0:04 - Introduction to Moral Philosophy
7:42 - The Failure of Religion
13:11 - The Need for New Solutions
16:09 - A Path Forward for Morality
In this lecture, Stefan Molyneux discusses the pervasive presence of indifference among those who identify as Christians during his childhood experiences of violence and trauma. Molyneux reflects on the contradictions between the moral teachings of Christianity and the apparent lack of action from those who claimed to uphold these values. Despite being surrounded by supportive adults, from family members to community figures, he experienced a striking absence of intervention when it came to his well-being. This experience is not an isolated case, as he shares that many individuals he has encountered in his philosophical discourse have similar stories of neglect from those who profess moral beliefs.
Molyneux emphasizes the concept of evil as a significant challenge that humanity faces, likening himself to a physician seeking a cure for this societal ailment. He asserts that unless a solution for evil can be found, mankind risks self-destruction. Although he acknowledges his commitment to finding a cure, he critiques both religious frameworks and atheistic nihilism as inadequate solutions to the problem of evil. He argues that while religion offers moral rules derived from a divine source, it ultimately fails to consistently protect vulnerable populations, such as children, from harm.
The lecture explores the limitations of various moral philosophies, highlighting how atheistic perspectives can lead to chaos and moral relativism, where the lack of absolute ethics results in a breakdown of societal structures. Molyneux contrasts this nihilistic view with religious morality, asserting that merely accepting divine moral laws does not guarantee adherence to those laws. He argues that if the belief in God is what underlines moral commandments, the rejection of that belief leads directly to moral disintegration and a return to primeval instincts.
Molyneux introduces his own ethical system, framed around the concept of Universally Preferable Behavior (UPB), positing that this approach transcends theological or state-based moral interpretations. He claims that his system is simple enough to be explained even to children and provides a framework in which objective morality exists independent of religious belief or governmental authority. This ethical foundation is outlined as a necessary component in the effort to protect children and ensure their well-being.
Throughout the lecture, Molyneux repeatedly calls attention to the protection of children as central to any moral framework. He uses this perspective to argue that a society that fails to safeguard its children should not expect to maintain cohesion or moral structure. He critiques educational institutions for perpetuating cycles of abuse and indoctrination rather than fostering genuine understanding and growth. By evaluating various moral systems, he concludes that only through objective moral philosophy can society hope to create conditions conducive to the safety and flourishing of children.
Molyneux wraps up by encouraging listeners to explore his work on peaceful parenting and UPB, suggesting that these concepts provide a viable pathway to a moral society. He expresses hope that through critical examination and engagement with his ideas, individuals can begin to rectify the moral failures of past systems and offer genuine protection to the next generation.
[0:00] Yo, yo, Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain. How are you doing? A couple of points.
[0:04] Thank you, everyone, of course, so much for this amazing conversation that's going on on X or Twitter. You can join it at x.com slash Stefan Molyneux. I'll put the link below.
[0:14] Great conversations. I really, really appreciate everyone's feedback. Just want to sort of clarify a couple of points, and we can continue on with this great interchange or exchange. change. So when I say I suffered under great evils as a child, and violence and madness and all kinds of stuff, and one of the things, of course, that was kind of impossible to miss was that I was surrounded by Christians. I, of course, I went to church many times a week when I was in boarding school. I was in the choir, and I was surrounded by Christians. We were in apartments with paper-thin walls and the violence and all of that was occurring, everyone could hear it and so on. And, you know, we're not talking sort of personal confrontation, but, you know, a phone call to the authorities would have probably changed things quite a bit, and possibly for the better, I think, to some degree for the better. And so I was surrounded by family members who were Christians, extended family who were Christians, priests, teachers, neighbors, all, for the most apart were Christians, and hundreds, maybe even a thousand, because I lived in three different countries, all of which were Christian, mostly two, a little bit in Africa, and I.
[1:30] There was no movement, no solution. Nobody asked me what was going on. Nobody asked me how they could help. Nobody called the authorities. Nobody talked to my mother. Nobody, like anything like that, right? Now, these are just facts. And of course, I've talked to thousands of people over the last 20 years on my philosophy show at freedomain.com who've had, you know, similar sort of experiences of indifference from all those around. Now, I understand that's a self-selecting group and it's not any kind of objective metric of the general human experience any more than if you just look at a doctor's waiting room, you'd say, my God, everyone's sick, right? It's like, well, no, it's a self-selecting group. I get all of that. But nonetheless, these are sort of facts. As a moral philosopher, I'm analogous to a doctor who is trying to cure one disease and one disease only. And that disease is evil, right? There has to be a cure for evil.
[2:25] Otherwise, we are doomed as a species to self-destruction. There has to be a cure for evil. Now, just because I feel that there has to be a cure for evil and I don't want the entire destruction of the people of the planet doesn't mean that there is one. But I'm certainly going to bend every moral and mental fiber of my being to be in hot pursuit of one. I love humanity. I love you all. And if you have a loved one who is going to die of a disease, it seems to me quite likely that you'd be heavily invested in trying to cure that disease. And that is my goal as a moral philosopher is to cure evil. Now, of course, in the curing of evil.
[3:06] I have two major competitors, religion and a kind of evolutionary nihilism. So the evolutionary nihilism is the atheists and the fedora wearers who say, well, morality is a kind of reciprocal altruism that evolved in tribal contexts in order to mutual aid and help and so on. That's just a description of Darwinism and a description of that which is advantageous towards the success of a particular tribe, which usually comes at the violent not-success of every other tribe around them, conquering and, you know, sort of that indigenous North American constant churn of violence and predation, that's not a description of morality, that's just a description of brute amoral natural advantage. So that's not a cure for evil, that is a mere description that cooperation sometimes allows one evil group to triumph over another, like an alliance among thieves, an alliance among murderers is not a description of morality, but of momentary criminal advantage. So no, that's not the answer.
[4:14] So of course, the other is religion. And all due respect, I view religion as superior to atheist nihilism in almost every conceivable metric. So I sort of want to be clear about that up front. But the other competitor with what I'm doing with regards to morality, the cure for evil, is religion. And the general argument that I would make is that.
[4:43] People who believe in God believe in the moral rules of God, right? God gives you these moral rules. So people who believe in God believe in these moral rules, and therefore they should be better than people who don't believe in God, right? Of course, if you accept and believe in the rules of the road, follow the speed limit to reasonably closely obey the yield and the stop and the one-way signs and so on. If you accept and believe in the rules of the road, you should be a better driver than those who reject and disbelieve in the rules of the road, right? If you accept and believe in the rules of chess, you should be a better chess player than people who don't believe in the rules of chess because they're not even playing chess. They're just throwing rooks and pawns around, right? So people who believe in the rules of tennis should be better tennis players than those who don't believe in any rules of tennis. So, or will change the rules for their particular advantage, which is the sort of Darwinian...
[5:44] Argument for reciprocal altruism or whatever. Well, if it benefits me materially to ally with this person rather than this person, I'll do that, right? It's just a description of criminal collusion. So if God's plan for the world is the moral improvement of mankind through, the provision of moral rules and then the salvation or damnation of the eternal soul based upon, the provision and following of those moral rules, then people who believe in the moral rules of God and who believe that they will achieve either salvation or damnation for eternity, based upon their following of these moral rules, they should be better, right? Jesus says, whatever you do to the least among you, so do you also do to me. If anyone harms the little ones, the children, it's better that a millstone be hung around his neck and be thrown into the deep ocean. it's an analogy, but it's saying that you should protect children at all costs, at all costs, right? And this is what the people around me were raised with. And this is what the threat of eternal salvation or damnation hanging over you. You should protect the children no matter what at all costs at the peril of your eternal soul. Empirically, it's not enough. It doesn't work. It's a cure for evil that doesn't work.
[7:07] Now, if a doctor prescribes a pill for a particular ailment, and the pill does not cure that ailment that doesn't mean the doctor doesn't exist, It doesn't mean that medicine doesn't exist But what it does mean is that pill doesn't work, And the pill of follow the rules of God under threat of heaven and hell for eternity doesn't work.
[7:42] Because the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people around me with knowledge of the harm and abuse that I was suffering didn't even make a phone call, didn't ever ask me how I was doing, didn't make any plans to improve things and so on, right?
[8:03] Well, if a moral rule from God called protect the children doesn't have you even make a phone call when you repeatedly hear a child being harmed, then it doesn't work. Look, if religion worked in terms of protecting children, I'd be thrilled. I would be thrilled because it would mean that, although I didn't understand the mechanics of the pill, you take the pill and you get better, then the illness is cured. But atheistic Darwinian nihilism doesn't work. We know that, of course, because the combination of atheism plus the power of the state. Since atheists worship power, because Darwinian evolution is all about power and dominance, the atheists worship power, which means atheists worship the state, which means the combination of atheism plus the state produces communism, which has killed 100 million people in the 20th century. Alone. So that doesn't work. And does religion work to protect children? It does not. It does not.
[9:15] And if you see there are two doctors prescribing a medicine, and one doctor's medicine makes the illness worse, and the other doctor's medicine doesn't make the illness better, then you're going to look for a third possible. cure.
[9:37] If atheism and Darwinianism doesn't work, if religiosity doesn't work, what is left? Well, you need rules that people are willing to follow. They need to be objective and clear, and they need to be explainable to children. Atheistic Darwinian descriptions are not explainable to children, because then it would be to say, well, if you can push that kid and get his food or his toy, you should do so, because that's what evolution would teach. So that doesn't work. You can explain religious morality to children, do this or you'll be punished for eternity, although I think it's a bit high stakes and it doesn't seem to work in the practical long-term sense. And the other thing too, of course, with religion, if you believe in God and therefore you follow these moral rules, the problem is that you can escape these moral rules, by ceasing to believe in God, and therefore, since the moral rules come from God, if you cease to believe in God, you cease to believe in these moral rules, and then you just end up with atheistic Darwinian dominance, which is a state of nature, nature, red and tooth and claw. Nasty, brutish, and short is the life of man in a state of nature.
[10:59] So there has to be another cure, or we become nihilists and despair that there's ever any cure. And then we view the illness not as a deviation from health, but as sort of the inevitable decay of aging and death. You can do something to resist it, but it's going to get you in the end. And I don't accept that. I don't accept that.
[11:24] So empirical rational philosophy has not been tried. And this is why I've worked very hard on a system of ethics that is secular and rational. And you can't escape it. You can't escape. Universally preferable behavior, my rational proof of secular ethics is inescapable. And I've had, I mean, it's been almost 20 years. I've had countless debates about this stuff with people who are entirely skeptical. They can't overturn it. They just can't. I mean, it is in the two plus two equals four territory. And you can get the free book at my website, freedomain.com slash books. So you can't escape it. Now, does that mean you have to follow it? No. I mean, you can go to a mathematical conference and you say that two and two make five or two and two make an invisible whale, but they won't take you seriously. I mean, you can have your crazy beliefs, but you're ejected from any serious conversation about these matters. And you can reject the basic logic of UPB, but then, I mean, not yet because it takes time, but you'll just be like, well, you're not part of the conversation. You'll be sort of ostracized as being foolish. So, yeah, we have to protect the children. We have to protect the children Christianity has failed to do it atheistic nihilism has failed to do it the ancient pagan gods failed to do it post-modernism, relativism, subjectivism, pragmatism, utilitarianism have all failed to protect the children and if we can't protect the children we cannot have morality.
[12:47] And we certainly can't have social cohesion or structure because children who are not protected, which is children in society as a whole, not only are they not protected, they're tossed in these horrible brain abuse mills called, quote, public education. It's monstrous. Where they're drugged and propagandized and taught to hate themselves and the culture of their history.
[13:12] So all prior medicines against evil have failed in the protection of children and if you fail to protect children they have no foundational allegiance to their society why would you?
[13:29] So monotheism has failed polytheism has failed, Darwinianism has failed atheism has failed statism has failed the welfare state has failed all of it has failed to protect children, and the protection of children is foundational, to morality if children are protected they respect the rules, they respect society they have gratitude to society and evil most often originates out of amorality plus child abuse, and I I actually read Lloyd DeMoss' great book, The Origins of War in Child Abuse. You can get that for free. Again, freedomain.com slash books. You should listen to it. It's a fantastic, though obviously disturbing book. So if we can protect children, we can get a moral world. If we can protect children, we get a peaceful world.
[14:31] And the fact that belief in god and the threat of eternal punishment and reward has not been enough for society to protect children means we must find another way that is peaceful parenting peaceful parenting.com it's a free book please please please i'm begging you just just start it just give it 10 minutes just give it 10 minutes it will blow your mind and open your heart it It doesn't matter if you're a parent or not. It helps if you're a parent. But we've all been children, so you need to understand the moral nature of the ways in which you were raised, both well and badly. Peacefulparenting.com. Just give it 10 minutes. That's all I'm asking. Just give it 10 minutes.
[15:14] But everything but objective moral philosophy has failed. Does that mean that moral philosophy will succeed? Well, I have created objective moral rules that can't be escaped by disbelieving in God, and it requires neither gods nor governments for the understanding and the enforcement of morality. It's a cure that is logically consistent, has certainly worked in my own life, has worked in the lives of the people who have followed UPB and Peaceful Parenting. So I have now almost 20 years of data gathered from this, and it works beyond the efficacy of anything I really could have conceived of when coming up with it. It works far better than I had ever imagined.
[16:09] And so if all prior cures to the maltreatment of children have failed, and we have one now that has overwhelming empirical success and logical consistency, philosophy rescues us from societies which have failed to rescue and protect children, peacefulparenting.com. I beg you, please check it out. And thank you so much for the conversation.
Support the show, using a variety of donation methods
Support the show
