In this episode, I address a thought-provoking email from a listener named Bob, who questions why my philosophy of ethics, Universally Preferable Behavior (UPB), will fail to save the West. I emphasize the importance of clear definitions and understandings in this conversation. UPB, I explain, is not some magical solution, an intergalactic superhero, or a force that will act on behalf of the West's problems. It is a conceptual framework grounded in reason, which people must choose to engage with. I contrast UPB with inert scientific theories and highlight that, like E=mc^2 or the theory of relativity, UPB does not inherently change minds; it relies on individuals to contemplate and adopt its principles.
Throughout our discussion, I assert that while UPB will not single-handedly solve the West's issues, it remains a valid and true framework for secular ethics. Over nearly two decades, this theory has withstood intense scrutiny from various ideological perspectives, and the consensus remains: actions like theft, murder, and assault can never be modeled as universally preferable behaviors. This undeniable truth highlights the need for an ethical system that people cannot dismiss, even when they disagree. I delve deeper into the implications of UPB, establishing it as a rational proof of secular ethics that transcends belief systems.
With examples illustrating the redundancy of faith-based morality, I clarify that ethical decisions cannot be waived away by simply disbelieving in a framework like that of UPB. If one accepts that some behaviors are inherently non-preferable, the challenge then becomes one of choice—whether to accept or dismiss this rational understanding. I illustrate this by likening the rejection of UPB to the absurdity of knowingly contradicting universally accepted truths: one cannot simultaneously affirm and reject logical propositions without losing credibility.
As our journey continues, I explore the competing narratives of faith and reason. I argue that given humanity's reliance on science and empirical evidence for progress, there is no turning back to a solely faith-based ethical system. The debate is no longer about which is superior but rather about acknowledging that reason has proven itself as essential for human flourishing. UPB is a crucial contribution to this pursuit of rational ethics; however, it remains impotent without the active engagement and commitment of individuals willing to champion reason and debate.
Ultimately, I call for a collective dedication to spreading reasoned ethical frameworks as our best chance for navigating the complexities of contemporary moral dilemmas. The real journey lies in our willingness to confront difficult discussions and to advance an ethical system that holds up to scrutiny. UPB, while valuable, will not save the West by itself; rather, it is our commitment to reason, debate, and moral action that offers hope for the future and the possibility of positive change.
0:07 - Introduction to UPB and the West
2:17 - The Inertia of Ideas
4:32 - The Validity of UPB
8:38 - The Consequences of Rejection
11:17 - The Power of Reason
14:30 - Faith vs. Reason
16:06 - The Path Forward
[0:00] All right. Good morning, everybody. Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain, 15th of October 2025.
[0:07] And I have a comment from a fellow. I call him Bob. He emails me on a fairly regular basis with great feedback. And Bob writes, Hi, Stefan. Why UPB, my theory of ethics, universally preferable behavior, why UPB will fail the West? I might spend time, he says, elaborating on why UPB will fail the West, to which your reply would be, thank you for explaining. You have used clear definitions at this point to the fact that you don't understand UPB. It's always interesting when people tell me my side of the conversation, but all right. Likewise, thank you for your talk, which clearly shows and clarifies you don't understand evangelical reformed Christianity. I am not an avid devotee to it either, but what I can tell you is that Christ came into the world, died and resurrected so mankind would have life and have life more abundantly. He didn't die for Charlie Kirk's sins so Charlie Kirk could become a politician. He died for Kirk's sins and for the sins of the individuals that trust and believe in him and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. If others want to capitalize on politician Kirk being a Christian, that's up to them, and if Kirk made the choice to debate Trump haters, then that was his choice.
[1:10] Being. Christian doesn't mean you have a death wish. For me to live is Christ, and to die my sinful ego is gain. Christ came so that we can and do have life more abundantly, regardless of our material circumstances which non-Christians judge people by. Kind regards and thanks for your philosophy in that talk. So, I appreciate that, and I think that's good and wonderful and nice and great, and I will tell you my thoughts. So, I, in no way, shape or form, can tell you that UPB will save the West, because UPB is not some sort of Terminator, Transformer, intergalactic superhero that takes up the cause of freedom and acts on behalf of all the myriad inhabitants of the West. I can in no way, shape, or form tell you that UPB will save the West because UPB is an inert set of pixels and bits and burps and typing and printing in
[2:14] my basement and thoughts in my head and arguments on the web. It does absolutely nothing on its own. E equals mc squared, or the theory of.
[2:25] Relativity or the theory of evolution do nothing. They don't change anyone's minds. They just are put out there. They're inert. It is people's choice to listen. It is people's choice to debate, to argue, and to push ideas on others. That is people's choice. I can't make that happen. I can't force that to happen. And even if I could, I wouldn't. It is a matter of choice.
[2:57] UPP will not save the West in and of itself. Somebody who comes up with, let's say, the first person to come up with iron or steel did not... The iron or steel, the idea or the formula for the methodology of iron and steel, or bronze, somebody who came up with that, the idea did not win any battles.
[3:23] The idea did not change anyone's mind foundationally, and it did not organize troops or conquer geographical regions or anything like that. It didn't do any of that. It's simply a design, a metallurgical formula for the creation of iron, bronze, and steel. It doesn't do any of that. In the same way that your car doesn't drive you anywhere, you have to drive your car. Baby, you can drive your car. So, UPB isn't going to do anything foundationally to solve people's lack of freedoms or to advance moral theories. UPB won't save the West. Now, UPB is valid and true. That I can tell you for sure. I mean, it's been almost 20 years, and professionals and skeptics and religious and fanatics and socialists, they've all run at UPB, and they've all failed, because UPB is valid. UPB is true. UPB is the answer to secular ethics.
[4:33] That's just a fact. There's no escaping it. there's no getting away around it. Even people most hostile have to accept that rape, theft, assault, and murder can never be universally preferable behaviors. That's it.
[4:45] What does that mean? It means that we have the answer to secular ethics, a rational proof of secular ethics. In other words, we have ethics that you cannot escape simply by disbelieving, right? You can't escape this. You cannot escape UBB simply by disbelieving. UPB is not a matter of faith.
[5:10] UPB is valid and true. Now, what you can do is you can say, UPB is valid and true, but I reject reason. So, when I say, can stealing ever be universally preferable behavior, right? So, the guy yesterday, and you know, everybody does the same thing, right? I said, is it possible to want to be stolen from? No. If you want your property taken, it's not theft. So theft can never be universally preferable behavior. It's very simple. And a three, four, five-year-old can understand it. It's very simple. Now, what somebody could say is, it is true that theft can never be universally preferable behavior, but I reject it anyway.
[5:53] You can say it is impossible to want people to steal from you, but I think it's valid anyway. Except people don't do that. That would be like saying, it is true that Christ is divine, but I reject Christ's divinity. People don't say that. Now, people can say they reject Christ's divinity, but they can't also say that he's divine. People don't do that. When faced with an absolutely stark contradiction, people accept it. And again, religious people have accepted it, professors of philosophy have accepted it, people who are hostile to be like rationality rules, have accepted it. Socialists have accepted it. Marxists have accepted it. It's just a fact. Now, if the fact that everyone has accepted it is just because it is proven, it is factual, it is real, it is valid, it is true. Can't be denied.
[6:47] You can say something completely contradictory. Of course, anyone can say that, but that tends to be crazy people. So, if someone were to say, it is true that stealing can never be universally preferable behavior, that is valid, but I reject the proposition anyway, then they lose all credibility in the intellectual sphere.
[7:12] Right? I mean, they then become like a kid with chocolate all over his face saying, I didn't touch any chocolate. And even when you show them chocolate all over the face, they say, that's not me, right? That's just, I mean, that would be like a sort of a crazy little kid who was really heavily addicted to not being caught eating chocolate, right? So, everyone accepts it because the price of rejecting UPB is having zero, absolutely zero credibility in the realm of discussion and debate. That is the price of rejecting UPB. Because if you say this is absolutely and irrevocably and universally true, which is what I went over with the guy yesterday, right? And again, he said that math is universal and true and valid. And I told him, is logic universal, true and valid? And here's a logical proposition about ethics that is universally true. And he was very honorable and very honest. Because of course, if he had said, if he had said in a debate, you have absolutely proven your point, but I reject it anyway, your point is absolutely valid and true, but I reject it anyway.
[8:27] Then no one will debate with you, right? No one will debate with you. I mean, you'll just be ejected from the realm of rational debate.
[8:37] I mean, which is debate, right? So, that's really important to understand that the price of rejecting something you accept as valid is that nobody will debate with you. And nobody has ever said that to me in my entire life. And I have done thousands of debates, even include sort of things in X, right? So, nobody has ever said to me over the course of my entire life. I agree that two and two make four, and I reject it.
[9:06] I agree, but all men are mortal. Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is immortal. I accept that, but it's not true. I cannot disprove it, but it is not true. I accept that it is true, but I reject that it is true. Nobody does that. Like I'm telling you, man, even crazy people don't do that. They'll fight, they'll twist, like if somebody says, where's the proof of this? And you provide them a source, and they say, I reject the source. But they don't say, I reject the source. Sorry, they don't say, I accept that the source is valid, and I disagree with the conclusion. I accept that the source is valid, I accept the validity of the conclusion, and I reject the validity of the conclusion. People don't do that. And the fact that, I mean, this is something that, I mean, it's wild to me. Maybe just because I see things, I guess I see things that other people don't. But, you know, when I have proven to someone, and this was true of the John, the philosophy professor or logic professor who called in, right? So I said, you know, we've now proven that rape, theft, assault, and murder can never be universally preferable behavior. And he just kind of blew past that as the guy did yesterday. And I'm like, whoa, whoa, hang on. We've just done a very big and important thing. We've just done a very big and important thing.
[10:20] We haven't done like the mafia acts in many ways on Kantian principles. Act as if the proposition of your action is universally true for everyone or the morality of your action is universally true for everyone. And the mafia is really good at violence, and they love violence. And so their argument is resources should be transferred by one's willingness to use violence. And given that the average shopkeeper is not willing to use violence, but the average mafioso is, We understand, right?
[10:50] But UPB, it cannot be denied, cannot be overturned, cannot be disproven, and can be explained to children, which is the key thing, right? I mean, if you say to the biggest kids, like canteen imperative, act as if the principle of your action becomes a general rule for everyone, the biggest and most aggressive kid on the playground is going to say, well, lunch money should be distributed according to one's willingness to bully, because he knows he's the biggest kid and the most violent kid, so he's going to get his stuff. Say, oh, well, that doesn't benefit you in the long run. It's like, no, it doesn't matter, right?
[11:17] And I mean, a compulsive liar who's really good at lying and has honed his capacity to lie to a fine art is going to love a political system where lying convincingly is the way to power because he's really good at it. It'd be like a chess grandmaster saying that we should distribute resources according to one's ability to play chess.
[11:40] So, or the tallest guy saying the tallest guy should get the most resources. I'm willing for that to be a universal for everyone, so UPB isn't going to do anything it's going to be dependent upon people's willingness to accept debate, argue for and act upon UPB that's all it's about so I need, and the world frankly, needs desperately needs an ethical system you cannot wave away needs an ethical system you cannot just wave away right? So, you've got an ethical system that relies upon accepting the existence of the Old Testament God, then you can wave away that moral system just by disbelieving in God. All morals come from God. God is not rational. God is not proven. God is not empirical. So, if you're rational and empirical, then this has been the battle, right? So, science has been so incredibly productive in human life that people can't just say, well, what's the big deal with reason and evidence and universality?
[12:51] Human reason and science have produced almost infinitely more goods to humanity, and not just goods like the good, things that are helpful and positive, and things like air conditioning, which keeps people alive when it's too hot, things like antibiotics, things like electricity. I mean, I won't go on and on. We sort of understand it, right? So human reason has proven to be so amazingly powerful and competent and good that people can't just, you can't just dismiss reason anymore. You can't just be like, you know, Martin Luther and say, well, you got to tear reason out by the roots and destroy it. And like, no, no, reason has proven its value. It's proven its value. I mean, everyone who's around, pretty much everyone who's around is alive now because of science, engineering, free markets, and medicine. I mean, that's it. That's why we're here. That's why we're having this conversation. I can't sit there and say, well, reason is inferior to faith. Because everything that I used to communicate that is based on reason. I can't be the guy, like if there's some guy who spends a lot of money and then says money has no value, it's like that's just a performative contradiction, right? Self-detonating argument.
[14:04] If I think that faith is superior to reason, then I would not do a podcast. I would pray to God to enlighten people, and God would do the job for me. But the moment I say, well, I'm not going to pray to God to enlighten people, I'm going to make reasoned arguments and communicate them using the reason-derived technology, then I can't say that faith is superior to reason.
[14:24] And so, reason and evidence has proven itself as vastly superior to faith. And this is one of the reasons why people of falling away from the church, is that in the competition for human benefit between faith and reason, reason has decisively proven its superiority. And you can say, ah, yes, but it hollows people out of meaning and then values and virtues. I mean, I get all of that, which is why I worked very hard to create a rational system of ethics, which will do the same thing to human society and even more benefits than reason did to the dark ages that the free market did to human flourishing. So, yeah, reason isn't going to save the West. UPB isn't going to save the West. But people's dedication to havoc and spreading reason, that has a pretty good chance. Well, I mean, it's really our only chance. An ethical system that you cannot deny. You can't.
[15:27] You I agree that 2 and 2 make 4, but 2 and 2 don't make 4. I both accept it and reject it. I reject it as valid and proven, and then I reject it. Has any credibility in that. Nobody will believe anybody about that. So that's the fact of the matter. That's the reason of the matter. That's the reality of the matter. It's absolutely true that UPP will not save the West in and of itself. It's inert. But we cannot turn back the clock and undo the benefits that reason, science, empiricism, and the free market have shown to humanity.
[16:03] We cannot simply turn the clock back and undo that. We've got to go forward with reason. There is no way back to faith alone. I hope this helps. freedomain.com/donate. Lots of love. Bye.
Support the show, using a variety of donation methods
Support the show
