How to Screw Virtue! Listener Questions

Stefan Molyneux

Stefan Molyneux addresses a recurring question from listeners:  "Is it against UPB to preemptively attack?  Someone is at the border of your property with a gun or troops are amassing at a border.  Is it moral to attack them first?  How far in advance are you able to act and still be moral?"  SUBSCRIBE TO ME ON X! https://x.com/StefanMolyneux  Follow me on Youtube! https://www.youtube.com/@freedomain1  GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK! https://peacefulparenting.com/  Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!  Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!  You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!  See you soon! https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2025

Transcript

00:00All right, questions from X listeners or readers. Is it against UPB to preemptively attack? UPB,

00:10of course, is a rational system of secular ethics. You can get the book for free at

00:16freedomain.com slash books. You can also get a shortened version in the last third of my free

00:21book, Essential Philosophy. Is it against UPB to preemptively attack? Someone is at the border of

00:27your property with a gun or troops or amassing at a border. Is it moral to attack them first? How

00:31far in advance are you able to act and still be moral? So, this is edge case paralysis. I'll be

00:40straight up with you. This is edge case paralysis. So, the goal of this kind of question is to sort

00:48of pretend that morality is so helpless and hopeless and complicated that it can't ever really be

00:57sorted out or understood. It is if somebody is starving to death and they are stealing a loaf

01:07of bread. Is that okay? If someone has stolen something and then they hand it to their children

01:17and their grandchildren, at what point, I ask you, at what point does it become theirs? Is it beyond

01:25right? And this is sort of like the argument of, well, what, or saying, well, what is the magical

01:35difference? Let's say that we say that the age of 18 is when somebody becomes a legal adult. Well,

01:40what is the magical philosophical difference between, you know, 17.9999 and 18 years old? And

01:48it's all this just edge case paralysis. And the origins, and I'll answer the question, I will. I'll

01:57answer the question, but I just want you to understand that this is a tool of evil. Now,

02:05I'm not saying that everybody who asks these questions is evil, obviously, right? But you are

02:10unwitting tools of malevolent forces. And the question of when is self-defense legitimate? Do

02:18you have to wait to get stabbed? And, you know, all of this stuff. Edge case paralysis. Oh, you

02:24respect property rights, but what if someone's drowning and you have to take somebody else's

02:29lifesaver and throw it to them without their permission? It's all this edge case paralysis stuff.

02:35And the purpose of it is to pretend that edge cases are the essence of philosophy. And the

02:47edge, the essence of morality is to ponder these edge cases. And they're designed to not be answered.

02:56They're designed to, you can't answer them. And it is there to paralyze philosophy, to paralyze

03:03morality, or since those things are abstractions, to paralyze moralists, to have them chasing

03:09a beast that can never be caught, and not to take down the beasts that are right in front of you.

03:17It would be like somebody saying, like, you're a hunter in the Neolithic age or era or whatever,

03:23right? And you're a hunter, and your wife says, only come back with a two-headed rabbit.

03:28I will not eat anything except a two-headed rabbit. Now, are there two-headed rabbits in the world?

03:36I imagine that you can have a rabbit born with a very rare genetic mutation. I've seen two-headed

03:42snakes and things like that. There are conjoined twins in humanity and so on. It's like they share

03:49a lot of the body, but they have separate heads. So they're extraordinarily rare. So if your wife would

03:57have said to you in caveman days, you can only eat a two-headed rabbit, you would starve to death,

04:03because you could roam the entire world for your whole life and never see a two-headed rabbit.

04:09So having you search for the rarest incarnations and step over the things that can actually feed you

04:19is sending you on a useless and pointless quest in order to destroy your life. I'm not kidding about this.

04:29I'm genuinely, deeply, and seriously not kidding about this. In our lives, we face real, deep, genuine,

04:37and daily moral choices. We probably know people who hit their children. We probably know people

04:46who support corruption in the form of various government programs. I'm almost certainly right.

04:52We probably know people who are morally compromised by working against their fellow citizens for malevolent

05:02aspects of the government. We probably face people who are propagandized into spreading extremely dangerous

05:10lies as if they're true and good and virtuous and noble. I think Scott Adams and other people have

05:18got an entire list of lies. We probably know people who subscribe to moral beliefs yet do not follow

05:28them in any practical way. Last night, I had a call, and it was a good call. The fact that I got

05:34angry doesn't make it any less good for me, and I certainly did say to the man, I'm not angry at him,

05:40but where he was saying, well, I mean, but people could misinterpret peaceful parenting, and could they

05:45get it wrong? And it's like, these are unanswerable questions, and they're gotcha questions. I'm not

05:51saying he was doing it consciously. I doubt it. But it's an unconscious thing, and it's trauma from having

05:56been hit as a child, which he kind of half-confirmed. But as I pointed out, the Bible seems to fairly

06:06explicitly command people to beat their children with implements, right? If you beat your child with

06:11the rod, he will not die, right? So people, Christianity is the biggest religion on the

06:19planet, right? So people who read the Bible beat their children based upon what's in the Bible.

06:25Some of them are more allegorical, like the rod of instruction is often a shepherd's stick used to

06:33guide people and so on, right? Spare the rod, spoil the child means if you don't instruct your child

06:38in virtue, he will swing to hedonism and status and other things that are not moral. But the other

06:44one is like, if you beat your child with the rod, he will not die. It's better to beat him than for

06:48him to go astray, and you should beat your children. And so the question is not, can people

06:54misinterpret what I say, but can people correctly interpret what the Bible says and end up beating

07:03their children with implements, like with belts or sticks or rods, switches, they call them in the

07:09South. There's a particularly diabolical form of child punishment, which is just child abuse,

07:13which is to have the child choose their own stick with which to be beaten. And, you know,

07:19just to sort of clarify my point with talking about this to the man is, if somebody brings up a moral

07:27concern, right, to me, and of course you can always, the question, can someone misinterpret what you're

07:34saying is always a gotcha question. Always. And again, I'm not saying he's doing it consciously,

07:41but it is an instinct based upon, in this case, an excessive or wild amount of punishment from

07:48parents. So it's a gotcha question because if you answer, no, it is impossible to misinterpret what

07:55I'm saying, then you look crazy because everybody knows that it is possible for people to misinterpret

08:01what you're saying. If you say, yes, it is possible for people to misinterpret what I'm saying,

08:06then you are automatically downgraded as an effective communicator. So it is a gotcha question,

08:14as you would expect from somebody who was, you know, I think fairly brutally punished as a child.

08:20And it is, it's annoying. It's an annoying question. Because if he, if he's concerned about

08:27people taking moral instruction and applying it badly against their own children, he already said

08:34that there are billions of Christians around the world who do that, which he's not focusing on,

08:37he's focusing on my little show and my little book and all of that, right? So that is not,

08:42that's not good faith arguing. And again, I'm not sort of accusing him of any sort of conscious

08:46malevolence, but that's just not good faith debating. Is it possible that people have could,

08:52that people could misinterpret what you've written? I don't answer questions that are gotcha questions.

08:59There's no point answering them. I don't. And that's why I reframed it, right? And to say,

09:05well, is it possible for anyone to misinterpret anything? Sure. But that the point is you put

09:10out things as clearly as possible. And when the Bible commands you to beat your children with

09:15implements, the issue is not whether somebody might misinterpret the non-aggression principle

09:20applied to children. Because he said that there are a lot of Christians or, you know, I don't

09:27remember exactly how many he said, but there's a, an unknown, but not insignificant number of

09:33Christians who beat their children based upon what the Bible says. And that's bad. I didn't ask him if

09:40he was beaten. I only asked him if he was spanked. So if he's concerned about people abusing their

09:49children, then they are far infinitely more likely, really, if they're Christians and they believe

09:55that beat your children with implements is the word of God, then they are much more likely to beat

10:00their children on a correct interpretation of a Bible verse than to beat their children when I say

10:06don't use violence against your children. Like if you have clear instructions on how to put a cabinet

10:12together, and they're good, they're not like some half-translated kanji crap, right? You have clear

10:18instructions on how to assemble a cabinet, right? You make a cabinet, you ship it out. Very clear

10:24instructions. You have videos online, you have help centers, you know, help people are confused. You

10:29include all the tools, right? You make it as easy and as clear as humanly possible to assemble the

10:34cabinet. And then somebody says, well, isn't it possible that people might assemble the cabinet

10:41incorrectly? That is not a good faith question. It's absolutely not a good faith question.

10:48Especially if there are, if there's a cabinet about a billion times more popular that has

10:54incorrect instructions, right? So going to a cabinet maker who has very clear instructions

11:01and saying, well, isn't it possible that people could misinterpret your instructions and put your

11:07cabinet together incorrectly? When he actually subscribes to a cabinet maker a billion times more

11:13popular that actually has bad instructions is a bad faith argument. If he's concerned about bad

11:20instructions, then he should focus on his cabinet maker that's way more popular and which has really

11:28bad instructions rather than my very clear instructions for a small time relative to his

11:33cabinet maker. You see, this is why it's bad faith, right? If you're concerned about bad

11:37instructions, you go to the biggest cabinet maker with the worst instructions. You don't go to the

11:41smallest cabinet maker with the best instructions. That's why it's bad faith. And again, I'm not

11:46accusing him of any conscious malevolence, but that is the result of trauma. That is a result of bad

11:52parenting, of punishment based and violence based parenting. So we all know people, let's say,

12:00who are Christians who have not forgiven, even when the person has apologized. We all know people

12:06who are Christians who bear false witness, who lie to their parents, still, and aren't honest,

12:13if they have issues with their parents, aren't honest about those issues, and so on, right? We all know

12:17people who follow Christianity, who are not particularly generous with the poor, and so on,

12:24right? And who are ostentatious in their consumption and live in a house bigger than they

12:30need. And when Jesus says, those who would follow me, sell everything you own, give the money to the

12:35poor. Now, I know that's to be pure, but there are a lot of Christians I know that spend more money

12:44than they need, when they could be giving the excess to the poor, as Jesus commands. So we all know

12:51people who support government programs while failing to process and understand the fact that

12:57government programs are based on coercion. We all know people who blame capitalism for the actions

13:04of government monopolies, such as currency and interest rates, or significant government influence

13:11in that way. We all know people who are rude and aggressive to their spouses and friends. We all know

13:19people who are doing dodgy things at work and aren't acting with high integrity. We all know people,

13:26and we look in the mirror, and we, I mean, I'm not perfect, you're not perfect. So we all know people

13:31who are not following the moral standards that they preach. We all know mothers, for instance, who say,

13:42I would do anything for my children, and then you point out how dangerous and bad government schools

13:46are, and that they should quit their work, quit their jobs and homeschool, and then they won't do

13:51it. It's like, well, then don't tell me you will. I don't, I don't, I mean, in a sense, I don't care

13:57what people do. I just don't want them to lie about it. So if you'd rather have your job and dump your

14:02kids into brain rotting government schools, okay, then that's fine. It's bad, but it's fine as long as

14:09you're honest about it and say, well, I'm doing that, which is not best for my kids, because I like

14:13having a job. Okay, just be honest, right? Then don't say, family comes first, and I do anything

14:19for my kids, because you won't. You won't. So the reason I'm saying all of this is when people come to me

14:28with moral questions, they could ask about anything, anything. And to me, the most honorable people are

14:36the ones who ask about moral questions and challenges that they have in their own personal

14:40lives, right? And they say that, oh, you know, I'm having problems at work. I got morally compromised.

14:49I'm having problems with my kids and my spouse, my parents and my friends or myself. I'm not

14:55fulfilling my potential. I'm whatever. Any number of things, right? Now that's honorable. That's good.

15:03That's decent, because that's something you could do something about. You know, my brother's hitting

15:08his kids, and I really don't like it, or my sister-in-law yells at my kids, or whatever it

15:13is, right? Or yells at her kids, let's say. Or, you know, my parents were really harsh with me,

15:18but they're great with my kids, and I would like to sort of figure out that disparity. You know,

15:24the call-in stuff, right? Call-in shows. Now, again, people want to talk abstract philosophy,

15:28great. I did a chat two days ago with a fellow about the ethics of forgiveness. It was very

15:35interesting. So, that's my question. Is what you're asking about something that you can act on,

15:43or is an important issue in your own life, right? That is the essential question. Is it important

15:53in your own life? Is the moral question that you're asking important and actionable in your

15:58own life? Now, if somebody is asking a really edge-case abstract question that will never ever

16:05apply to them in their life, then by implication they're saying, and I hear this very clearly,

16:12and just, you know, if you're going to ask me questions, again, I don't mind discussing the

16:15edge-case abstractions. I'm just telling you what they look like to a perceptive person.

16:20What they look like to a perceptive person is, this is the most important moral issue

16:26in my life. Therefore, all the other moral issues are dealt with. Do you see what I mean?

16:35If you were to come into the ER, and you were bleeding from your eyeballs, and one of your ears was

16:43hanging off, and your leg was gangrenous, and the doctor said, okay, what do you need?

16:50And you were to say, well, let me ask you just sort of theoretically, if I got some very unusual

16:59disease, even though I hadn't been around anybody infected with it, what would happen? Or how would

17:07you deal with it and all of that, right? Or, you know, I don't have a hangnail, but if I did have

17:11a hangnail, or, you know, gosh, you know, once when I was 12, I cut my nails too short, and they kind

17:18of hurt for a while, is that bad? Do you see what I mean? That would be so dissociated that the doctor

17:27wouldn't even really know what to say. And he might answer your question, but I think he would

17:32also point out that you're bleeding from the eyeballs, your ear is hanging by a thread, and

17:36your leg is gangrenous, right? Or, you know, there's a sort of famous meme where this guy is

17:43having a chat with a girl on a dating app, and she's like, well, I don't like, you know, you're

17:46not MAGA, are you? Because I don't like that Republicans are taking away my reproductive rights.

17:50And he's like, you're 39, what do you care about reproductive rights? A little harsh, and also a little

17:56young. But nonetheless, if you are 400 pounds, and you go to a nutritionist, and the nutritionist

18:07says, all right, what can I do for you? And you say, let me let me ask you something. Let's say that

18:13I was mildly lactose intolerant, and 80, what kind of meals would you design for me? Wouldn't that be

18:23bizarre? Like, you're 400 pounds now, A, you're not making it to 80, B, you're not even lactose

18:29intolerant, and C, that's a complete waste of time to deal with a theoretical that has nothing to do

18:36with the immediate dangers. Do you see what I mean? So, when people say, and I say, give me your toughest

18:43moral questions, give me your biggest moral questions, and people say, well, when is it precisely

18:49the best time to use preemptive force in a situation where somebody is about to come onto

18:59your property and they're armed, or there's an army massing on your border, and like, all of this

19:07stuff? And again, I like the theoreticals. I've got no issue with that. That's fine. But just so you

19:12know, I know that is probably item 10,000 on your prioritized list of moral issues in your life.

19:21So then the question is, why do people ask these impossible questions? There's a trolley, and there's

19:30one switch that you can kill five people. There's another switch you kill four people. It's like,

19:35well, I wouldn't throw a switch. I would go and perform a citizen's arrest on whoever set up this

19:42scenario. So, I guarantee you, I guarantee you that this person who's asking this question has

19:50never once in his life had to deal with a situation of edge case, preemptive self-defense,

19:57and he never will. And nobody he knows has ever had to deal with this, or ever will. This is so

20:03unbelievably rare that it is a non-issue in his life, and my answer will change absolutely nothing

20:12about his life. Somebody who's currently bleeding out, who says to the doctor,

20:21hey, I watched this episode of House with this and lupus and the other, and, you know, what would you

20:27do? And it's like, bro, you're bleeding out. What are you, like, it's so, it's so strange to me

20:33And it's not strange if somebody says, okay, listen, I've got moral issues in my life,

20:39they're really challenging, but I want to kind of take a break and work on something abstract.

20:44You know, I'd like to do this preemptive self-defense thing, right? But there is a certain

20:50amount of pride, ego, and vanity when you say, the most important moral question that I have

20:59is a theoretical that will never happen to me or anyone I know. By implication, you're saying,

21:05all of the other moral issues in my life are completely sorted out. I am morally so great

21:13and so perfect that the only issue I can come up with is a bizarre theoretical that will never happen

21:22to me or anyone else I know. That is unanswerable. It's unanswerable. Philosophy is not there to

21:33adjudicate individual cases. That's why we have courts. Please understand. Please, please, please

21:41understand. Philosophy is not there, does not exist to adjudicate individual cases. It has the same

21:52relationship to individual cases that a theory of physics has to the construction of an individual

22:02bridge. A theory of physics cannot say what type of bridge you should build. It will tell you the

22:09properties of matter and energy and what you probably need to build as a minimum, but it can't tell you.

22:16Should I build a bridge out of wood or out of metal? Well, that depends. If it's a footbridge,

22:26then you should probably build it out of wood. If it is a bridge that has to carry trucks or trains,

22:33then you probably want metal or stone. But asking physics what kind of material should I use to build

22:43a bridge is not a question that physics can answer. And if you go to a physicist and you say, well,

22:51I don't have a big budget. I need a strong bridge. I can't afford it to be all metal,

22:57but I also don't want the bridge to fall down, but I don't have enough money for an all-metal bridge.

23:04Like, the physicist is going to say, I don't, like, that's not the job of a physicist. You're talking

23:09about an individual instance of engineering. You are not talking about a general theory of matter and

23:17energy. Morality can tell you that the initiation of the use of force is immoral, and morality can tell

23:26you that self-defense is legitimate, right? And that's a pretty big thing to do. The initiation

23:33of violence is immoral, and self-defense is legitimate. Now, what people do is they come up

23:40with some really complicated situation of self-defense and say, what does morality have to say about that?

23:46And the answer is nothing. Any more than physics can tell you what kind of specific

23:52bridge to build in an edge case scenario, right? Morality can tell you that self-defense

23:59is justified. Morality cannot tell you about Bob's edge case of self-defense.

24:07Do you see what I mean? So, the Bob's edge case of self-defense is something to be adjudicated by a

24:15court, with reference to the idea that if Bob is found to have acted in self-defense,

24:20then he is not guilty of a crime. If Bob is found to have not acted in self-defense,

24:27then Bob may be guilty of a crime. And what people will do is they will slice and dice moral

24:34scenarios until you cannot answer. Morality will tell you self-defense is wrong. Morality

24:41cannot adjudicate edge cases. Morality can tell you if Bob's action falls under the category of self-defense,

24:50then it's morally justified. If Bob's action does not, then it is not morally justified.

24:56But what is it? 51-49 or 50-50 or whatever it is, right? It's the same as this. Let me give you an

25:03example, right? Heads versus tails, right? You're figuring out who goes first in Monopoly or

25:11something, right? Heads versus tails. And you flip the coin and you let it land on a table. And

25:20the coin, through some bizarre miracle of physics, the coin ends up landing on its side, on its edge,

25:30like standing vertical. You say, well, is that head versus tails? Is that heads or tails? Can't answer.

25:36It's neither. It is undetermined. It is a null comparison. But a null comparison is from computer

25:43programming. Does 9 equal x? You cannot answer it. If x is 3 squared, sure. 18 divided by 2, yes.

25:53Absolutely. Square root of 81, yes. Or the number 9, yes. Then 9 equal. But if you say, does 9 equal x and

26:01you don't know what x is, you cannot answer the question. You cannot say it does not equal x. You

26:05cannot say that it does equal x. It is a null comparison. You cannot say that something that is

26:13defined matches something that is undefined. An edge case scenario is a coin landing on its edge.

26:23It is saying, I have a scenario wherein, given the knowledge that you have, it is impossible to know

26:29whether the person is acting in self-defense or not. Right? Well, then, it's a null comparison.

26:38Self-defense is justified. Bob is acting in a manner that cannot be categorized as either self-defense

26:45or not self-defense. Okay, then morality has nothing to say about it. Individual instances fall

26:53prey to the issue of the burden of proof. Now, there are times, of course, when a criminal accusation

27:03is true without a doubt. They left their DNA at the scene. There's a video of them committing

27:08the crime. They have confessed, right? Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Okay, then that person committed

27:14a crime. They violated morality. Okay, fair enough. There are other times where it's clearly not the

27:21person. The victim says, it was a tall Asian man, and the person arrested is a short Mexican man.

27:28Okay? Or short Mexican woman who has a perfect alibi, right? They were with a hundred friends

27:33on the other side of the country at the time in question. So, then, they're not guilty, right?

27:41So, one of them falls into the category of criminal, evil. The other does not. Okay, so,

27:48justice would say, then you prosecute the first person, or you put him in jail if he's confessed,

27:54and you don't prosecute the guy who doesn't match the description and is, has a perfect alibi,

28:00right? Understandable. So, when morality says, rape is wrong, well, what about Bob, who thought he

28:10had permission, but then later on, the woman maybe have changed her mind, or she was a little bit drunk,

28:15but we don't know. Okay, then all you're saying is the coin has landed on its side. Then it's neither

28:19head nor tails, and morality has nothing to say about it. Morality says, if an action falls into

28:25this category, it's immoral. If the action falls into the category rape, it is immoral. Now, you can

28:31always, of course, design a scenario where there's uncertainty regarding whether the action falls into

28:39the category of immoral. Sure, but that doesn't have anything to do with moral theories. So, then why

28:47do people ask these kinds of questions? Well, it is to waste your time, because, and also, it is to

28:55somehow show that morality is limited, because it can, because you can create a scenario in which

29:03it becomes progressively harder and harder to know whether the action is immoral or not.

29:11But there is no morality, sorry to be annoyingly emphatic, I will do every phoneme, there is no

29:20morality that exists independent of evaluation. What is the morality of an edge case that cannot be

29:31proven? There is no morality in an edge case that cannot be proven. So, in the court system,

29:41the policeman might be entirely convinced that Bob is a criminal, but he cannot prove it.

29:49In that case, we assume a functioning justice system, in that case, we accept that Bob will not

29:57be prosecuted or go to jail, because the policeman, although he may strongly suspect Bob, has no

30:03smoking gun, no compelling evidence, not even circumstantial. Bob has a reasonably good alibi,

30:10and so on. And so, it's like saying, is Bob guilty if, like, is Bob legally guilty if the charges

30:19can't be laid because there's not enough evidence? Well, the answer to that would be, well, no.

30:24Well, we'll say, well, but is Bob morally guilty? But you can't answer that, because that's having

30:31a standard of omniscience. Well, let's say that you knew everything about everything in the universe,

30:36and that's considered to be the view of morality, and I guess maybe that comes from religion or God

30:41or something like that, right? Which is, well, assuming you had perfect knowledge, is Bob guilty or not?

30:47Well, we don't have perfect knowledge, and therefore, we don't know if Bob is guilty or not. That would be

30:53for the police to decide, for a grand jury to see if the charges should go ahead. It would be for the

30:59court to decide if Bob went through with his trial. And even then, you can say Bob's been found guilty

31:07of murder. You can colloquially say Bob is a murderer, but it simply proved beyond a reasonable

31:14doubt, 95% or more, not absolute certainty. I mean, if there's absolute certainty, it doesn't go to

31:21trial. I mean, I can't imagine it would, right? Because if the police say, look, we've got you on

31:25video, your DNA at the scene, and you confessed, and all of that, then they wouldn't go to trial,

31:31right? Because there'd be no point. You just play the video, and the guy gets convicted.

31:35So, to construct an edge case, somebody is standing on the edge of your property. See,

31:44edge case, edge of your property. Somebody is standing on the edge of your property, and

31:48they're pointing a gun at your house. Can you shoot them? Don't know. It turns out he's

31:55short-sighted, and he's checking his gun. He doesn't even see your house. Shoe shot him

31:59by mistake. He had no malevolent intent, right? I don't know. I mean, morality has nothing to say

32:06about that. If it is proven that it was reasonable self-defense, then it's in the category called not

32:15immoral. If it is proven that the guy in the house shot the guy on the edge of his property

32:23pointing a gun at his house, and it's proven that that was not justified self-defense,

32:29then Bob would be charged with murder of some kind. The murder is wrong. Whether this action

32:38qualifies as murder is not for philosophy or morality to decide. That is for the adjudication

32:45of our limited consciousness in the pursuit of facts, reason, and evidence, given the inevitable

32:52uncertainties of these things. Murder is wrong. Well, here's an edge case where it could be

32:59murder or it could not be murder. No, that's not relevant to morality. Morality says, hey,

33:06if it's proven that it's murder, then murder is wrong. It's punished. If it's not, if it's

33:09proven that it's self-defense, self-defense is justified, so it's not punished. And it's

33:12really tough for people to figure this out because, first of all, everyone thinks they

33:17need to answer everything, and you can't, right? Everyone thinks that they need to answer

33:24every question. Oh, come on, bring it all. And then there's this belief that if you can't

33:29answer every question, that your morality, your moral system is flawed. And it's like,

33:37no. I mean, can you imagine that instead of a legal system with, you know, with a trial,

33:45with rules of evidence, a chain of custody, and cross-examining your accuser and so on,

33:53can you imagine if instead of an entire legal court system, we just had a bunch of philosophers

34:02sitting around in a room, and edge cases are brought to them, and they say, innocent or guilty,

34:08based upon what? Glancing at things based, like, there's no process by which the guilt or innocence

34:16of people is examined, or attempted to be proven, or disproven. That you just have a bunch of

34:22philosophers sitting down, somebody comes in with an edge case, and they say, oh, Bob is, uh, Bob shot

34:27the guy, so, uh, that's murder. Or, no, no, Bob was acting in self-defense, so it's not, right? That's

34:34not the job of the philosopher. The job of the philosopher is to tell you what is good and evil,

34:38and how they are defined. It is not to adjudicate every single case. It's like asking an economist,

34:45should I buy or rent this house in this location in this neighborhood on this day? Nope, economists

34:55can't tell you that. Can't give you orders. Otherwise, every financial decision would be

35:01submitted to economists. I mean, I guess they are in the public sector these days, but...

35:08So, yeah, it is really interesting. People ask these questions because they want to waste

35:12other people's time, and they want to say, well, you see, philosophy is kind of helpless

35:16because it can't answer these questions. And, oh, by the by, uh, I'm, I'm such a morally

35:21perfect specimen that, don't you know, uh, this is the only moral issue that I could possibly

35:25come up with. Everything else in my life is, I'm just surrounded by angels, I'm an angel

35:30myself, and so, uh, yeah. So, it is just to create these edge cases, which I've been fighting

35:37for 40 years, right? These edge cases designed to make philosophy look stilted to end, and

35:45to have somebody be unable to answer the question, right? Which is why the guy in the call yesterday

35:50who said, is it possible, isn't it possible that someone could misinterpret what you're saying?

35:54Can't answer that question. Because there's, there's no honorable answer, because it's not

36:00an honorable question. It's a gotcha, because everyone knows. Everyone knows very, very clearly

36:06that it is possible to misinterpret. So, if you're asking someone, that's just a humiliation

36:11ritual. And the humiliation ritual is to, is to get you to say, uh, things that are obvious,

36:18but make you look bad, right? So, if, uh, this guy says, well, you know, uh, what if it's a real

36:24edge case scenario of self-defense? Oh, you can't answer that. Well, I guess philosophy doesn't

36:28really add up to much, then, does it? Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, right? Well, that is not, uh,

36:34you don't play those games, right? Don't play those games. So, you say, is he innocent or guilty?

36:40Well, I don't know. I'm going to construct a scenario where it could be either. It's like, well,

36:44then, philosophy can't answer that. Oh, I thought philosophy could answer everything. Nope.

36:48Philosophy cannot answer the unanswerable. That's why we have courts, right? You cannot

36:53validly do a null comparison, right? You cannot say, is this moral or immoral, when the morality

37:00or immorality cannot be determined. So, I hope that helps. Freedomain.com slash donate to help

37:07out the show. I would really appreciate it. Lots of love from up here, my friends. Bye!

Category

Transcript

Be the first to comment

Recommended