The Greatest Listener Questions - 2! - video Dailymotion

Stefan Molyneux

Stefan Molyneux tackles moral dilemmas through the lens of Universally Preferable Behavior. He delves into love and moral bonds, separating the care for babies from romantic attachments, and stresses that truth should guide moral duties rather than blind loyalty—particularly in cases of family abuse. He touches on issues like shared parenting and favoritism toward relatives, pushing for decisions based on ability instead of connections. Molyneux also looks at how stories of victimhood can undermine one's sense of control and underscores free will as a core part of ethical thinking. He wraps up by considering the duty to seek virtue, noting how choices today shape what comes next for others.  GET FREEDOMAIN MERCH! https://shop.freedomain.com/  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, this is second set of questions from listeners, the most important philosophical

00:07questions that my listeners tend to grapple with. This is number two. How does UPB apply to specific

00:14world, real world moral dilemmas? This is from Grok. People frequently test the framework against

00:19everyday or edge cases. Relationships, e.g. is love, involuntary response to virtue. How does

00:25that work with infants and animals? Family obligations, e.g. do we have moral duties to

00:31parents slash family if they're abusive? Divorce, inheritance, co-parenting with difficult

00:36personalities, or whether it's moral to give family advantages, a leg up. These tie into broader

00:40consistency checks on UPB. Now, of course, the reality is that we absolutely have to

00:49check morality and check our moral premises and how things apply. So, with regards, is

00:56love, involuntary response to virtue? How does it work with infants and animals? So, infants

01:02we love because we have created them, because they are life, because they are half us, because

01:07they are cute, because they are affectionate, because they are responsive. They have not

01:13chosen virtues as yet, but we can have great affection for our offspring, a very passionate

01:18devotion, and part of that's biochemical as well. Animals share the same things with their

01:22offspring, so that's fine. Do we morally admire infants? No. No, of course not, but there's many

01:31different kinds of love. There is the love of attachment and helpless and dependence and cuddly

01:35and eye contact, and babies are adorable, and so, but it's different from, I mean, obviously,

01:41obviously it's different from adult, mature, and in particular, romantic love. We would want these

01:47things to be very different. As our children grow and they begin to make good moral choices, we can

01:53admire their strength, their consistency, their integrity, well, also perhaps taking a bit of pride

01:58if we've helped bring these things about in our children as well. With regards to animals, so,

02:06our affection for animals, I'm really talking about Western Europeans here, it's a funny thing,

02:11you know, I have a very sort of passionate devotion to the welfare of animals, and, you know, the one

02:21time that a friend I knew grabbed a lizard and the tail came off, I was horrified, you know, and so we,

02:28as a survival mechanism, have a very strong protective mindset with regards to animals, because, of course,

02:36our ancestors relied on animals for their survival. We couldn't survive without them. We needed the

02:43dogs to protect our livestock and herd sheep, and so we need cats to protect us from mice and rats,

02:50keep out of the grain, because if rats get in your grain, your whole family could be wiped out in one

02:56winter. So, I have a sort of very, I have a very strong horror against any kind of cruelty to

03:04animals, except cockroaches and for them, man. So, as regards to our affection for animals,

03:13animals have bonded with us, animals have great affection for us because of being social animals

03:17and so on, and so we have evolved to have a very positive relationship and strong affection

03:24towards domesticated animals in particular, not so much wolves and bears, I suppose,

03:29except perhaps in Russia, where they do things quite differently in many ways. So, yeah, that's

03:36perfectly fine, but love in a philosophical sense is our involuntary response to virtue.

03:42If we're virtuous, affection and bonding and connection and all of these things, they're all

03:48fine as well. You could have a very strong bond with a person in war or in sports or in business

03:57and so on, and somebody in sports might be a very effective teammate. You feel very positive when

04:03you're around them, but that may not be specifically ethical or virtuous. So, there's shades and

04:09differences, but in its foundation, what we usually mean by love is our involuntary response to virtue.

04:16If we're virtuous, I'm talking about this with regards to adults. Of course, the love that we

04:22have for adults is different from the love that we have for children, and in particular, I'm talking

04:27about romantic love as a whole. So, I hope that makes sense. Do we have moral duties to parents

04:34or family if they're abusive? I said this in a call-in today, and I'll repeat it here because it's,

04:40well, bears or is well worth repeating, that it doesn't matter in terms of your future and

04:50your capacity for a loving pair-bonded relationship. It doesn't matter what the outcome of the story is.

04:59It doesn't matter what you think of your parents, really, fundamentally. What matters is what your

05:06potential wife thinks of your parents, that's what really matters. And to sacrifice love with a

05:15romantic partner for the sake of pleasing dysfunctional parents is to take a flamethrower

05:21to the future for the sake of the icy tomb of the past. That is not a good, that is not a good plan.

05:28So, to what do we owe our parents? Well, we owe them a truth, we owe them justice, and we owe them

05:37holding them to their own standards. That is really foundational. Because if your parents

05:46have particular virtues and values, then those virtues and values will be consistent for them,

05:54they will be held to them, right? So, if your father is like, it's really, really important to

05:59be on time, but he shows up a couple of times late, you can call him on that and say, well,

06:04hang on, you said that it was important to show up on time, and you don't show up on time.

06:09This doesn't seem good at all. This doesn't seem good at all. And he can say, yes, you know,

06:15you're right, I did say that, and all this kind of stuff, right? And this is what teenagers are going

06:19through when they are holding their parents to their own standards, which is perfectly valid,

06:25right, and fair. Because it is absolutely essential, to be a good person, it is absolutely essential

06:32that you figure out whether the morals you were subjected to as a child were based on virtue or

06:40power. Virtue or power, a love story. This was a podcast I did way back, like 20 years ago.

06:46It's really essential. So, the rules that were imposed upon you as a child by your parents,

06:55were they imposed because the rules are good, or were they imposed because your parents had power?

07:03It's kind of a foundational question. Now, if the morals that were imposed upon you as a child

07:11were imposed because your parents had power, then it's important to understand that, so you don't

07:19confuse them with morality. So, the king imposes rules upon his subjects that the king himself is

07:26not subject to. The king can speak his mind no matter what, but other people are punished for

07:32speaking their minds. The king can start a war, nobody else can. The king can mint coins, nobody else

07:38can. The king can collect taxes, nobody else can. So, these are not universal moral rules. These are

07:44manifestations of power. And as manifestations of power, they should not be confused with moral rules.

07:53Moral rules are universal and objective and bind everyone. Rules on power require that you have

08:01authority or the ability to either give rewards or punish. So, if your father, say, is a big bully with

08:12you whenever he doesn't get his way or you inconvenience him or interfere with his goals or

08:20plans or slow him down or whatever, right? Now, if your father is a bully when you inconvenience him

08:29or he doesn't get his way, then it's interesting to see your father when a policeman pulls him over

08:35or he has some inconvenience, say, with a customs official or with a border agent or someone at the

08:45TSA or somebody doing airport security and so on, then it's very interesting to see how he reacts to it.

08:50If he is nice and conciliatory and perhaps even a little obsequious or subservient, well, with the

09:01people who have authority over him, well, that's interesting, right? So, then his impatience with

09:07you is not because you're doing anything wrong, because the policeman, the TSA agent, the border

09:13person, the customs person, they are all, quote, inconveniencing him too. But he doesn't have power

09:19over them. They have power over him. So, it is not that there's anything wrong with you.

09:25The only reason that your father would treat you badly in these situations is you don't have any

09:29power over him. He has power over you, so he can treat you badly. When other people have power over

09:36him, you know, he's sweet as sugar, gentle as a lamb, very conciliatory, and so on. And everyone's seen

09:42this kind of stuff where, you know, a parent, an ill-tempered parent is driving the family over

09:49to some social gathering or business gathering, family gathering, and their mood switches, and they

09:56go, hey, how's everyone, blah, blah, blah. And, you know, they maybe even give you a glance over their

10:01shoulder, see, hey, it can be nice, right? In which case, his ill-temper is not foundational,

10:07it's not moral, it's not based upon any objective standard. It is based on the fact that he can have

10:16an ill-temper with you, and you can't do anything about it, and you can't judge him negatively, or if

10:21you do judge him negatively, he can just punish you for that. But when he reaches the social gathering,

10:27then he's all bon ami, right? He's all friendly and hard handshakes and back claps and positive,

10:36because those people could judge him negatively or exclude him in the future if he is negative or

10:45hostile or difficult, right? Plus, of course, he often has to put on, as so many families do,

10:51he has to put on the view that everything's great and his life is wonderful and there aren't any

10:58problems, whereas if he comes in kind of sour and negative, hey, Joe, what's wrong? Ah, you know,

11:03lots of conflicts with the kids, man. We're just fighting like cats and dogs and, oh, my wife is

11:06angry at me all day, right? But no, they have to, hey, everything's great, right? So, advertising and

11:12kind of scurrilous nonsense as a whole. So, it's really important. Your teachers, right? Your teachers,

11:20do they impose rules on you because those rules are objective and moral and good and universal,

11:26or do they impose those rules on you because they have power over you and you have no power over

11:32them? It's really, really important. Do not mistake power for virtue. That's a very important thing

11:38in life. And so, one of the best ways to figure out if someone is dealing with power or virtue

11:43is simply to ask them or to try and hold their, to try and hold themselves to their own arguments

11:54and perspectives and rules. All right. Divorce, inheritance, co-parenting with difficult

12:01personalities, or whether it's moral to give family advantages. A leg up. Yeah, I don't think

12:07there's any problems with giving family advantages. Sure. Why not? I mean, you know your family very

12:15well. You should know their skill sets. And if your family member is good at something,

12:21then you should help them. If you raise your kid, let's say you have a convenience store and your

12:27child is around the convenience store a lot, and you've talked a lot about the business of having

12:30a convenience store and so on, then why not give your child the ability to run the convenience store?

12:35I mean, they've grown up with it. They understand it. They've worked in it, perhaps.

12:39So, I think that's, that's perfectly fine. Again, UPP is no rape, theft, assault, and murder.

12:46There's a certain wisdom in trying to figure out whether the people who have power over you

12:50impose rules because the rules are good, or simply as an expression of power. That's,

12:55that's important, for sure. But as far as, you know, nepotism or giving family members a leg up,

13:03I think that's, that's something that doesn't violate. UPP doesn't violate persons or property

13:09and so on. And of course, if your kid doesn't have any particular interest in the business or

13:16isn't particularly good at it, then it might not be wise, of course. But it's certainly not a

13:21violation of the non-aggression principle to give your family member some sort of advantage.

13:27Uh, co-parenting with difficult personalities? I'm not sure that UPP has much to say about that

13:34other than, well, I suppose, yeah, you, you, difficult personalities are sort of defined

13:41by a hypocrisy. Rules for thee, but not for me. This is the sort of most foundational

13:46dysfunction in the world is for people to impose will through power, but claim

13:56that it is virtuous. So, a woman in a marriage who's dysfunctional might say,

14:05you're not thoughtful enough, you're not caring enough, I don't feel loved. And then,

14:11if the husband says, I feel also that you are not caring, she said, well, we're focusing on me,

14:17right? So, she wants to focus on herself and what she's missing. And if the husband says, well,

14:21I'm also missing, uh, things and I would like to negotiate for more, uh, myself, uh, then that's

14:29bad, right? So, if the woman has standards, that's good, she's showing self-respect. If the man had

14:36standards, he's petty and controlling, right? So, this is the most foundational dysfunction

14:39in the human mind is to have rules that only benefit one party, right? So, again, to reference

14:52the caller from this morning, he was dating a woman who said, uh, I need a man with a certain income

14:58in order for me to feel safe and secure, right? So, uh, generally, the way that women will phrase

15:04this, and obviously not women as a whole, but the sort of predatory gold digger type of women,

15:09as they say, you know, a woman can really relax into her sexuality and her affectionate side and

15:14her femininity if she feels safe and protected. And the best way to feel safe and protected is for

15:19the man to have a good income and blah, blah, blah, which is a big, florid way of trading sex for

15:23money. So, I said to the caller this morning, hey, I've got no problem with people having standards

15:29in relationships. That's fine. You, you go to a job interview and,

15:34you can say, I want, uh, $100,000 a year or whatever, and that's fine. They, they also have

15:41their requirements and standards though, right? You wouldn't go into a job interview and say,

15:45I will feel very secure in this job if you pay me $100,000 a year, and I will, uh, not tell you

15:54anything about my experience or history. Like, you just got to pay, because I'll, I'll feel good about

15:58it. Well, the employer would say, well, it's nice that you want $100,000 a year, but we need to know

16:03what we're getting from you. We actually need to interview you to find out about your experience

16:06in history and your education and so on, right? So, the most foundational dysfunction is when you

16:13have rules for me, I'm sorry, rules for thee, but not for me. I don't know if I said it right the way

16:19last time, but rules, well, it could be rules for thee, but not for me. You have to take care of me.

16:24Rules for me, but not for thee. I have to have standards, but if you have standards,

16:28you're controlling. So, this manipulative flip is where the most foundational dysfunction is.

16:35So, with regards to co-parenting with difficult personalities, then what you could do, of course,

16:41is work your best to try and have universal rules in your parenting. It's not likely it's going to work,

16:50because the most foundational dysfunction, how you know someone's dysfunctional, like,

16:54if they're crazy, they have no rules at all in any particular way. But if they are dysfunctional,

16:59then what's going to happen is they're going to have a bunch of rules and requirements for you,

17:05which they themselves would not follow. I mean, I remember a friend of mine years ago dating a woman,

17:14and, you know, she said, oh, you have to do half the housework, and at that time,

17:19he was paying all the bills. And he said, but I'm paying all the bills, so I shouldn't have...

17:24But, and she had reasons as to why that wasn't valid, and this, that, and the other, right? So,

17:28you have to do half, but I don't have to do half. You know, it's sort of this one-sided

17:33negotiation where there's no rules that apply to the other person, that sort of foundation.

17:37Oh, you people can help tease that stuff out. It can't fix it. It's a free will thing.

17:41What about free will, determinism, and personal responsibility?

17:45This comes up a lot in intersections with atheism, morality, and behavior. Questions like,

17:50if no free will exists, how can morality exist? Or how does consciousness or free will connect to

17:56UPB and ethics, often linked to critiques of societal excuses, e.g., victimhood ideology,

18:03that undermine individual agency? Well, men coddle women, and women coddle children,

18:12and there's nothing, right? There's not any kind of negative as a whole, but men protect

18:17women, and women protect children, and that's, that's just the way of the world, that's the way

18:23of evolution as a whole. And so, somebody who is a victim will summon resources. So, a woman who is a

18:34victim will summon male resources, a child who is a victim will summon female resources, and this is

18:41good, and good, and right, and healthy as a whole, except it's a hack, too. It's a way of getting

18:48resources by pretending to be a victim. And the way that you find out whether somebody is pretend

18:57victiming, right, they are posing the pretense, putting on the pretense of being a victim in order

19:02to gain resources, is you don't give them resources, but you tell them how to get their own resources.

19:09Right, so, a kid who's whining because they can't reach the apple, uh, you can say, oh, there's a, uh,

19:17there's a little foot, foot ladder in the garage, you can go and get that, right? And if the kid then

19:22gets upset even more, it means that they don't want the apple, they want you to get the apple.

19:29And, you know, if the kid's tired or cranky, that's, that's fine, but you do sort of have to teach

19:33your kids at some point about doing their own thing and being responsible for solving their own

19:40problems. And if a woman is complaining about something and has sort of repetitive complaints,

19:48then if you solve the problem and she gets upset, then she wants to complain, not solve the problem.

19:58And the complaining may be an act of dominance, it may be an act of getting sympathy, or something like

20:02that. But that is a kind of problem. So, again, this comes back to the most foundational human

20:12dysfunction is to create rules that do not apply to everyone, but you carve out special exceptions

20:18for yourself. That's really the definition of political power as a whole. So, with regards to

20:25free will, free will is our capacity to compare proposed actions to ideal standards. A proposed

20:35action called tell the truth or lie. Well, the ideal standard is, in reasonable circumstances,

20:39to tell the truth. The proposed action is to, you know, if someone has upset you, you go punch them in

20:45the face, or you don't go and punch them in the face. So, you would run that through the

20:52non-aggression principle and say, well, somebody's just bothered you, or upset you, or said something

20:56mean, you don't go and punch them in the face because free speech and initiation of the use of

21:01force and that kind of stuff. So, compare proposed actions to ideal standards. And that is what free

21:07will is. And people can't argue against it, right? Because if somebody says, we have no capacity to compare

21:15proposed actions to ideal standards, this is a self-detonating statement. Because if you're saying free will

21:21is false, because we cannot compare proposed actions to ideal standards, then you are comparing a

21:27proposed action called arguing for free will against an ideal standard called truth and falsehood. So,

21:33you can't say, we have no capacity to compare proposed actions to ideal standards, and therefore,

21:40I need you to compare your proposed action to an ideal standard. It really doesn't make any sense at all.

21:45So, it's a self-detonating statement, and anybody who argues against it has affirmed it. It's

21:51the UPB thing. I don't come up with these things by accident. I try to come up with definitions

21:56that are rational and cannot be argued against. And if you say human beings have no capacity to compare

22:06proposed actions to ideal standards, then it would make no sense to debate someone and try to get them

22:12to change their mind. This is a basic determinism argument that I need you to change your mind

22:16about whether you can change your mind, and so on, right? I need you to compare proposed actions

22:22arguing for free will to ideal standards, truth and falsehood. And I need you to choose truth and

22:29falsehood, which means that you've accepted that human beings have the ability to compare proposed

22:35actions to ideal standards, and that you can change people's minds, and that solves the entire

22:39problem of a free will in that way. So, if no free will, how can morality exist? Well, morality

22:47is really the ultimate example of comparing proposed actions to ideal standards. I mean,

22:52there are other ones, of course, as engineering, mathematics, and science, you know. I want to

22:57build a bridge. Well, I should compare the proposed action of how I'm going to build the bridge to the

23:01ideal standard of not spending too much money, but having a strong bridge that lasts a long time and

23:06isn't too expensive to maintain any of ideal standards for those things, right? So, morality is

23:12the ultimate example of our ability to compare proposed actions to ideal standards, and so, given

23:17that that is the definition of free will foundationally, morality and free will are two sides of the same

23:22coin. How does consciousness and free will connect to UPB and ethics? Well, you cannot have free will

23:30if you cannot compare proposed actions to ideal standards, and this is also, of course, an example

23:36that applies solely to human beings. Because of our language abilities, reasoning abilities, and

23:44conceptual abilities, we can have and communicate and pursue ideal standards, right? We can do that.

23:52So, what that means is that human beings can do it, babies can't do it,

24:00and animals can't do it. You cannot discuss morality with a dog. You can train a dog,

24:05you can train a dolphin, you can train an orca, a killer whale, but that's just the pleasure-pain

24:12principle, mostly the pleasure principle, you know, do what I want, and here's a nice

24:16cheek full of herring, not heroin, I guess that would work too, but you can train monkeys and so on.

24:24So, it explains why human beings have morality and animals don't. So, you have to have an ideal

24:34standard in order to have a free will, in order to have morality. Morality is the ultimate ideal

24:42standard, and so UPB is the ideal standard by which we would compare moral systems to. Any moral system

24:50that is self-contradictory cannot be also valid. All right. Peaceful parenting and breaking cycles

24:57of abuse and trauma. A huge recurring theme listeners ask how to apply philosophy to raising

25:02children without aggression. How moral responsibility starts with parenting, why spanking or traditional

25:08methods fail ethically, and how childhood experiences shape adult philosophy and morality. This often blends

25:14with personal stories of family dysfunction. Peacefulparenting.com for that one. Anarchism,

25:20the state, and aggression slash non-aggression. Caught to your work, is government inherently

25:25immoral? How do we resolve disputes without the state? Why is taxation theft and defenses against

25:29common objections? What about roads, police? These tie into UPB's non-aggression implications and

25:36critiques of statism. Collectivism. You know, I've often thought that, well, A, I've often thought,

25:41B, I've often thought that if you were in a free society, right? This is blank slate thinking,

25:49right? If you lived in a free society, the kind that I depicted my novel, The Future, which you

25:54should definitely check out at freedemand.com slash books. So, if you were in a free society

26:00with no state, and somebody came along and said, hey, what we should do, you know, this society appears

26:10to be functioning okay, but what we should do is we should get a small group of people, give them all

26:18the weapons in the world, and have them run everything. And they can pass their laws, and

26:25they can impose their will, and we want to give them control over the currency, and the interest rates,

26:31and the roads, and the infrastructure, and we want them to be able to create debt on the whim

26:40based upon the future earnings of the next generation, and so on. And yeah, people can vote

26:45for them, but we also want very strict rules about whether you can even be a candidate, and

26:51although bribery of politicians we will make technically illegal, the bribery of the population

26:57will be totally illegal. Like, you can promise people a whole bunch of free stuff, and you don't

27:02actually have to deliver on it. And so, like, you know, we give them all the weaponry, and so on,

27:08right? And then we can have, they can prevent people from leaving the society by putting massive

27:13exit taxes on them, and things like that. So, if you were in a free society, and somebody proposed

27:19this system, people would think that you'd unfortunately taken a severe blow to the head, or something

27:26like that, because when you were in a free society, and a proposed, proposed a society like we have

27:31now, people would look at you like, what the hell is wrong with you? Why would you even think that

27:37could possibly be a real thing? And immediately, it would be like, well, those people would be above

27:43the law, those people would have no negative consequences of their action, the population would

27:47just be bribed, and the next population, the next generation would be enslaved, right? Somebody was

27:53pointing out, I think, in the Congress in America, that children are born owing 104% of the lifetime

28:00earnings, just on government benefits to the elderly, right? Medicaid, and old age pensions,

28:06and things like that, entitlement programs. And so, that's pure economic slavery, absolute economic

28:12enslavement. So, if you were to propose statism in a free society, you would immediately be, I wouldn't

28:23say shouted down, but you would immediately be pestered with an array of questions that you

28:29couldn't possibly answer. And that's the way that I kind of look at things, is not how should a free

28:35system be defended, but how can you defend a system that is as corrupt as the one that we have? Like,

28:42how could you even imagine that would be the case? And imagine trying to justify the system you were

28:47proposing, i.e. statism, in a truly free society. Six, epistemology and truth. How do we really know

28:55anything? Skepticism, objective versus subjective truth, how UPB relates to truth-seeking, e.g.,

29:02can UPB define truth, and avoiding nihilism or infinite regress in knowledge claims. Listeners

29:08often want simplified explanations of complex epistemology. Well, I suppose epistemology can be

29:16complex, but I don't think in its foundations it has to be. We accept the evidence for objective

29:28reality through the transmission of the senses. And because of that, and the consistency and

29:36universality of the evidence of reality through the senses, we get logic and reasoning. Truth is the

29:44relationship between ideas in the mind and what they describe in reality. There's no truth in dreams,

29:51because dreams are subjectively generated. They follow particular patterns. I mean,

29:56they're not completely, they're not just static, right? They do portray things in the world

30:01relatively accurately, but, you know, in a fantastical manner. And so, truth is a relationship

30:08between ideas in the mind and things in the world. And that's what science is really all about,

30:13saying you've got conjectures with your ideas in the mind. And if they accurately describe what's

30:18going on in the world, and they're internally logically consistent, then you have a valid theory

30:22that can be used to predict things, and so on. If you think that balsa wood is stronger than steel,

30:28you will build some very bad bridges and some very heavy model planes. So, evidence of the senses,

30:36objective, universal, consistent, gives us reason, which is a prerequisite for things being true

30:43that are used to describe things in the world. You have a theory that describes things in the world.

30:48Since things in the world are not self-contradictory, then ideas that describe things in the world

30:54cannot be self-contradictory. Since there's no such thing as a square circle in the universe,

30:59then any theory which requires the existence of a square circle cannot be valid. So, reason comes

31:07through the evidence of the senses, and truth is a description of the relationship, the accurate

31:12relationship between ideas in the mind and things in the world. And reason comes from the evidence

31:17of the senses. So, as far as epistemology goes, that's why logical consistency and empiricism

31:24are the only valid ways of ensuring that what you say is true. Can UPB define truth? I mean,

31:32UPB is a way of evaluating moral systems in particular, and it's a subset of reason and

31:38evidence, right? So, any self-contradictory system cannot be valid, and UPB applies this in particular

31:45to morality. All right. Virtue, evil, and duty. Do we have a moral obligation to fight evil or pursue

31:53virtue? Questions about whether UPB demands action against wrongdoing, the role of humility slash

32:00self-improvement, surrounding yourself with virtuous people, and avoiding moral complacency.

32:06So, do you have a moral obligation? Well, first of all, this is grok, right? So, it wouldn't,

32:12right? It wouldn't do this, but the first thing we would have to do is say, what is a moral obligation?

32:18So, do you have a moral obligation to not steal? Well, yeah, according to UPB, you have a theory of

32:27virtue, cannot include theft. Theft is self-contradictory. And so, a moral system respects

32:35property rights. Morality respects property rights. Do you have a moral obligation to do what is moral?

32:42Well, I mean, it sounds a little bit tautological, but you do have a moral obligation to do what is

32:49moral. So, we understand this with regards to rape, theft, assault, and murder. But when it comes to,

32:57do you have a moral obligation to fight evil and promote virtue? Well, I wouldn't say that you have

33:07a moral obligation to do that in the same way that you have a moral obligation to respect property

33:12rights and not assault people. I wouldn't say that you have the same moral obligation to promote

33:20virtue and fight evil that you have when you sign a contract, which is very specific. However,

33:28I would say that if you profit from other people's virtues and you do not contribute to those virtues,

33:39then that is kind of parasitical. It's selfish. If your father works very hard and you enjoy the fact

33:49that he made a lot of money and then you just grab his money and spend it without adding any particular

33:55value just in a hedonistic way, well, you're not violating property rights. I mean, it's your money.

34:00You can waste it and blow it and do all sorts of nonsense with it, right? But you appreciate your

34:06father making the money and you're leaving nothing to your children. So, there's a kind of hypocrisy

34:10in that. And the problem with hypocrisy is it causes people to lie to themselves because people

34:16don't like to openly say, oh, yeah, I'm a total hypocrite. I'm a piece of crap. And I mean,

34:20some people will in a kind of performative way. But if you benefit, as we all have, from the multi

34:2710,000 year history of people promoting virtue and opposing vice or evil, then to pay it forward

34:38is a rational thing. We have some remnants of private property and free speech in the West.

34:45And to not fight for private property and to promote free speech is churlish. It is the consumption

34:51of something that we greatly value without adding to maintain or expand it. And the question is,

35:00and this is a bit of a Kantian thing too, right? Like, is it reasonable to act in a way that if it were

35:07universalized, you wouldn't be happy? And that's not a proof of morality. But if no one in the past

35:15had promoted virtue and fought evil, we'd all still be clubbing each other to death with the thigh

35:20bones of mammoths or something, right? And if nobody had sacrificed or fought for free speech,

35:27we wouldn't be able to have this conversation at all. So, if you don't promote virtue and you don't

35:36fight evil, you have not violated any foundational moral contracts, you're not evil, you haven't

35:43broken a contract, you're not fraudulent, but you are a bit parasitical. Not you, but Bob, let's say

35:48Bob, and I'll talk to you like you're the issue. But Bob is a bit parasitical and kind of hypocritical.

35:54Oh, and the other thing too is that if love is our involuntary response to virtue, if you don't

36:00promote good and fight evil, which is an essential part of virtue, then you can't really be loved.

36:07You can't really be admired. Your children won't in particular admire you. And, of course, you're

36:12leaving the world the worst place for your children, and they're also more likely to be susceptible to

36:16peer pressure if you cuck out of the necessary fight. Sorry, it's back to you. Forget Bob.

36:21And me. Right. I send myself to you. But if you won't do the necessary work to promote virtue and

36:28fight evil, then you really can't be loved. And you certainly can't be admired morally. And that's

36:35a great treasure in life. So, all right. I think that's good. And these are pretty, pretty good

36:43answers. So, again, freedomain.com slash donate. I really appreciate your time, thoughts, and attention

36:49in this matter. And shop.freedomain.com and freedomain.com slash books to pick up all of

36:58the juicy tidbits of that. So, have yourselves a wonderful day. I guess we'll talk to everyone

37:02in the morning, 10 a.m. for Sunday Morning Church of Philosophy. Take care, my friends. Bye.

The Greatest Listener Questions - 2!

Category

Transcript

Comments

Recommended