UPB Versus Evil!

Stefan Molyneux

Philosopher Stefan Molyneux provides a philosophical exploration of morality, centering on the concept of universally preferable behavior (UPB) and its role in defining moral actions. He examines the immorality of actions such as theft and assault, arguing that they violate UPB's principles. Through a logical framework, the discussion distinguishes between moral and immoral actions, asserting that any action failing to be universally preferable cannot be deemed moral.  Stefan highlights the asymmetry of force initiation, underscoring that coercion inherently contradicts moral behavior. The implications of advocating flawed moral theories are also explored, illustrating how these theories can lead to destructive real-world consequences. He emphasizes the importance of logical coherence in ethical theories and warns against self-contradictory moral claims, concluding that adherence to UPB is essential for a just society.  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

00:00Question. You provide a definition of morality, Seth, that equates to universalizable behavior

00:05and then state that things that can't be universalizable, theft, are immoral. But why?

00:12They are inconsistent, sure, but how are you proving that they are immoral? It's a fine

00:19question and I appreciate the pushback and I love, love, love being able to sharpen

00:29the blades of my thought on the whetstone of disagreement. So I appreciate that and let

00:40us see what we can do with this fine, deep, and juicy question. All right, it's not like I'm stalling,

00:46but I'm not doing the opposite of stalling. All right, so let us take this one on. All right,

00:57so the question, let me sort of rephrase the question, make sure it makes sense to everyone.

01:02So I have proven that rape, theft, assault, and murder can never be universally preferable

01:07behavior. So any theory that says rape, theft, assault, and murder are universally preferable

01:13behavior is false. It's not even a little bit false. It's not even false if you take certain

01:19things into account. It is false by definition. It is false without any reference to anything

01:25external, right? So internal inconsistency is the best way of disproving a theory, right? So if you

01:33have a theory that Aristotle said such and such, then you need to go and look up what Aristotle said

01:38in order to determine if Aristotle did in fact say such and such, right? So if you want to know what

01:44the capital of Georgia is, well, first of all, you have to say the state or the country, you have to

01:49nail that down, that you have to sing a few bars of Georgia on my mind, and then, maybe then, at the end

01:56of it all, you end up with understanding or knowing what Georgia is. I don't like, I no like it, I no

02:02like it. I don't like arguments, philosophical arguments that rely on external lookups. So they're

02:10historical arguments. Augustus was an emperor of Rome or a leader of Rome, okay? That's a, you look that

02:17up and find out if that's true or not. And that's nothing wrong with that. But the best arguments

02:23are the ones that don't require any external lookup. And they also don't rely on any subjective

02:32states. They don't rely on anyone agreeing or disagreeing or anything like that. If an argument

02:39is self-contradictory in its proposition, the syllogism goes, in UPB goes something like

02:49this. If X is proposed as universally preferable, but X can never be universally preferable, then

02:57X cannot be universally preferable behavior. So if theft is proposed as universally preferable

03:03behavior, but theft can never be universally preferable behavior because it is the unwanted

03:07taking of property. And theft means everybody must want to be stolen from and steal. Well,

03:13if you want to be stolen from, the category vanishes and you have realized that theft can never

03:19be universally preferable behavior. So it doesn't require anyone's preference. It doesn't require

03:26any historical examination. It doesn't require any subjective emotional state. Do unto others

03:30as you would have them do unto you. Well, a con man and a liar is fine to have con men and lying or

03:38being a conning people and lying as the means of getting resources because he knows that most people

03:44are not con men and liars. So he's going to have easy marks and make a lot of money. Scammers from say

03:51Nigeria or India are fine to say scamming is a great way to get resources because they scam and other

03:58people don't really. And certainly it's a one way street. So then if I define, so this is, you may

04:07say this is circular, but this is, I'll sort of take two runs at this, right? So the first is that if I

04:12say morality is universally preferable behavior, then that which can never be universally preferable

04:21behavior is not moral. This one's not, this is the easy one, right? Again, I'm not saying it's,

04:30it's easy to understand, but it's hard to focus on because we've got so many false moral theories

04:35yelling in our ears as we do things in this world. But if morality is universally preferable behavior,

04:43then something which can never be universally preferable behavior cannot be moral. Now,

04:53something that cannot be moral, does that mean that it is immoral? Well, if you say, should we paint the

05:03baby's room blue or pink? Oh, I choose blue. Okay, clearly, painting a child's room blue is not universally

05:16preferable behavior. It cannot be universally preferable behavior. But it's not evil. So just because something

05:23cannot be universally preferable behavior does not mean that it falls into the category good or evil.

05:27Remember, there are three categories. UPB, APA, aesthetically preferable actions, and neutral,

05:35things which are neither good nor evil, right or wrong, positive or negative. So telling the truth

05:41is aesthetically preferable, but it is not UPB. If telling the truth prevents a UPB action, then telling

05:51the truth is better, right? So if somebody says, where's your wife? I want to go kill her. And you lie and

05:56say that your wife is somewhere where she's not, then you have prevented a murder. And that's, that's good,

06:02right? So, whereas if you murder someone, that's just unlawful or immoral killing, right? Or you rape

06:09someone and so on. There's no, there's no rape for the greater good, right? So the first thing to recognize

06:14is that if morality, morality is universally preferable behavior, because it's binding upon others.

06:20So morality is universally preferable behavior. And therefore, if a moral proposition, stealing is

06:30universally preferable behavior, where does the evil come in? Well, the evil comes in when the action

06:39is imposed on another is imposed on another against UPB. So you say, respecting property rights is UPB.

06:49Respecting persons and property, not initiating the use of force, respecting persons and property

06:54is UPB. Okay? A theory that theft can be universally preferable behavior is false because of the self-contradiction

07:04as it is. So the evil comes in when somebody acts against UPB and pretends that they're not, or is not honest

07:20about it, or not direct about it. That's not a great argument. We have put our foot in the mire and the muck.

07:28Like, that's all right, it happens. This is a, you know, we're working and working things out, right?

07:33So, the reason why proving that theft can never be UPB proves that it's wrong, first of all, we say

07:43it's a wrong moral theory. The wrong moral theory is not harmful. Somebody proposes a wrong moral theory,

07:53that's not particularly harmful. If they just make an argument and nobody really believes it,

07:58or they make an argument, people may believe it, but they don't act on it, and so on.

08:01So where does the evil come in? Well, free speech says that it can't be evil to make a bad argument.

08:07And so, where does the evil come in? The evil comes in, in the contradiction. So, as I've said before,

08:17a thief wishes to both violate and maintain property rights at the same time. You know,

08:25the old joke about, like, it's a sort of comic setup, where the thief steals something,

08:31and then someone steals what he stole from him, and he's outraged. How dare someone steal what I've

08:39stolen? Or, it's an old joke from Dr. Strangelove. Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the

08:48war room. So, it is the contradiction. The thief wants to violate property rights for others and

08:55retain property rights for himself, right? So, in A Fish Called Wanda, Otto and the girl,

09:03the Jamie Lee Curtis character, I can't remember her name, they steal something, and then it's stolen

09:08from them, and they're really angry, really upset, and they've got to get it back, right? How dare

09:12someone steal what I have stolen? So, that is the contradiction in practice, which is how you know

09:21that it is not universalized, right? Because somebody is saying, I wish to violate somebody

09:28else's property rights and take what does not belong to me, but somebody else better not try and take

09:33what belongs to me, or what I have, what I have in my possession, the stolen goods. I steal

09:40some diamonds, but I'd be really angry and upset if somebody takes those diamonds from me, right?

09:47So, the question is, why is it immoral to put forward inconsistent theories? Why is it immoral

09:59to put forward self-contradictory theories? Now, clearly, not every self-contradictory theory

10:05is immoral. If I say 2 and 2 make 5, that's wrong, but it's not immoral, because there's no universal

10:13ought in, I think, the 2 and 2 make 5. I'm not putting a gun to everyone's head and saying,

10:19you have to believe or say, at least, the 2 and 2 make 5, right? So, there is no universal ought

10:27in a personal error. If I put forward a universal ought, then I am legitimizing the use of force,

10:36because morality legitimizes the use of force, not the initiation of force, but morality legitimizes

10:43the use of force as a preventive measure against someone who's initiating the use of force against

10:51you, right? So, this is the concept of self-defense, of course, right? So, morality legitimizes the use of

10:57force. What you label as evil, you can use force to defend yourself against. So, if somebody is going

11:06to rape you, you can use up to and including, if necessary, lethal force in order to prevent yourself

11:15from being raped or murdered. Assault is a little trickier, because proportional levels of force and so

11:22on, right? So, morality legitimizes the use of force. If force is used in response to force, then that's

11:31not the initiation of the use of force, and the moral onus of the resulting coercion, of the resulting

11:38force, falls upon the person who initiates the use of force. I mean, in common law, there is a standard

11:44where in, if Bob goes into a convenience store, pulls out a gun and says, you know, fill my bag with the

11:54contents of your cash register or whatever, and then Doug, who's a customer, shoots at Bob, but Bob

12:02dodges, and the customer who's shooting at Bob hits another customer and that customer dies, the person

12:10who's charged with the murder is the robber who's come in to rob the store, because he set the events

12:16in motion that caused the other person to be shot and killed. So, morality is the legitimization of

12:26the use of force. You cannot restrain someone from leaving your store, right? If they don't buy anything,

12:37you can't hold them in a, in some fashion, you can't restrain them or retain them in your store

12:45in some fashion, if they don't buy anything. You can't leave the store unless you buy 50 bucks worth

12:50of stuff, well, that would be wrong. Forcible confinement, that's the initiation of the use

12:54of force. However, if that person has stolen something, then you have the right to keep them

13:03in your store until the police arrive, until security arrives or something like that, right?

13:11So, morality legitimizes the use of force, and the initiation of the use of force is not UPP

13:20compliant, right? This is an overarching rape, theft, assault, and murder category. The initiation of

13:26the use of force is immoral, it's, well, it's not UPP compliant. And the reason for that, of course,

13:33is that if you say the initiation of the use of force is universally preferable behavior, well,

13:39first of all, it doesn't pass the coma test. A guy who's asleep is not initiating the use of force,

13:43but he would not be immoral. And if we were to say everyone must want to initiate the use of force

13:53against others, everyone must want to initiate the use of force against others. Well, two people

13:59cannot simultaneously initiate the use of force against each other, and number one. And number two,

14:05force is by definition unwanted, right? I don't want to be stabbed unless I'm having a tumor removed

14:13from my neck, in which case, please stab me, right? Cut me open, right? It's not assault if you

14:20voluntarily submit to surgery and pay for it, right? So, it follows the problem of asymmetry.

14:28Force, the initiation of the use of force is undesired. Force is, by definition, undesired.

14:34You don't want it, right? If you want someone to make love to you, it's not rape. So, the initiation

14:41of the use of force can never be universally preferable behavior because it fails the coma test

14:46and because it's asymmetrical. The force must be unwanted if we use violence, right? I want someone

14:54to use violence against me. Well, then it's not violence. I mean, let's say you have some weird

14:59sexual kink that you want to be slapped around the armpits with a big wet fish. Okay, well, I mean,

15:08hey, I won't say whatever floats your boat because you might want to look into early sexual imprinting

15:13on Captain Highliner, but I will say that it would not be force. However, if somebody comes and slaps

15:19you around the head or the face or whatever, even the armpits with a big wet fish, that would be a

15:23form of assault because you don't want it, you're not paying for it, you don't agree, you don't

15:27acquiesce, you don't approve. So, the initiation of the use of force can never be UPB compliant,

15:34fails the coma test, it's very difficult for two people to initiate force at exactly the same time,

15:38it comes and goes, it can't be universally applied, and because force is by definition

15:43unwanted, it fails the asymmetry test in that you cannot want to initiate the use of force

15:50against others, and you cannot want others to initiate the use of force against you,

15:55because if you want them to initiate the use of force against you, it might be boxing,

15:59it might be hockey, it might be Black Friday, but it's not. It's not force if you want it.

16:05But there are games, we have actually played these games as a family, where you get a taco,

16:16or something like that, so you put water in your mouth, and you take turns whapping each other in

16:21the face with a thin taco, or whatever they are, sort of falafel roll-up or whatever, and it's very

16:27funny, but it's not assault, because it's wanted, it's preferred, it's fun. In the scene from

16:34Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, where Cliff, whatever his name is, is talking with the

16:42Bruce Lee character, especially in front of my friends, right? So they voluntarily make an

16:51agreement to punch each other as hard as they can. Any man kills another man in a fight, it's man,

16:58it's illegal, it's called manslaughter. Pat Pitt is very cool. So there are all these witnesses

17:05looking at these two men, and saying, one of them says, all right, you give me your best shot,

17:10then I'll give you my best shot. They're voluntarily acquiescing to be hit by the other,

17:14as a sort of macho, or machismo test. Should be machismo, because it's macho, but what the heck,

17:20right? Machismo test. So, if you're saying, why, or you're asking me the question, as this person is

17:29asking, and I appreciate you guys being patient with me while I work this out sometimes. I don't

17:33have everything all formulated before I start sometimes. So, the initiation of the user force

17:38fails UPB. You say, well, why does that make it wrong? Well, that's interesting, right? So let's unpack

17:44that question. So what you're saying is that my statement has failed to prove that something is

17:53wrong. So the first thing I would say is, you've got a category called immoral, and you're saying,

17:58I haven't proven that something is in that category. So you already have a statement which says,

18:05if you fail to prove that something is in a category, then it's wrong. And certainly wrong is

18:10negative, right? Wrong is negative, and right is positive. So if you're saying, Steph, you haven't

18:17proven that statements that are not UPB compliant are immoral, and I would agree, statements cannot be

18:28immoral. Statements cannot be immoral. Saying something like, theft is UPB compliant, it's wrong,

18:34but it's not immoral to say it. But you've got a category called immoral, and you're saying,

18:40I have failed to prove that that which is not UPB compliant is immoral. So you're saying that there

18:48is an inconsistency between the category and what I've proved, and it's wrong. And that's negative,

18:53right? Okay. So if it's negative for me, if I failed to prove that something is wrong because it's

19:00immoral, because it's not UPB compliant, then you're saying there's a category called immoral

19:03that I have failed to correctly put the basketball through the net called immoral, right? Right?

19:11There's a basketball net called immoral, and I have shot my basketball of UPB, but failed to land it.

19:19Okay. So the fact that I have deviated from a standard is bad, right? I've deviated from standard

19:25called proof, and that is bad. So you're using UPB already to say that something is negative,

19:29right? Okay. So it is not immoral to have an incorrect moral theory. It is not immoral to

19:38have an incorrect moral theory. What is immoral is the initiation of the use of force. Now,

19:45I'm sure you're aware that, is it propane or, you know, some sort of natural gas that people use for

19:54sort of heating in their homes has no odor. And so they add a stink odor to it so that you can tell

19:59if there's a leak and you don't just breathe like you would normally. Maybe you light, you have a

20:04lighter stove, or maybe you smoke a pipe, you light up a cigarette or something, you blow up, right?

20:09So the reason why they put the smell in the gas is so that you're aware of the danger when it leaks.

20:17If you're not aware of the danger when it leaks, then you are much more susceptible to an explosion,

20:25to, I mean, if there's a leak, right? You're almost certain to have something really dangerous

20:29or horrible happen, right? And the smell can be so strong that it might even wake you from asleep.

20:35Otherwise, you might just asphyxiate or some there's some spark when the fridge goes on and

20:39kaboom, right? In the same way that your body gives you signals of damage through pain,

20:45discomfort. If you've been sitting too long and blood flow is impeded, you'll want to move,

20:51you'll want to change position and so on, right? I was working out today and I did some pretty hard

21:00calf exercises, which I kind of need to do because if I'm playing racket sports, I'm doing a lot of

21:06forward lunging and I have a little bit of weakness in my calves that they can get pulled.

21:10And so I did about 45 minutes of weights and then I did a half hour of cardio and towards the end,

21:17actually, to be fair, I only did 25 minutes of cardio because my right calf was cramping just doing

21:22cardio. So I like to stop, right? So, but that's good. That's saying that I'm overusing my right calf

21:29and I'd better stop. So, if a person knows what they're doing is wrong, they may or may not do it,

21:41right? If they know what they want to do is wrong. Is someone more likely to do evil if they think that

21:46it's good? Is someone more likely to do evil if they think that it's good? So, let's take an extreme

21:53example and this has actually happened in the world. Some mother who's going through a psychotic

22:00break or psychotic episode genuinely believes that she must kill her children or they will be going to

22:09hell. Like, so if she kills them right now, they'll go straight to heaven. If she lets them live,

22:14they will go to hell. And she believes that she is sending her children to heaven by killing them,

22:20that she's doing good. Well, I guess it's an extreme form of the cry it out method, right?

22:27But she believes that she's doing good when she is in fact doing evil. And generally, if we could,

22:33if we could say she genuinely believed that, then we would probably give her a not guilty by reason of

22:43insanity, right? So, she's genuinely psychotic. She believes that if her children live another day,

22:48they're going straight to hell. But if she kills them now, they're going straight to heaven where

22:51she would join them after having done good, and so on, right? In the same way, are you more likely

22:59to injure yourself via exercise if your body doesn't give you any negative symptoms of injury?

23:09Are you more likely to injure a muscle if you don't notice your muscle is getting very tired or

23:15cramping a little or is feeling weak or something like that? Well, you're more likely to injure

23:19yourself, of course, if your body is not giving you any feedback of injury, right? If you have a hand

23:28that's resting on something very hot, are you more likely to damage your hand if you don't feel any

23:37pain? Well, sure, you're more likely to damage your hand if you don't feel any pain.

23:41So, if you believe that force is necessary for the maintenance of human society, this is a debate

23:52I had, I think, a week and a day ago with a fellow who's like, well, you know, without the government,

23:58we can't resolve any disputes, okay? So, he believes that government force or political force

24:06is necessary for the survival and maintenance of society and that society cannot function and

24:14disputes cannot be resolved and everything will escalate. You'll end up with a bunch of

24:19warlords. You'll end up in civil war. You'll end up at the rack and ruin of society and, you know,

24:24millions of people are dead, dogs living with cats, you know, the whole thing, right?

24:27So, if someone believes that the initiation of the use of force is a necessary and good virtue,

24:38are they more likely to support the initiation of the use of force? In other words, if somebody

24:43believes that evil is good, are they more likely to promote evil under the delusion that it's good?

24:49Let's take another sort of silly, silly example. So, let's say that a man genuinely believes that

25:00if he hits his son across the ankle, he genuinely believes that if he hits his son across the ankle

25:12hard, that the cure for cancer will fall from the sky. Now, I think you don't have to be,

25:18you don't have to be overly pragmatic or utilitarian to say, you know, it's kind of worth it.

25:26It's kind of worth it. One smack across my kid's ankle, not going to leave any damage,

25:31not going to really even leave a mark, and the cure for cancer falls from the sky. Cancer is a great

25:36evil. It's a great source of pain and suffering for people. So, I can get a cure for cancer. I just

25:42have to whack my kid bare hand across the ankle. So, if he believes that great good will come out of

25:50a violation of the non-aggression principle, is he more likely to hit his child across the ankle?

25:58Of course he is. I think all of us would do that. So, that's... Now, if, on the other hand,

26:05he knew that there was a blood clot... Let's just really take the extremes, right? So, let's say that

26:09this guy knew that there was a blood clot on his kid's ankle. And if he hits his kid

26:14on the ankle, the blood clot will detach, hit his heart, and the kid will die, right? Then he's not

26:20going to do that in any way, shape, even if he's angry, right? He won't do it. So, of course, that's

26:25a kind of consequentialism, but it's important because it's about incentives. If somebody believes

26:31they get the cure for cancer by whacking their kid on the leg, they will almost certainly whack the

26:36kid on the leg, especially if their loved wife or husband is dying of cancer, and this can be the

26:42cure, right? They absolutely will do it. They absolutely will do it. I would. So, on the other

26:48hand, even if somebody believes that whacking the kid on the ankle is a good form of discipline,

26:53if the doctor has told them they have a big blood clot on their ankle, you must treat it very

26:58carefully, you cannot give it any stress or trauma or pressure, then he's not going to hit his kid on

27:04the ankle, even if he's really angry and believes that normally he would, because the consequence

27:08will be that the child will die. So, that which facilitates evil is immoral. And so, if you have

27:16a false moral theory that facilitates and enables evil, that is immoral. So, you have a false moral

27:25theory called communism, which enabled a hundred million murderers in the 20th century alone.

27:34Is the communist theory immoral? No, it's just ink and paper, it's just words. Are those who

27:41advocate for it immoral? Well, they themselves are not initiating the use of force. It's the old

27:49Iago question. Iago with Othello. Iago tells Othello that Desdemona is cheating on him, and Othello

27:57goes mad with rage and jealousy. Is Iago evil? No, he's immoral because he's saying something that

28:06is false that drives Othello mad with rage, and Othello then, spoiler, it's been 400 years,

28:11kills Desdemona. So, a false moral theory gives people the belief that evil is good and good is evil.

28:22And if I create a GPS that guides people at night, tells them here's the safest route to travel,

28:29but actually guides them to drive off cliffs, you know, it starts to get pretty morally gray.

28:36If somebody you know is going through a psychotic episode, and you tell them that their neighbor is

28:43possessed by a demon who's going to end humanity, and then that person goes and kills your neighbor,

28:48are you liable? Well, if you say things that are going to lead directly to violence,

28:54if otherwise peaceful actions result in violence, you're probably kind of liable. I mean, it's not

29:00illegal to pay someone for something unless that something is a crime, like if you pay someone to

29:05kill someone, right? Then you hire a hitman. So, if the language is immoral, immorality is putting

29:15forward a false moral theory, if it promotes evil to, and nothing promotes evil more than false

29:22moral theories. Nothing. Nothing promotes evil more than false moral theories. So, if the initiation

29:29of the use of force is evil, which it is, and if false moral theories are that which directly leads to

29:38the most massive violations of the non-aggression principle conceivable to man, quarter of a billion

29:44people murdered by governments based upon people's belief in the necessity of governments for running

29:49society. So, the reason why I say that violations of UPB are immoral is because false moral theories

30:00are responsible for more violence, more violations of the non-aggression principle than any other single

30:07thing. You could say, well, child abuse and so on, right? But in terms of evaluating moral theories.

30:13Or people who say spanking is necessary for children to be raised well. Well, that's a moral theory

30:19that says violations of the non-aggression principle are necessary to produce virtue and goodness in the

30:25world, right? Well, that's a false moral theory that is responsible for massive amounts of violence,

30:32of course, against children. So, that's why I say that self-contradictory inconsistent moral theories

30:42are immoral. It's because they lead directly to hundreds of millions of people being unjustly

30:51slaughtered through violations of the non-aggression principle. And if that ain't enough for you,

30:54I say nothing is. Freedemand.com slash donate. Thanks and mel. Bye.

Category

Transcript

Be the first to comment

Recommended