Why is Morality Objective?

Stefan Molyneux

Philosopher Stefan Molyneux explores universal morality, emphasizing the necessity for moral principles to transcend personal and cultural biases. Molyneux contrasts human negotiation through language and reason with the instinctual behaviors of animals, highlighting the unique human capacity for cooperation and moral framework development. He critiques subjective morality, arguing that it leads to chaos and undermines universal standards. He explores the implications of moral relativism, advocating for an objective moral truth to guide human interactions and reduce violence. Molyneux addresses the complexities of violence, asserting that while self-defense is permissible, initiating violence contradicts human morality. Conclusively, he reinforces the idea that discussions around morality must engage with universal truths, inviting further dialogue on the subject.  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

00:00Well, hello. Hello. How are you? It's Devan Molyneux, channeling Asterian from Freedomain,

00:08freedomain.com slash donate to help at the show shop.freedomain.com for your glorious

00:13Freedomain merch and Peaceful Parenting book to get your print copy of Peaceful Parenting,

00:20both the condensed version and the full version. So I hope you will check that out,

00:26it's freedomain.com slash donate for the show. Okay. So question, why is morality universal?

00:36Why does morality have to be universal? Why is it defined as universal? Why can't it just be a

00:41local preference, a personal preference, a cultural preference, a regional preference,

00:45whatever, right? Why does morality have to be universal? So morality arises out of a very simple

00:54dichotomy, or I suppose you could say options, binary options in human life, which is that we

01:05have the ability through language and reason to negotiate rather than use force, right? That is

01:15our choice. Those are our choice. Those are our options. We can use force. And with force, I include

01:22threat, I include theft, fraud, and so on, right? This is all force. And the reason being that animals

01:35threaten each other, animals steal from each other all the time, and animals use deception or fraud

01:43all the time. That's what camouflage is to some degree. So, in terms of getting resources,

01:51human beings have the unique ability, based upon language and our conceptual capacities,

01:59we have this unique, unique in the universe, as far as we know it, we have this unique ability

02:05to trade, to convince, to entice, to seduce, right? We have the capacity, unique among animals,

02:21to use language and concepts to convince rather than to force. Now, when it comes to enticing and

02:30seduction, there are a lot of animals who do that. There are, of course, these crazy birds.

02:34The males will build this big, elaborate nesting scenario and will try to entice the females to

02:40mate. I mean, there are, of course, a lot of animals that rape, you know, ducks and dolphins and so on.

02:45But there are a lot of animals who entice. There are mating displays, you know, the male peacock's

02:51giant tail is a big mating display, and so on. My bubble butt, obviously, it's in the same category as a

02:58whole. So, human beings, literally, completely and totally among the animals, have the ability

03:07to use language and concepts to negotiate, to trade, to, I mean, I wouldn't even say specialize in terms

03:18of labor, because ants do that, right? There are the worker ants, there are the soldier ants, and so on,

03:23right? But that's all sort of built-in, programmed, and automatic. But we have the capacity to negotiate.

03:32We're not even alone in the capacity to use currency, because there have been experiments where they have

03:38taught monkeys to use currency and given them sort of stand-ins for currency. And of course, well, what

03:46happens immediately is the ape started, the male ape start trading currency to the females for sexual

03:51access. It's kind of, uh, only, only fans, but a smidge hairier. Maybe Eastern European only fans. So,

04:02we have the option to not use violence to get what we want. We have the option to trade. We have the

04:12option to convince. We have the option to reason. And really, that's what language is for. Language is

04:20for the avoidance of violence, because animals have little choice when dealing with other animals

04:31to use anything other than violence. I mean, violence also includes threat, right? Apes will

04:39threaten each other, dogs will growl and bark, cats raise their hackles, and so on. So, there is this

04:47threat scenario that animals use, and human beings use it too, you know? Do what I want, or else,

04:52right? I mean, if somebody sticks a gun in your ribs and demands your wallet, it could just be an empty

04:56threat. Maybe it's a plastic gun. Maybe it's not loaded. Maybe he'll never pull it. But, you know,

05:01the threat is enough for you to do the cost-benefit calculation and say, well, I'd rather lose my

05:06wallet and keep my life. So, we have the option to negotiate instead of using violence. If you think of

05:17animals that steal from each other, you could theoretically have an animal could go and gather

05:25food for another animal and then trade it for that animal's resources or something like that.

05:30Maybe there are a few isolated instances of this somewhere in the animal kingdom. Of course,

05:35there is sort of a codependency, not parasitical, but parasympathetic or something like that,

05:40where you kind of work to the benefit of each other. Like, the egrets that are on the back of

05:47the hippo, the hippo kind of guards them, the egrets pick things off the back of the hippo that

05:53the hippo doesn't want and stuff like that. I'm probably getting that fairly wrong, but you know

05:57what I'm talking about, right? So, human beings have the option to trade. They have the option to

06:04specialize in their labor and trade with each other and negotiate and reason with each other.

06:09You go hunting for me today, because I'm not feeling well, and I will go hunting for you

06:13the next time that you're sick. So, we have to develop a sense of time, we have to develop concepts,

06:19we have to formalize reciprocity, and you know, eventually we have things like contracts and so

06:24on, but even prior to all of that, we have the capacity to use language, not force, not deception,

06:33not theft, not fraud. And this is why morality is a uniquely human construct. So, if we have the

06:43capacity to act in a manner that is peaceful and mutually beneficial, right, because violence is

06:51win-lose, right? Guy sticks a gun in your ribs, he takes your wallet, you are down one wallet,

06:59and you have lost. I mean, you've, quote, kept your life, but you had that anyway, without the guy.

07:05Like, before the guy stuck his gun in your ribs, you had your life anyway, so you get to keep your

07:09life, but you're down one wallet. So, it's win-lose, right? He gets the contents of your wallet without

07:16having to work for them, and you get to keep your life minus your wallet. So, it's win-lose. And the

07:21animal kingdom, in general, is win-lose. And to the degree that it's win-win, it's simply evolved

07:30that way through trial and error, happenstance, and it's not negotiated, it's simply instinctual,

07:35right? So, we have the capacity to negotiate. I will gladly pay you Wednesday for a burger you give

07:44me today. That's Wimpy from Popeye, I think. So, that's a uniquely human capacity. So, is it better

07:55to negotiate rather than to use force? Is it better to negotiate rather than to use force? Or, to put

08:04it another way, is it better to not use violence to get what you want? Is it better not to use violence?

08:14Now, we can't have UPB as a positive statement, a thou shalt. Like, if I say, is it better to

08:21negotiate or to use violence? And say, well, negotiation is UPB. Well, negotiation can't be UPB.

08:28Because there are times when you're asleep, and you're not negotiating, and so on, right? So, it

08:32can't be universally. But not using violence can be universally preferable behavior. So, is it better

08:39to use violence? Is it preferred for human beings to use violence? Or is it preferred for human beings

08:45to not use violence? Now, we can't really say that to animals, because animals can't negotiate. They have

08:51no capacity to get what they want through negotiation, because they don't have language in any conceptual

08:58way or any conceptual format. So, only human beings can use language to negotiate. Is it better to

09:05negotiate, or is it better to use violence? Now, if we were to say, well, and by using violence,

09:13I mean initiating the use of force. Just when I say violence here, I'm not talking about self-defense.

09:17I just, I don't want to say the initiation of forever, you know, I'm going to be 60 next year,

09:23I'm running out of time, and I don't want to waste it with things that we all understand,

09:28or reasonable people understand. So, is it better to use violence, or is it better to negotiate?

09:37If we use violence, then we are at the level of animals. We have a capacity

09:44to negotiate, but instead we use violence. And if you use violence, then you are at the level

09:53of an animal, and you are like a rabid dog. And if you are operating at the level of an animal,

09:59then you will be treated as an animal. To earn the status of being treated morally as a human being

10:08with virtues and values, you have to not be acting as an animal. And so, you know, dogs will hump your

10:17legs, although I suppose they're not particularly dangerous, but a human rapist can rape you and

10:23leave you traumatized, and bloody, and bruised, and broken, and possibly pregnant if you're a woman.

10:29And so, if you act as a human being at the level of an animal, then you will be treated

10:37according to your standard, or lack of standard. So, we all understand that if a man is being

10:44attacked by a large and dangerous dog, if a man is being attacked by a dog, the man is perfectly

10:51justified in shooting the dog. Or, I don't know, if you've got to, you know, kick the dog off a cliff,

10:58if that's the only way you can sort of get to safety. But we sort of understand this with,

11:04you know, with the police, right? If they go into someone's house, they have to arrest him,

11:07and a dog starts running at the policeman barking ferociously, then the policeman is probably going

11:12to empty a clip into the dog. You can't negotiate with the dog, right? So, certainly, it's more human

11:18to negotiate than it is to use violence. And of course, just to understand, you know, just to sort of

11:24make this point. I understand that there are people who are human beings who are acting like

11:28animals. It doesn't make them animals, but they're acting like animals. I understand that they're

11:32still human beings. I get all of that. Anyway, it's an analogy. It's a way of looking at it.

11:39If you act like an animal, you will be treated like an animal. Because when you act like an animal,

11:45you're saying, I cannot be negotiated with. So, a man can go to a bar, and he can try to pick up a

11:51woman and convince her, or entice her, or seduce her into having sex with him if it's voluntary,

11:55and she's not drunk, or whatever it is, or they're not drunk, both of them. If it's voluntary,

12:00then she may regret it, but it is not rape, right? He may regret it, too. And assuming that he's

12:07upfront about any STDs and things like that, right? And if he agrees to use a condom, he does in fact

12:12use a condom, you know, all this sort of stuff. So, that is acting as a person, as a human being,

12:19with all the capacities of a human being, which is your capacity for language and negotiation.

12:25However, if the man goes to her place, and then he holds her down, and blah, blah, blah,

12:30and assaults her, and rapes her, then he's acting as an animal. And what do we do with animals?

12:35We don't let them roam, right? We kill them, or we cage them up, right? And that's self-defense and

12:44prison. Now, is it possible to have a rule which says we should reason with each other? Sure. Or,

12:54basically, if we're not using violence, right? If we're not using violence to get our resources,

13:00how do we get our resources? Because, you know, we all need 22,000, 2,500 calories a day to live,

13:06and we need our shelter, and we need our heat when it's cold, and all of that, right? So,

13:11how do you get your resources if you are not using violence? Well, of course, the way that you get

13:19your resources if you're not using violence is you negotiate. So, if you are hungry,

13:26and you're out in the country, you can go to a farmer and say, is there any work that needs doing

13:33around here? I would love to get some food. Like, make me lunch. What can I do around here? That would be

13:41helpful and useful in terms of flavor. And if he's got nothing, you've got to move on. If he's got

13:46something, or, you know, if he just takes pity on you, and so on. And there tends to be more sympathy

13:52for people in need in the country, because they're not, you know, drug addicts generally stay in the

13:59city where the drugs are, and the begging is better. But if you say, I'm not going to use violence,

14:05violence, what else can you do? Well, you can trade, you can beg, but you cannot force the other

14:10person. So, what is better? Is it better to use violence, or is it better to negotiate? Well,

14:17it cannot be better for humans to use violence, because that's what animals do. If you have the

14:23capacity for reason, and instead you use violence, then you are not using that which defines you

14:30specifically as human, which is the capacity to use language and negotiation and reason rather than

14:37violence, to get what you want. I mean, this is what we say to people who are violent,

14:43like an animal, right? And you're acting in that way. So, why does morality have to be universal?

14:51Because if we say, sometimes you can use violence, then we're saying something that is true for

15:01everyone who uses violence. Everyone who uses violence, most of the time they're not using

15:08violence. They're playing pool, they're watching a movie, they're sleeping, they're working on their

15:13car, they're whatever, right? They're going shopping for Valentine's Day car. Like, everyone

15:19who uses violence, you know, there's this sort of old, it's like a sort of silly meme or cliche,

15:25it's like, well, what do you mean I'm a murderer, says some guy, right? I mean, all of my life,

15:30except for two minutes, I spent not murdering people. One time, one time, one time, and I get

15:36branded, right? And the reason that that's a joke is we understand that even in an abusive relationship,

15:43right? Some sort of the cliche of the guy beating up his girlfriend, most of the time in the

15:52relationship and in his life, he's not beating her up. Let's say he's a real monster and he beats her

15:59up twice a week, okay? So, for 10 minutes each time. So, that's 20 minutes out of a week, that is

16:0424 hours, seven days. So, the vast majority of time, he's not using violence. So, if we say,

16:11well, you can sometimes use violence, that's a description of everybody who does use violence.

16:18And if you say, you can sometimes use violence, of course, you can in self-defense, blah, blah, blah,

16:23but if you say to someone, you can sometimes use violence, then the person has to say, okay,

16:27when can I use violence and when can I not use violence? And then you're negotiating a rule

16:31about the use of violence. But if the person is capable of negotiating a rule about the use of

16:35violence, only on Tuesdays, right? Then they're capable of using negotiation rather than violence,

16:40and therefore violence is inhuman and dehumanizing. Or if you say, you can use violence whenever you

16:46want, then you're saying, oh, you're an animal, because animals use violence whenever they want,

16:51because that's their instinct, right? Use violence whenever you want, to get what you want.

16:56Again, some seductive creatures accepted. You can't say to someone, you must always use violence,

17:03because it's impossible to always use violence. I mean, can you imagine trying to have a rule

17:09that said lions must always be killing their prey? Always. They can't rest, they can't reproduce,

17:18they can't play with their cubs, right? They can't explore, they can't guard the edges of their

17:24territory, none of that. Not any of that stuff. They must always be killing prey. Well, other than maybe

17:33blue whales with krill, right? They're, run away! There is no creature that is always and forever

17:38using violence. So the rule can't be, sometimes use violence, because that's true of everyone who

17:45uses violence. The rule, and you would need some standard other than, what thou? Well, it shall be

17:52the whole of the law, right? So you can't say, sometimes use violence, because then you're either

17:57saying that somebody is exactly the same as an animal, which they're not. A human being is not

18:02just an animal, because we have all of these capacities of language, reason, and negotiation

18:06that animals don't have, right? So saying that a human being is just like an animal is biologically

18:14incorrect, because we have this big, giant brain, right? 2% are for a body mass, 20 plus percent are for

18:20energy consumption, and I don't, you know, a thousand monkeys for a thousand years might type Shakespeare,

18:28but they can't write it. Saying that human beings can't reason is like saying lizards are warm-blooded

18:34and have fur. It's like, it's biologically incorrect. Human beings can reason, and it is our unique

18:40characteristic shared by no other creatures. Certainly in terms of conceptual reasoning, language,

18:45and negotiation, and trade, especially trade with a third party of currency, or a neutral party,

18:53which used to be a neutral party of gold or currency. So the rule can't be always use violence,

18:59because that's impossible. The rule can't be sometimes use violence, because then you have to

19:04have rules about when someone can or can't use violence, in which case they're capable of negotiating,

19:09in which case they should do that. And you can't say, you can't say always use violence, you can't

19:16say sometimes use violence. The only thing you can say, and be logically consistent, is never use

19:21violence. And that's the non-aggression principle, that's UPB, don't use violence. Well, saying some

19:29people will use violence, as if that's, you know, you say, well, UPB says don't use violence, and people

19:35say, well, some people will use violence, and like, yes, exactly, exactly. And that's why we need

19:43morality, because some people don't obey morality. I mean, I've never quite understood this as any kind

19:47of gotcha, right? Which is, well, I mean, UPB is invalid, because some people use violence.

19:56A completely incomprehensible position for me, and logically ridiculous. Some people cheat on tests,

20:03does that mean that tests are invalid? No, some people cheat on them. It's like saying,

20:08well, we have no need for the science of nutrition, because some people don't diet.

20:15Some people just eat what they want. It's like, it's a human characteristic to want to eat what

20:19you want, almost, almost tautological. You want to do what you want to do. So, some people

20:24will eat badly, and that's why you need the science of nutrition. And some people want to use violence,

20:30and prefer to use violence. That's why you need the science of, or the discipline of morality,

20:35so that you know when people are justified in using violence. Because there can't be any rule

20:40called no people use violence, right? UPB is an evaluation of moral theories, not individual

20:47specific behavior, right? So, there cannot be a rule that says nobody can use violence of any kind,

20:54because then some people will use violence, and that rule is immediately broken. The question is,

21:01when is it valid to use violence? And the answer is, in self-defense. The reasons I've gone into in

21:06my book, Universally Preferable Behavior, Irrational Proof of Secular Ethics. So, why is morality objective?

21:13Because that's what it is to be a human being, is to come up with universal rules

21:16that are enforceable by an escalating series of soft negotiations, hard negotiations, ostracism,

21:25and direct violence. And also, because if you say morality is subjective, you have created an

21:33objective and universal moral rule, which is, we should tell the truth about morality, we should

21:38be honest about morality, and we should accurately label morality as subjective, and you should not say

21:44things that are false, such as morality is subjective, right? So, you've got a whole series

21:49of rules. When you say morality is subjective, you have just made an objective moral rule, right?

21:55The moment you say something is, not, I like, I prefer morality to be subjective, or I like to think of

22:01morality as subjective, right? These are all feeling statements, whatever, okay, fine. But, I like blue

22:06is different from blue is one, two, four wavelength, or whatever it is, right? So, the moment you say

22:12something is, you are creating a direct correlation and a necessary virtue called tell the truth about

22:20that which is real, and valid, and accurate. So, you cannot engage in any conversation about morality

22:28without deploying universal standards of preferred behavior, right? This is, you cannot deny UPB

22:35without deploying UPB. So, somebody who says, why, or asks, and it's a fair question, it's a fine

22:42question, why should, why does morality have to be objective? Which implies that morality could be

22:50subjective, but if morality could be subjective or should be subjective, then you're still making a

22:56universal statement of preference for truth and honesty, which is itself a moral statement. Even in

23:03assembling the words in the way that you assemble them, you are also making, you are also deploying

23:11universality, because you're not just saying random syllables, right? You're asking very specific,

23:19a very specific series of questions, or a very specific question, based upon very precise language

23:25that you're using. And you're also choosing to negotiate rather than force. You could, you know,

23:31theoretically grab a philosopher and force the answer out of him, right? But you don't. You are doing,

23:37which is great, you are doing that which is specifically human. And if you're saying, well, why should people

23:44who are human do what is specifically human, or use characteristics that are specifically human, which is

23:51akin to saying, why should an elephant use its long nose? Why should a shark swim? Why should an anteater

23:59use its long tongue? Because that's exactly what it's for? Why should a baseball player use a bat and a

24:06glove? Because that's what the game is. And that's what they're for. So why should human beings use the

24:15giant brain that we have specifically evolved to give us options other than violence? You understand,

24:22it's kind of an incomprehensible question. Why should a bee use its wings? Or its stinger? Why should it

24:29gather pollen? Because that's what bees do. And if there was no need for bees to do that, they wouldn't

24:36have developed the ability. So that which is specifically human is language and negotiation.

24:42That's what separates us from the animals. That's why we have morality. And if you say, why should

24:48morality be objective? You're saying, why should human beings do that which defines them as human

24:55beings? Like, we're not defined by having two legs, lots of creatures have that. We're not defined by

24:59having hair or arms, lots of creatures have those, right? We are defined as humans, fundamentally, by our

25:06ability to reason and to negotiate. You say, well, why should morality be objective? You're saying,

25:12why should that which defines human beings be acted upon by human beings? Because that's the definition

25:19of human being. It's literally like saying, or asking, why should mammals be warm-blooded?

25:26Why should reptiles have scales? Why should fish have gills? Why should whales have flippers?

25:34Because that's what they are. Now, I understand the whales' flippers is not quite the same as mammals'

25:39warm-blooded. Mammals warm-blooded, right? It's the definition. Warm-blooded, coated in hair,

25:45gives birth to life young, and so on. Why should mammals be warm-blooded? Because that's what mammals

25:50are. Why should morality be objective? Because morality is what defines human beings. The capacity

25:57for morality is what defines human beings. And again, there are deviations. There are people who

26:02are born severely mentally disabled, and I get all of that. But those are deviations, right? Sometimes a

26:07horse is born with two heads. We don't sit there and say, well, now we have no idea what a horse is,

26:10right? That's a deviation. So human beings have the capacity to use language and negotiate.

26:16That's what defines us as human beings. Why should morality be objective? For the same reason

26:21that it is objective that mammals are warm-blooded. Human beings evolved a giant brain to reason rather

26:29than only use violence. And to say, why should human beings reason is like saying, why should

26:37elephants use their long nose? Why should mammals be able to regulate their own blood? Because that's

26:42what a definition of a mammal is. You see, it's circular, right? Why should a creature manifest the

26:48characteristics that specifically define what that creature is? Why should the genetic definition

26:56of a creature? Why should a creature do what its genetic definition is? It's like saying,

27:02why should a great white shark be a carcaridon carcarius, which is the Latin term for great white

27:07shark? Why should water be H2O? Because that's what water is. Why should human beings use language and

27:14reason? Because that's what human beings are. That's what defines us as human beings. And there is no way

27:21to ask the question. Why should morality be objective? You just ask a moral question, which is we should

27:28advocate for what is true rather than what is false. You cannot escape it, except by using violence,

27:34in which case your life will likely be nasty, brutish, bloody, and short. And no sane person will mourn your

27:42departure from society through jail or the world through somebody acting in an assertively self-defensive

27:52manner. So why should morality be objective? Because the definition of humanity is creatures who have

27:59evolved to use objective morality. And because there's no way to deny or question objective morality

28:07without using objective morality. Why should human beings use language? Because that's what we've

28:13evolved to do. And you can't ask the question without using language. Why should human beings

28:18use language? You've just answered that by asking the question and using language. Why should morality

28:25be objective? You've just asked that using embedded moral statements, the preference of truth over

28:30falsehood, accuracy over inaccuracy, and so on. And by putting the words in the sequence that you have,

28:37you have also used UPB, which is to be comprehensible. So I hope that answers the question. I get that

28:47this is not quite the lovely self-detonating arguments from scratch that I love to work with, but it's a

28:55challenging question. And I think the closest is to say that you cannot question morality without deploying

29:02morality in a universal fashion, right? If you say, I like the color blue, you are not demanding that

29:09everyone like the color blue. If you're asking why is morality objective or is morality objective or

29:16morality is not objective, then you are demanding that everybody else conform to the truth, not to your

29:22personal opinion or perspective, right? That's what violent people do is they give me your wallet,

29:26right? Conform to a personal opinion and perspective. But you are asking people to think

29:34clearly, which I appreciate. It's a good thing. It's a good thing to ask people to think clearly.

29:37That's kind of the gig, right? It's my gig anyway. So you're asking people to think clearly. You're asking

29:42people to prefer the truth absolutely and universally. And then you're saying, well, why should we have

29:50any values that prefer truth and consistency? When by asking that question, you're asking people

29:56to review their own thinking to make sure that what they're thinking is both true, universal, and

30:02consistent. So if you're saying the highest value is that which is true, universal, and consistent,

30:10morality is true, universal, and consistent. But why is that which is true, universal, and consistent? Why is

30:16there a necessity for it to be true, universal, and consistent? Which is like saying, mammals are

30:22defined as warm-blooded. Why is it required that mammals be warm-blooded? I think we're there. I

30:28think we're there. All right. Freedomain.com slash donate. Love to get your feedback. And if there's any

30:33way I can explain it better, I would love to hear it. And if there are more questions, as I'm sure there

30:38will, I've doubt I got all of this done in 36 minutes and change, then please email me support at

30:44freedomain.com. And I'd love to talk about it more. Lots of love, my friends. Take care. Bye.

Category

Transcript

Be the first to comment

Recommended