Question
Should a moralist ignore consequence and argue for UPB purely on the basis of epistemology and pure philosophical merit, while ignoring the elephant in the room, which is the question we all subconsciously ask. “How does this benefit my survival?”
UPB isn’t validated or invalidated by its consequences, but at the same time, discussions of UPB inevitably involve consequences. How do we reconcile this? Especially since free will is in the picture and we don’t want predictions about the future to invalidate choice.
For example, when asked about your thoughts on the success of UPB close to 20 years after publication, you mentioned reductions in violence against children with the expectation that this trend would continue if UPB continues to be spread. Would the theory and observation that UPB leads to reductions in violence against children be a deterministic portrayal of human beings? If we avoid discussing consequences to avoid this issue, then if someone wants to discuss UPB on the merit of usefulness towards themselves and society as a whole, do we stick to purely philosophical merit? Or do we say there are no guarantees, but it will make a desirable outcome more likely.
If we use terms such as 'more likely' in order to maintain philosophical integrity, how do we out compete those who are certain/dogmatic, benefiting from the momentum of societal norms in order to ‘validate’ their false theories.
Regarding the first question about the relationship between moral frameworks, their consequences and free will. I was thinking that if your definition is used where free will is defined as our ability to compare proposed actions to ideal standards then UPB provides ideal standards, increasing our capacity for free will. With this increased capacity, it becomes more likely for moral outcomes to occur…
0:02 - Introduction to UPB
2:57 - Consequentialism and Moral Philosophy
5:27 - Science and Morality
8:53 - Moral Rules and Society
10:48 - Consequences of Moral Violations
13:10 - Conscription and Its Impacts
14:46 - Wealth Transfer and Social Outcomes
16:23 - Conclusion and Future Questions
In this lecture, Stefan Molyneux explores the concept of Universal Preferable Behavior (UPB) and its philosophical foundations. He engages with the inherent complexities of moral philosophy by examining whether it is appropriate for moralists to disregard the consequences of their beliefs while defending UPB. The discussion emphasizes that although UPB itself isn't defined by its outcomes, the intersections of morality and free will necessitate conversations about consequences. Molyneux invites us to consider how ethical frameworks can impact human survival, ultimately challenging the audience to reconcile moral theory with practical implications.
Molyneux questions the validity of evaluative moral frameworks by stating that moralists often grapple with the implications of their beliefs on societal well-being. He presents the idea that UPB might increase the likelihood of positive moral outcomes by drawing parallels between the scientific method and moral reasoning. Just as a scientific theory about the earth's shape can guide navigation, so too can UPB provide a moral compass that aligns human behavior with a clearer understanding of ethical standards. This analogy serves to underline that moral truths should not be entangled with their consequences, as doing so could lead to manipulation and existential uncertainty in moral discourse.
A critical thread throughout the lecture is the potential pitfalls of consequentialism, which Molyneux argues can distort the truth of moral beliefs by implicating them in manipulative discourse. He insists that the intrinsic truth of moral statements must remain independent of their outcomes; however, he acknowledges that discussions about UPB inevitably lead to considerations of consequences. This leads to an exploration of historical cases, such as the conscription during World War I, to illustrate how violations of UPB can manifest in detrimental ways. Molyneux asserts that understanding these consequences is essential, as UPB should advocate for individual autonomy and consistent moral rules that benefit society.
Through a series of examples, Molyneux illustrates the larger societal trends that arise from UPB violations, such as the forced transfer of wealth and government control over education, linking these patterns to deteriorating social structures. He invites listeners to reflect on how moral principles can yield societal consequences, thereby reinforcing the need for robust moral frameworks that can withstand scrutiny and promote human flourishing. Ultimately, Molyneux emphasizes the importance of unearthing the philosophical merit of UPB while simultaneously grappling with the realities of its practical implications in our world.
[0:00] All right. Hi, everybody. Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain.
[0:03] Sorry, a couple of days without shows, but we're back in the saddle. And we are talking about UPB. Thank you for the great questions. Let's dive right in. Now, should a moralist, should a moralist ignore consequence and argue for UPB purely on the basis of epistemology and pure philosophical merit while ignoring the question we all subconsciously ask. How does this benefit my survival?
[0:33] UPB isn't validated or invalidated by its consequences, but at the same time, discussions of UPB inevitably involve consequences. How do we reconcile this? Especially since free will is in the picture and we don't want predictions about the future to invalidate a choice. For example, when asked about your thoughts on the success of UPB, close to 20 years after publication, you mentioned reductions in violence against children, with the expectation that this trend would continue if UPB continues to be spread. Would the theory and observation that UPB leads to reduction in violence against children be a deterministic portrayal of human beings? If we avoid discussing consequences to avoid this issue, then if somebody wants to discuss UPB on the merit of usefulness towards themselves and society as a whole, do we stick to purely philosophical merit? Or do we say, there are no guarantees, but it will make a desirable outcome more likely? If we use terms such as, more likely, in order to maintain philosophical integrity, how do we outcompete those who are certain slash dogmatic, benefiting from the momentum of societal norms in order to, quote, validate, end quote, their false theories?
[1:48] Regarding the first question about the relationship between moral frameworks their consequences and free will i was thinking that if your definition is used where free will is defined as our ability to compare proposed actions to ideal standards then upb provides ideal standards increasing our capacity for free will with this increased capacity it becomes more likely for moral outcomes to occur. Each insight that UPB provides could then be, like water, added to the clouds, making it more likely for a rain to fall, nourishing a drying and cracked earth, our conscience. If human beings are alienated from their conscience because of invalid moral beliefs, then UPB makes it possible for a greater union between ourselves and our conscience. Since the conscience isn't the only determinant of our behavior, we could say that that this isn't deterministic. Instead, this establishes a non-deterministic cause. Okay, so this goes on and on, and I appreciate these questions. I don't mean to interrupt, but the problem is... There's too many questions to encapsulate, we'll lose track.
[2:57] So, should a moralist ignore consequence and argue for UPB purely on the basis of epistemology and pure philosophical merit, while ignoring the elephant in the room, which is the question we all subconsciously ask, how does this benefit my survival?
[3:17] So, UPB is not primarily consequentialist, but it has consequences. And I think the best way to understand this is to look at the scientific method. The scientific method does not say that this scientific theory of the shape of the Earth is more valid if it allows you to sail around the world more accurately.
[3:43] However, a valid theory about the shape of the Earth does, in fact, allow you to sail around the earth more accurately, if that makes sense, right? So UPP is not consequentialist because consequentialism is really a form of mysticism. It is to say, well, my beliefs will have positive outcomes and therefore you should accept what I say to be true. My beliefs have positive outcomes, therefore you should accept what I say to be true. Well, all that does is cause immense amounts of escalation, right?
[4:24] Because people say, well, the consequences of not believing what I say will be so absolutely disastrous that you have to believe what it is that I say. You must. If you don't believe what I say, the world will end. If you believe what I say, then the world will be saved and will become a paradise. Well, we would not accept that as a valid scientific argument or mathematical argument or biological argument or anything like that. So the problem with consequentialism is it leaves entire moral categories and arguments open to immense amounts of manipulation by sophists and cold-hearted people who just want to promise you heaven and threaten you with hell in order to get you to fall in line with their self-serving moral quote theories. Well, moral theories, but quote moral theories.
[5:18] So, the truth of the shape of the world is independent of the consequences of that belief.
[5:28] However, an accurate statement about the truth of the shape of the world does in fact lead us to be able to navigate, say, from Spain to the New World, more accurately.
[5:41] Accurate statement about the shape and nature of the solar system is not consequentialist, but it has consequences. If you thought that the Earth was the center of the solar system, you would have a very hard time sending a probe, say, past Mars and out beyond Jupiter and so on. Like, you would simply not be able to do that because your entire conception of the shape of the universe, of the solar system, would be incorrect, right? So, while beliefs have consequences, the truth or falsehood of those beliefs is not determined by those consequences.
[6:26] So, otherwise, you would simply have to experiment all the time, and humanity could not survive. So, if you're a hunter-gatherer, back in the day, and you're hungry, your family's hungry, you don't just start eating random things around and see what fills you up and what doesn't poison you and what is edible and you don't just eat tree bark and bits of earth and a rock you know you just because that would be consequentialism you have to have a theory about what is tasty and what is healthy and what is going to give you fuel and energy and so on right so you can't just try things randomly like you couldn't say well i want to send a spaceship out past mars and Jupiter. So I'm just going to fire, you know, a bazillion spaceships into the sky and see which one follows a path that is helpful, right? That would be consequentialism. So you have a theory, and this is, you know, basic science, right? I don't mean to, sorry, that sounds kind of insulting, but taking the scientific analogy over to morality has, for me, at least with UPB, always been very helpful.
[7:32] So yeah, it's a basic science that you have a hypothesis that say the world is a sphere, and you then could test that hypothesis by attempting to navigate across the world as if it were a sphere. So of course you could say that it's a heliocentric solar system, it goes Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, and with that order in your thoughts, you could then try to predict, where and when and how the retrograde motion of Mars is observed. So, for instance, you could say, well, Mars starts swinging back in the night sky because Earth is accelerating it, because it's a shorter 93 million mile orbit, Earth is accelerating around the sun. So you would have a prediction.
[8:22] So the fact that there are consequences to moral belief systems is important, but they are not validated. it. By those belief systems. The morals are not validated by those belief systems. Because validation, when you say, how does this benefit my survival? Well, validation is subjective according to that standard. Human beings are an ecosystem of predator and prey, for the most part, at least throughout most of our evolution.
[8:53] So, if you're Genghis Khan, how well does, you know raping and pillaging and all these kinds of terrible things how well does that all serve the survival of your genes well isn't it like one out of every 17 people in that part of Asia is descended from Genghis Khan or something like that so you know that does pretty well for him.
[9:14] But it doesn't do very well for all of the men he displaced in his you know raping and pillaging and so on right would you rather be Aristotle in ancient Greece or would you rather be a slave well it serves at least in the short run it serves aristotle's survival or interests to have slaves but it does not serve the slaves survival and interest so i think in general though you do have to have i think moralists do have to accept this you know fairly big and robust challenge, which, you know, would be to say something like, when moral rules, UPP, when UPP, when moral rules are violated, things should get worse. And I'll get into sort of the things and the worst in a sec, but just in general. And when moral rules are more consistent than society does, better.
[10:17] So, of course, one of the big challenges is how is it that we get the modern world after the end of slavery? I mean, that certainly was a consequence of the end of slavery to a large degree. And, you know, we can haggle and go into details here and there. But in general, surf to bend slavery were the foundation of most of Western wealth. And then it turned to a much more free market in labor. And that changed everything to the point where we now have the modern world.
[10:48] So you kind of do have to answer that question as a whole.
[10:53] So if somebody is trying to sail around the world thinking the world is banana shaped they're probably not going to end up in the right place if on the other hand somebody is, sailing around the world on the assumption that the earth is a sphere then they're much more likely to end up in the right place now the absolute truth of a moral statement cannot be mired in consequentialism for individuals, for sure. You know, for the simple reason that it's entirely possible that the guy who thinks the earth is banana-shaped, I just realized it's a Monty Python reference. Anyway, it is. The guy who thinks that the earth is banana-shaped might just be blown wildly off course and end up sailing to the right place, right? So, that's no good, because then you have a supposed proof, that, well, this guy wanted to sail to the new world, he thought the world was banana-shaped, and he ended up in the right place. So, can't be universalized, right? Because randomness does not reproduce, right? I mean, a blind guy who whacks at a golf ball might get a hole in one, but he can't get it twice, right? Or very unlikely.
[12:02] So, when you write here, UPP isn't validated or invalidated by its consequences. But at the same time, discussions of UPP inevitably be involved consequences. How do we reconcile this? Well, I hope that this helps as a whole. If you look at a place where UPB violations occur in some very egregious ways, then you would be looking at, say, the draft, right? The forcible conscription of young men for the sake of war. Of course, that is a massive violation of UPB, right? I mean, kidnapping, assault, the initiation of the use of force, the enslavement of people for the sake of murder and death is about as big a UPB violation as can be conceived of. So we would generally say that given that conscription is a very anti-UPB position, that conscription would have negative results. So for instance, we can look at something like the First World War.
[13:10] And we could say, even if we accept that the government should be responsible for the currency or hold all the gold or have its taxation powers and so on, then we would say, okay, so with regards to the First World War, if the governments did not have the power of conscription, but instead had to pay for their soldiers.
[13:31] Right, had to pay for their soldiers, what would have happened to the length.
[13:37] And spread, and depth of the war, the First World War. Would it have resulted in 10 million people being killed? Well, no. So, that would be an example of a war that is paid for, is less totalitarian than a war in which the soldiers are forcibly conscripted. Also of course censorship would be bad censorship is negative in UPB, because it's asymmetrical one person is suppressing the voice of another, and if everybody has that power there's no such thing as censorship just everyone would censor each other and nobody would actually get to say anything so censorship has to be asymmetrical and that which is asymmetrical cannot be UPB compliant so it certainly is the case of course that the censorship in the first world war so that the soldiers were prohibited from writing back about the actual conditions of the war certainly helped it last longer, right? So when we're looking at consequences, there are a large number of general trends within the world, within history, within society that do need to be explained.
[14:46] The forcible or debt-based transfer of wealth from men to women, which characterizes most late-stage democracies, is the UPB violation.
[14:58] In that it is the non-voluntary transfer of wealth. And so we would expect that, given that the forcible transfer of wealth from either the unborn or man or whatever to women, but even the unborn is based upon usually the collateral value of the goods and services the man will produce in the future.
[15:19] That the society will do more poorly in terms of family formation and birth rates as UBB violations escalate, as more and more money goes to the women from the men. And of course, we see this, right? We see this happening quite clearly. We would also, I think generally assume that as government gains more and more power and control over education, the educational standards will decline because it's not a voluntary free market environment and so on, right? We could, you know, sort of do this all day, but we would want to have some sort of explanation as to why increases in UPP violations generally have more negative outcomes, in the same way that we would sort of have to explain that increases in the number of navigators who believed that the world was banana-shaped would result in fewer ships reaching their targets across long voyages, particularly across oceans.
[16:24] So I hope that helps. Great questions. We can go into more details if you like. And I really do appreciate these great questions. Really, really enjoyable stuff to work through, and I massively appreciate these questions coming in. So please keep me posted. I will get to more questions later, and I'm going to get ready for the show tonight. Lots of love from up here, freedomain.com slash donate to help out the show. Take care, my friends. I'll talk to you soon. Bye.
Support the show, using a variety of donation methods
Support the show
