highest pursuit of morals, Eudaimania from Aristotle. There's, of course, the commandments of God for many religious theologians and ethical theories. So just saying, it's crazy.
[25:26] It's crazy. So maybe you say these houses are built badly. But if you say, without bricks, there's no way to build a house, you're ignoring all of the houses out of clay and sticks and, I don't know, whatever, right? You can, wood, right? Beams, right? So, if you can say that a brick house is superior to a house made out of wood, I guess this is that we're getting into Three Little Pigs territory. But you can't say, without bricks, there's simply no way to build a house. Because there are houses all over the place that are not built with bricks. So, I don't know. And also, we've got logic and rationalization.
[26:11] Now, rationalization is a word that is quite technical and usually meant in a psychological way. So, people who rationalize their beliefs are people who apply ex post facto reasoning to what they already believe, right? So, if you're told that Donald Trump is the worst guy ever, then everything that you see is curated to and inhabits that filter, right?
[26:35] If you hit your kids when you're angry and then later you say, well, I had to hit you because it kept you safe or whatever, you're rationalizing, you're applying ex post facto reasoning to something that isn't rational or wasn't reasoned at the time. So you can't just say logic and then use the word rationalization, which is a psychological term for false reasoning, I mean, maybe they're using it in some other context, but if you're aiming this at the general audience, and you can't just, which, you know, if you've got a Philip K. Dick quote, you probably are. You can't just use a term that means the opposite of reasoning. Rationalization is not reasoning. So, without the ability to apply logic and anti-logic in a consistent manner, it's like, what does this mean? Okay. Without the laws of identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle, reigning supreme, arguments, claims, and truth have no meaning.
[27:28] Again, this is a statement, right? As these laws are necessarily axiomatic, they must be adopted without a logical proof justifying them in themselves. So, necessarily axiomatic is not true. Not true. So, there are people who live who are crazy, right? And necessarily axiomatic, they must be adopted without a logical proof justifying them in themselves.
[27:54] But you can absolutely provide a logical proof for logic and objective reality everybody who is alive to debate has followed the dictates of objective reality in order to survive, right they have eaten food not gravel they have breathed air not water they have drunk a water not poison or air and so they in order to survive you have to follow the dictates of objective reality and you have to be logical in how you solve the basic problems of survival and existence that you need food water rest a shelter and all that right so.
[28:32] All who are alive are alive to the degree that they have followed objective requirements and rational actions. I mean, it doesn't mean that they're perfectly rational, of course, right? But it just means that in order to get to be a 25-year-old who's debating, you have to have followed reason and evidence and objectivity and so on in order to gain sustenance from reality. So, you can prove these things. The law of identity, A equals A, for example, does not exist because some other aspect of reality has allowed us to derive this concept and to verify its authenticity outside itself. The law can only be verified by its lack of a counterexample. Again, I'm going back up here to we want it to be what?
[29:19] Poignant and powerful, right? So, no, the law of identity exists because another aspect of reality has allowed us to derive this concept. So the law of identity exists because of the nature of reality. A carbon atom is a carbon atom and not a carbon atom and a hydrogen atom at the same time. So all the way down, an orange is an orange, not an orange and a banana and an elephant tusk and a concept at the same time. So the law of identity is concepts match the predictable behavior of matter and energy. So the law of identity, laws of logic, are derived from what is in the world, what is in the universe, what is in objectivity, that is not only transmitted through the evidence of our senses, but also defined at a scientific and cellular level and an atomic level. So, yeah, the law of identity is because of the nature of atoms and the laws of physics. From the laws of logic, what truths there are of reality can be derived because they are necessary products of these laws.
[30:33] Any theory of any sort which either does not consider these laws or either intentionally or unintentionally violates one of the laws of logic cannot be seriously stated to have any substantive explanatory power or founded basis requiring its existence. It's all kind of special pleading, right? This is all a Thomas Paine quote and so on, right? So you're just saying, like, you have to accept these as necessarily axiomatic, right? So, but if the laws of logic are necessarily axiomatic, necessarily axiomatic then you're trying to make people more rational by saying well you have to, totally accept the laws of logic but of course if they're not rational then they have to have rejected the laws of logic to some degree at least conceptually and so you have to cross that gap right i mean if you're a nutritionist you have to accept that the reason you are a nutritionist is some people eat badly and need to eat better right so saying well it's axiomatic that everybody eats perfectly would mean that there's no need for a nutritionist. And if you're going to say that these laws are necessarily axiomatic, then you're saying, well, everybody's already perfectly logical.
[31:45] And therefore, we're right. But of course, you're trying to reason people into something. And therefore, you have to accept that they've rejected reason to some degree. So you have to find a way to bridge that gap and get them to accept reason. Okay three the default ethical environment of all living creatures is amoral and finally for the third claim see they say a claim you can't just go from a claim to it's necessarily axiomatic right because these two things are not a claim is something you say is true and needs to be established the claim is bob is guilty of assault right so you can't say um the charge against bob the claim against bob is that he beat up sally now it's necessarily axiomatic that bob beat up Sally, and it's like, well, no, you can't be both acclaimed and necessarily axiomatic. The term state of nature exists as this amoral environment with large historical context grounding it firmly in the minds of many philosophers.
[32:36] We will be dedicating a large section of this manifesto to properly outlining the state of nature as viewed by anti-subjectivists. However, for those of prior knowledge on this topic, it can be tacitly conflated with the Hobbesian conception. Still, it is important to note that they are not identical. Okay. I'm still looking for the inspiring poetic poignant stuff all right several key points of differentiation between the hobbesian and anti-subjective is interpretation of the state of nature include the expansion of the state of nature to all living creatures in nature the term nature being synonymous with existing in reality no uh unless you mean the natural world which includes rocks mountains and so on so if you're going to say there's a state of nature that applies to animals and nature is now applicable to all atoms and energy across the universe, that's a problem, right?
[33:28] That's a problem. So, the Hobbesian state of nature is about animals. There's no such thing as a rock that exists in a state of nature, or a cloud, or anything like that. It has to do with living creatures that can impose will on others. So, let's see here. State of nature. The expansion of the state of nature to all living creatures in nature. The term nature being synonymous with existing in reality. So it's true that living creatures exist in reality but so do rocks and asteroids and suns and moons right, anyway be it ant or human and the affirmation that no living being is born with any objective moral authority over any other living being thereby evolving Hobbes' claim that there being no natural tyrants in a physical sense to a moral sense okay, not quite sure I follow they're kind of gish galloping here in that each one of these sentences could be a whole book, right? Any ethical theory without a proper conception of the state of nature, which is appropriately addressed, is omitting, by their own volition, the most basal state of existence for any living creature which we can directly observe and evince. Oh, yeah, these kinds of evince and so on, that is, it's a $10 word designed to slightly intimidate. As the state of nature is the broader context from which any ethical theory ought to be in direct consideration when developing both its justification and claims anti-subjectivism naturally places a large focus on the topic.
[34:57] There is no accurate description of existence where the state of nature is omitted, and as such, we believe it to be highly telling of both the credibility and explanatory power of any ethical theory when it fails to address this massive elephant in the room, akin to designing a submarine with no mention of water. Okay, analogies are not proof, but they can certainly help explain, but they're not proof.
[35:19] So, there is no accurate description of existence wherein the state of nature is omitted. So I don't know man I mean I think the state of nature stuff is interesting but is science justified by saying that say before modern draconian science like 16th century is science valid or invalid without addressing the lack of science in the past right.
[35:45] Are antibiotics validated when they were invented or created are antibiotics validated by pointing out that there were not antibiotics in the past. Is quantum physics true because quantum physics is new? And quantum physics has to refer to the prior to quantum physics state of science. Last one, right? So there was Newtonian physics, then there was Einsteinian physics. Is Einsteinian physics, can Einsteinian physics be judged on a standalone basis Or does Einsteinian physics need to prove itself relative to all that was pre-Einsteinian physics, right? So, does an ethical theory have to deal with the fact that prior to philosophy, reason, conceptual abilities, language, and usually the written word, and a capacity to argue and debate and so on, does an ethical theory have to explain everything that occurred prior to the development of our capacity for ethical theories?
[36:50] It's a concept validated by referring to all of the creatures that don't have man's conceptual ability. I don't think that, I mean, UPB does not need to show that prior to UPB there was a state of nature. Or all moral theories. At some point in our 150,000 or 200,000 year evolution there were no particular moral theories and it was a state of nature. Is an ethical theory proven or disproven if it references the state of nature or not. Now they're saying, well, yeah. And I'm like, if the theory is valid and true, it doesn't matter that in the past people didn't believe the theory or didn't know the theory or didn't accept the theory. The theory is true based upon its relationship to reason and evidence. If it's rational and if the evidence fully supports it, that's true as you can get. And so I don't think that modern scientists say, well, in the past, there was no modern science. So all of my scientific theories have to make reference to that fact and show how science evolved out of non-science. And so I don't think ethical theories need to say, here's how we developed out of non-ethical theories. So, all right, let's see here.
[38:14] So, ethical philosophies all begin with, whether they realize it or not, the hypothetical imperative that people's goal is to live above the state of nature, the reality in which they are subjected to the force of might makes right.
[38:28] Yeah? The people's goal is to live above the state of nature.
[38:35] Well, of course, the state of nature is when animals use their best abilities to coercively extract resources from others. And false ethical theories are the weapon by which people extract resources and labor and money from others. So ethical theories are used in general to take people take from people without risk right so some guy tries to rob you in an alley you can fight back you could beat him up or something like that but if there's a false law that like an immoral law that transfers property and everyone believes in it then you can make a huge amount of money out of that so ethical theories are generally weapons used by people who exist in an actual state of nature while claiming the opposite And that's, I mean, that's empirically verifiable all over the place, right? He says, on the other hand, science begins with the laws of logic derived from the consistency of the universe. Ah, interesting. Laws of logic derived from the consistency of the universe. But if we go back up here to laws of logic, all these laws...
[39:44] Are necessarily axiomatic, they must be adopted without a logical proof justifying them in themselves. Whereas down here we say laws of logic are derived from the consistency of the universe and disallows irrational or arbitrary selections in any given theory, all right? Non-arbitrariness ensures that the, I think non-arbitrariness is just consistency, isn't it? Anyway, non-arbitrariness ensures that the results of such theories will not produce unforeseen conflict when applied in reality. If the logic of the theory is sound, it stands to reason it will produce the expected outcomes. For ethical theories that wish to accomplish their fundamental goal, the same is true. In order to ensure that any given ethical theory will continually facilitate an individual's existence above the state of nature, we must subject philosophy to the same primacy of logic and absence of arbitrariness utilized by the sciences, thus preventing ourselves from developing theories about that when applied in reality prescribe mutually exclusive or conflict-generating behaviors, might-based. Oof, this is not particularly clear. I think I understand what they're talking about. It's not particularly clear language, okay?
[40:52] Now, of course, when people say science, I mean, obviously there's theoretical science and there's ideal science and Baconian science, but there is, of course, the pseudoscience of the modern mystery cult religion known as government, quote, science, science which is really just about lying and exploiting people right so uh we've got tons of examples of all this kind of stuff so i i'm not sure exactly what they're saying here because it's very much again this is kind of a gish gallop where they're just kind of dragging you behind a truck saying we're going for a walk but let's just see here in order to ensure that any given ethical theory will continually facilitate individuals existence above the state of nature.
[41:39] No, it's not existence above the state of nature, it's their goal. Existence and goal are two different things, right? Existence is a state, goal is a purpose, all right? We must subject philosophy to the same primacy of logic. Okay, whatever.
[41:51] All right, so, arbitrary selections are by definition selections made with no rational basis. Our ability to rationalize is our sole valid tool for making sense of the universe. Now, rationalize, again, this is a term used in psychology to mean false moral reasoning, a false reasoning. And a key product of this ability is our capacity to contrast sense data with the proposed concepts to identify contradictions. Okay, so empirical evidence trumps what you believe, okay. So, when you can sense data with proposed concepts, so the laws of logic that we evolve from sense data, we compare that to proposed concepts. But you can't compare, you can't contrast immediate sense data with proposed concepts, can we? Because proposed concepts are ideas, they don't come in through the senses other than as a transmission of ideas, right?
[42:43] So if I say, if I let go of this egg, it will float in the air. You can't contrast sense data with my proposed concept because I haven't let go of the egg yet. So if I'm holding an egg up and I say, if I let go of this egg, it's going to float in the air. Now, you can't contrast your sense data with the proposed concept because I haven't let go of the egg. So sense data is about what is happening or what has just happened. Proposed concept is about what will happen. since data cannot perceive the future and proposed concepts are about the future behavior of matter and energy. The ability to notice when what is being presented does not match with reality. Oh, it's a bit of a sentence fragment, but alright. It is from the rules of logic that we know contradictions cannot exist in reality, and with the rules that we are able to identify them. Okay? A cannot equal both A and non-A consequences. Consequently, any contradiction with reality must be a problem with the concept and not with reality. That's certainly true to give an example if Fred were to believe that the earth is flat and present a bit the wealth of evidence that exists today demonstrating that the earth is spherical, it is neither the evidence nor the fact that the earth is spherical that is the contradiction of Fred's conception of the flat earth itself yep in any contradiction between ideas and facts facts rule alright the relationship between arbiter and the reason for that is that we only have theories and reason and facts and life because it's because reality is not contradictory so them.
[44:09] We can't say that we only exist because of non-contradiction, and our purpose is to accept non-contradiction. If we accepted non-contradiction, we wouldn't be here. An arbitrary selection is, by definition, unfounded, and thereby it does not require adherence to the laws of logic. As we've demonstrated, if a concept is in line with the laws of logic, it cannot be the source of any contradiction. Okay, so now we're talking about concept formation, which is fine, but we're trying to figure out the ethical philosophies. Okay, so this is all metaphysics and epistemology, nature of reality, nature of knowledge. Fine. With it, arbitrariness is asserted, the risk for contradictions is undefinable because there is no metric by which to ensure a claim made without rational justification. Okay, sorry, I don't want to read this too fast. As we've demonstrated, if a concept is in line with the laws of logic, it cannot be the source of any contradiction. But when arbitrariness is asserted the risk for contradictions is undefinable because there is no metric by which to measure a claim made without rational justification, don't follow that too well if we arbitrarily assert that 2 plus 2 equals 5 we are obviously wrong but only if you were to scrutinize my claim utilizing the rules of mathematics logical symbology to do so um.
[45:28] You don't need mathematics to know that 2 and 2 do not equal 5. You don't need logical symbology. You know, toddlers, no. If you say to a toddler, I'm going to, let's say if you say, I'm going to give you two candies and then two candies, and then you give a toddler only two candy and one candy, they'd say, hey, where's the other candy? Right, so they don't have logical symbology, they don't have mathematics, but toddlers absolutely know these things, right? On the other hand I mean when you give chimpanzees, money the first thing that male chimpanzees do is start trading money for sex and they start bidding for this right and so they don't have logical symbology but they're still doing mathematics on the other hand if we were to arbitrarily claim that the highest of all goods is the reduction of harm the claim becomes much more difficult to casually dismiss, okay The claim is no less arbitrary than my poor mathematical assertion about when caution is the of pseudo-rationalizations. Oh. Ah.
[46:36] Rationalizations is now being used in the psychological sense, whereas before it was being used as a synonym for pure rationality. So again, you've got to watch this language. Don't flip. Meanings. They're ultimately defined by subjective preference. The obviousness of the break with rationality is better hidden from those not looking closely. Yeah. So when you say, I want to do the general good, you're just as irrational as saying two and two make five. I want to make everyone happy, but people get sucked in by the emotional language to, yeah, I get that. It is this link between arbitrariness and subjective preference that facilitates the adoption of the name anti-subjectivism. If an act is deemed good or evil merely because one asserts that it is ipso dixit, ipse dixit, sorry, then you have made good and evil ethically meaningless terms, and in so doing, robbed for important concept of any onus to be regarded seriously by those striving towards rationality. Okay, I'll be honest with you, I don't know what ipse dixit means.
[47:32] And when people go into not common use Latin, eh, not ideal. All right, let's do another minute or two. An arbitrary selection is subjective. The reason any person would make any given arbitrary choice is definitionally absent any sort of objective justification. These claims are made because they feel right, seem like the correct course of action, or might be close to the truth. But none of them are founded in any sense that a person striving to be rational, To be a rational individual would be able to logically validate or to test for soundness. Not all arbitrary selections are something that ought to be avoided. Your favorite tie, Metallica album, flavor of ice cream, and sports team are, for most people, arbitrary selections.
[48:13] But it is not the objective of anti-subjectivists to rob you of these personal pleasures. When the discussion turns to ethics, however, it is another matter entirely.
[48:23] Now, that's interesting. So, arbitrary selections. Your favorite tie? Maybe. Maybe. Metallica album? I suppose so. But flavor of ice cream? No, people would say that is not arbitrary. Your favorite flavor of ice cream is that which your tongue causes you to please the most. Your tongue creates the most pleasure in touching. So, that's not subjective. It's like saying that whether you choose to enjoy stubbing your toe or having sex, that's subjective. No, it's not, because one gives you pain and the other gives you pleasure, right? A sports team, people do not say that is an arbitrary selection. I'm sorry, this is like complete non-sports nerd talk. Sports teams are not arbitrary selections for just about everyone. Sports teams are based upon your geographical location. Not arbitrary.
[49:16] All right, let's do one more paragraph. Maybe we'll do more later. Arbitrary selection in the context of ethics, either normative or applied, the process for determining what is good and evil and how to live these determinations in reality, have ramifications that extend past your preference of Tom Brady or Dak Prescott Jersey. If an ethical theory makes an arbitrary selection to demand all able-bodied men fight a wild grizzly bear barehanded upon turning 18, or is to be considered bad, there are legitimate ramifications to such a prescription.
[49:46] Suddenly without any approval from the individuals in question, in order to be considered good, they are required to partake in the mass mauling of the youth, or else, or else. Who would ever enforce that, we hear you ask? Anyone who arbitrarily chooses to do so, throughout history, arbitrary ethical theories, in the form of various superstitions, religious, even, quote, scientific conclusions, have been indoctrinated into the masses. Everything from Hitler's Übermensch to purify the human race to the child sacrifices of the Aztecs to bring the rains, exist in this category and were adopted and enforced en masse to terrible effect. The existence of an arbitrary element in an ethical theory necessarily introduces the opportunity for further arbitrariness, and this can result in detrimental consequences for those who are expected to live under such circumstances. Right, so this is a standard atheist position, which doesn't mean that it's axiomatically incorrect, but it certainly is incomplete. So to say that arbitrary ethical theories have all just been indoctrinated into the masses, is to say that there has been no trial and error in ethical theories.
[50:52] Throughout mankind. So, there have been, I mean, the whole conservative position is to say, well, a bunch of ethical theories have been tried, and we have worked out the ones that work the best, right? Which tend to be monogamy, investment in children, property rights, limited government, and so on, right? So, there have been, there has been evolution in ethical theories, right? So, I mean, I talked about this in Australia in 2016 with regards to the Aborigines and saying, okay, so if you kill everyone who disagrees with you in society, then you don't progress as a society, and then you will be conquered by people who allow disagreements.
[51:36] So the more brutal and violent and censorious cultures were conquered by those who had more human liberty. And so there tends to be a movement across the world as the cultures which have evolved better methodologies tend to do better, right? So all of the cultures that have become, you know, feminist-obsessed, patriarchy-obsessed, hatred of men, suspicion of women, and welfare state, and so on, then you have a collapse of birth rates. And those cultures that have healthier relations between men and women in many ways, or at least can have more children, tend to do better, right? So there is a race, there is an arms race, so to speak, of ethical theories and so on, right?
[52:25] Ah, sorry, where are we at in this? We are about halfway through. So, I think I'll stop here.
[52:37] And, so, okay, well, let's just, okay, we don't want my paragraph to finish this, right? The chain of pseudo-rationalizations must start with an arbitrary selection. If there is no arbitrary rule demanding bouts with bears, there can be no false rationalization that someone ought to enforce the rule.
[52:52] We do not believe it to be hyperbolic in stating that unmitigated use of arbitrariness is the ultimate downfall of the overwhelming majority of modern ethical theories if not all of them, when arbitrariness is allowed to fester in places that have no and can never have rational justifications for their insertion it is a catalyst for any number of adverse reactions interpretations and results so yeah, anti-rationality in ethical theories is absolutely the downfall of civilizations, for sure. The state can counterfeit, you cannot. The state can initiate force, you cannot. The state can take, you cannot. The state can start wars, you cannot. The state can use political violence, you cannot. So, yeah, absolutely, I get all of that. So, but the problem is, if you're going to say, well, there's arbitrary stuff, but then you're going to say, when it comes to, all these laws are necessarily axiomatic, they must be adopted without a logical proof. Okay. So if you're going to say there's just stuff that you have to, it's necessarily axiomatic, you have to be adopted, and they have to be adopted without a logical proof, then that's going to be the case for everyone. They're going to say, well, my beliefs are necessarily axiomatic, and they have to be adopted. And my ethical theory absolutely demands and requires that you accept this premise and this premise and this premise, right? Right. Okay.
[54:16] So, we believe there to be three key aspects of the universe and our existence that must be directly addressed and agreed on before any ethical theory can be built. Well, no, the whole point of a debate is to convince people who don't agree with you. So, if you're going to say, well, you got to agree with us on this stuff before we can go any further, it's like, well, you've already lost me. Because if you go into a job interview and you say, well, you know, you're applying for some programming position and you say, okay, there are three aspects of this job that you have to agree on and then I'll work for you. You have to pay me a million dollars a year, I have to get foot rubs from a masseuse every morning and I want to work on the space station. So we'll talk now and now that you've accepted those, let's get me hired and they'll be, whoa, whoa, whoa, we haven't accepted any of those, right? Right? So that's the problem. So I really, I enjoy this kind of stuff. I hope it's interesting to you. I really do appreciate the work that these guys have done on this. And there's some interesting ideas in this for sure. I think this is an interesting first draft, but it needs to be made much more accessible. And you need to keep your promises, right? Right? You need to keep your promises, right? Right at the beginning, you say, and a manifesto informs in a poignant and powerful way. Okay, that's your sales pitch, right?
[55:30] That's your sales pitch. And if you're going to say this is a poignant and powerful story and it turns out to be a bunch of syllogisms then you have not kept your promises it's not exactly fraud but you're massively overselling what you're about to do and if you're going to make a promise which i take very seriously that this is a great insight motivational cause and a poignant and powerful okay then, saying that it's like tom brady's jersey is not poignant and powerful and you just need to work on that, in my opinion. And let me know if you want me to do more. I certainly appreciate this work. And thank you for the person saying to review this. I think it was interesting. If you've got other stuff you'd like me to check out, please let me know. Freedomain.com slash donate to help out the show.
Support the show, using a variety of donation methods
Support the show
