UPB vs GOD! Listener Questions

Stefan Molyneux

Philosopher Stefan Molyneux unpacks listener questions on matchmaking, vaccine deceptions, true listening, UPB's ironclad morality and virtue-forged love to arm you against societal lies for ethical sovereignty.  Questions:  "How would you go about making introductions between two individuals that you believe would both massively benefit from knowing one another (whether in a business, romantic, or other scenario)?"   "Hey Stef, maybe a bit of a personal question but I would appreciate hearing what your thoughts are on vaccines now. Pre-COVID I was convinced about vaccines being good, but now since witnessing the COVID jab and even just how terrible the batch controls were with contaminants, I haven’t been able to bring myself to vaccinate my children. I don’t trust vaccines made by companies who participated, but even if I could find some available that weren’t, I read a book called Vax Unvax by Del Bigtree and Robert Kennedy, and it made a compelling argument for vaccine injuries being much higher than reported. Also, there is so much corruption in the industry. Yet with all of this, I still worry it’s not the right choice due to non-herd-immunity related risks, such as tetenus. Thanks if you take the time to touch on this!"   "Why do you think that it is so difficult for people to listen?  "Stefan, you are an excellent listener, backed by countless examples. What are your top 3 to 5 tips on how to become a great listener?"   "Hi stef. In regard to UPB and the Coma Test; If someone in a coma is unconscious, they also have no choice. As a result they do not have the ability to prefer anything. Should someone in a coma not be excluded from any assessment for UPB? Thanks."  "Hi Stef, This is a follow on from my previous question. Do you think that people resist UPB, in part because it leads to the realisation of how unloved most of us are?  "If there is a secular explanation f...  0:00:00 Questions from Subscribers  0:12:25 The Vaccine Dilemma  0:19:00 The Art of Listening  0:26:16 Understanding UPB and Morality  0:40:15 Free Will and Parenting  0:49:04 Religion and Moral Preference  0:55:29 Closing Thoughts and Donations   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/UPB202

Transcript

00:00Hey everybody, it's Stefan Molyneux from Free Domain. Hope you're doing well.

00:03I did ask some donors for questions at the freedomain.locals.com platform.

00:11And I've got some great questions. Let's run through them here.

00:14And you really should join us. A great community at freedomain.locals.com.

00:18All right. How would you go about making introductions between two individuals

00:22that you believe would both massively benefit from knowing one another,

00:26whether in a business, romantic, or other scenario?

00:30Yeah, it's a good thing to do. Putting people together who will work well together

00:34is a really, really great thing to do. And I appreciate that. It's a very positive thing.

00:42So it depends how serious and deep you intend or hope for the relationship to be.

00:47If it's hopefully a lifelong romantic relationship, then what I would do is talk up the other person

00:55to each other, right? So if it's Bob and Jane, talk up Bob to Jane, talk up Jane to Bob.

01:00Tell them how you think they'll fit together and that you have high hopes for compatibility

01:04and so on. And just be honest about it and then see if it works. It's the same thing in

01:10the business

01:10world. Don't be afraid to be an honest matchmaker. You know, I've had people who've been introduced to

01:17me. Oh, this person would be very helpful to your business. You'd be helpful to theirs and so on.

01:21And there's nothing wrong with being a matchmaker. Just be direct and be honest.

01:28Hey, Steph, maybe a bit of a personal question, but I would appreciate hearing

01:31what your thoughts are on vaccines now. Pre-COVID, I was convinced about vaccines being good.

01:39But now since witnessing the COVID jab and even just how terrible the batch controls were with

01:43contaminants, I haven't been able to bring myself to vaccinate my children. I don't trust vaccines made

01:48by companies who participated. But even if I could find some available that weren't, I read a book

01:53called Vax Unvax by Del Bigtree and Robert Kennedy. And it made a compelling argument for vaccine

01:59injuries being much higher than reported. Also, there is so much corruption in the industry. Yet

02:03with all of this, I still worry that it's not the right choice due to non-herd immunity related risks

02:08such as tetanus. Thanks if you take the time to touch on this. Yeah, boy, that's that's a horrible

02:14situation. That's a horrible situation. I received very few vaccines. I still have the little scar

02:21on my arm for my smallpox vaccine when I was a little kid. I don't remember. I think when I

02:29traveled to Morocco, I think I got a yellow fever vaccine, but I don't think I ever got the second

02:36one. So it's horrible. It's a horrible situation as a whole. And, you know, in a way for people to

02:49manipulate or control you, what they need to do is escalate the danger to the point where it feels

02:55insane to not do what they say. Right. So with, of course, with COVID, it was like we can't have

03:01a

03:01society. It's a deadly pandemic. You're killing grandma and you're putting the immunocompromised

03:07of those who can't take vaccines at terrible risk. And and oh, my gosh. And and you there's long COVID

03:14and you could be disabled and you could die. And I mean, they really did ramp up the

03:23danger signals. And in general, for human beings, if you ramp up the danger signals enough,

03:29people will comply. This is one of the reasons why ramping up the danger signals is so high.

03:35I mean, if you remember, of course, in 2002, 2003, the lead up to the invasion of Iraq,

03:40Iraq, it was Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. And Condoleezza Rice famously famously

03:46saying, we don't want the smoking gun to be in the form of a mushroom cloud that millions of Americans

03:53would be wiped out in a nuclear explosion set off by Saddam Hussein. Of course, it was all nonsense and

04:05not true. But if you ramp up the escalation level to deadly threats, then it is very easy to get

04:17the

04:18vast majority of people to comply. Most people are just operating on stimulus response. They don't have

04:24any particular thoughts or principles. And I found this to be as true of atheists as it is of Christians

04:30and vice versa. They're just operating on pleasure-pain principles. They don't have any

04:37foundational morals that they're willing to sacrifice for. And so it is really a terrible

04:45situation. It's the same thing when Russia went into Ukraine. We could view that as a sort of small

04:52regional conflict and, you know, there are more Russians in the Ukrainian area. But then, of course,

04:59everything, as you know, everything is Hitler, Chamberlain, and 1936 to 1939. That's the entire

05:08gamut of all international incidents are now, well, if we don't stop him now, this will be like

05:14Chamberlain failing to stop Hitler before World War II, which led to 40 to 60 million people killed,

05:22and the Holocaust and all kinds of appalling and horrible things. Objectively, they were, of course.

05:27But when you reframe everything as maximum horrifying, terrible danger, then people will comply. And it's

05:38very hard to look at the data. Of course, we're not really trained to look at the data. And the

05:42data is

05:43often not available. As you remember, it took a significant court case to overturn pharmaceutical

05:49companies' reluctance to release data until, what, 75 years had passed, or something crazy like that.

05:54And even if there is source data, who knows how to analyze it and who can trust the people who

05:58are

05:58analyzing it? It's a, I mean, I don't like to say that it's a weakness, because it's hard to look

06:06at

06:06anything in human nature as a weakness, given that we're sort of the alpha dominant species on the

06:10planet. And so if you are Wayne Dretzky, who was, at least for a time, I don't know if it's

06:16still the

06:16case, he was the most successful athlete in human history, the most competent athlete, because the

06:23way you measure it is his achievements, which I guess is scoring goals in hockey, his achievements

06:29relative to the second. And he had the greatest span of being first relative to being second of any

06:35athlete in human history. And if every danger is escalated to the point of absolute catastrophe,

06:48we end up being like ding, ding, ding, like these pinballs just bouncing around from terror to terror

06:53to terror to terror to terror to terror. And we don't have any real free will of our own. We

06:58don't have

06:59the ability to analyze things independently. We're not taught how to be skeptical. Of course, government

07:04schools wouldn't teach you how to be skeptical of power. And all people who claim to be moralists

07:16know how to do is threatened. I mean, it's appalling. Why should you study in school? Because you'll get

07:25detention, you'll get punished, you'll get lines, you'll get held back, it will be awful. And that's

07:29why you should study, just threats. Why should you believe in this God or that God? You know,

07:37bribes and threats, heaven and hell. The disapproval of God who's always watching. That's just a,

07:42you'll go to hell and you won't be reunited with your loved ones after death and you'll spend

07:46eternity in torment. Oh my gosh, it's just endless. It's just endless. Parents say, well, why should you

07:54obey me? Why should you do what I say? Because I will spank you. I will hit you. I will

07:59put you

07:59in a timeout. I will take away your privileges. I will put you in your room. You will not get

08:03any

08:03supper, just punishment, punishment, punishment. And all of that arises out of a helplessness,

08:10which is solved by UPB, universally preferable behavior, which is the rational proof of secular

08:16ethics. When you can prove things to people, you don't need to threaten them. And the less

08:24people can prove things, the more they will threaten. And the degree of disproof is measurable

08:32by the intensity of the threat. So for me, when people come out with catastrophe scenarios,

08:43I just don't believe them at all. I just don't believe them at all.

08:49I mean, I said from the very beginning that the lockdowns were going to do far more damage

08:54than COVID-19 ever could. And unfortunately, I mean, I hate being right. I really, I hate being

08:59right. You know, if you tell your uncle he's going to die from smoking, it's not like you want to

09:03be

09:03right. You're telling him because you want to prevent the outcome. So in general, when I'm told

09:10that a catastrophe occurs, and my skepticism is not addressed, I don't believe it. So if somebody says,

09:23you know, with the COVID-19 shot, if people had said, people in power had said, look,

09:30you're perfectly reasonable to be concerned about this novel mRNA therapeutic, right? It's not a

09:37traditional vaccine. It's new technology. It hasn't worked in the past. It killed all of the ferrets

09:42or whatever it was experimented on with before. So it is a new situation. And you have every right

09:52to be skeptical. It makes perfect sense. You know, they say if I were in your shoes, and somebody was

09:58telling me a society was going to collapse, and, you know, millions and millions of people were going

10:03to die, if everyone didn't immediately take this without question, I would be skeptical too. So here

10:09is the problems. Here is the data. Here's what we know. And here's what the facts are. And they would

10:17they would sort of step you through it patiently and carefully, fully accepting your right and

10:23instincts to be skeptical. And you'd say especially when there's 100 billion dollars plus on the line

10:28just in one one particular country, I think it was. So when people accept nervousness and skepticism,

10:40and the inevitable response to fear mongering, which is, I don't like, why would you need to fear

10:46monger me if you have all of the proof? And if the messaging doesn't switch, I'm sure you remember,

10:54what was it, Nancy Pelosi saying, come on down to Chinatown, don't be racist and all that.

10:59And I mean, if America had simply stopped

11:04people flying in from China, they would have cut the rate of COVID by like over 95%. But they so

11:12or

11:12natural immunity is good, and then it's bad. And you know, they would be desperate to find other

11:16therapeutics other than COVID-19 vaccine shots, or whatever you want to call them. So when people

11:22are hurrying you, when they get angry and impatient, and they assume that everything is already clear,

11:29and only an idiot would have any questions at all. And of course, the fact that COVID-19 emerged a

11:36stone's throw from the only bioweapons lab in the region, and that that was not particularly addressed,

11:45and anybody who didn't think it came from a pangolin was just crazy conspiracy theory. So when there's

11:53just this rush, this stampede, and they're whipping up hysteria, and they're turning us against each

12:00other, and there's nothing but disaster, and there's only one path forward, and they won't address

12:04criticisms of incentives, and motives, and methodology, and so on. And they won't release the data. And they

12:10demand, of course, as they did, immunity from liability for any negative effects of this therapeutic,

12:19well then, I mean, who would believe that? Who? I hate being rushed. If you've ever been in a sales

12:30situation, God help me, once I got trapped at one of these, come for breakfast, and we'll pitch you on

12:39timeshares, or cheap vacations, or something like that. And it was like, this is a one-time offer, it starts

12:43at

12:44this, we're going to cut it by 90%, sign now, or blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And it was like,

12:50I really don't

12:51like being rushed. And of course, if all of these timeshares were legit, then nobody would ever have

13:02regular vacations, or these sort of free, cheap vacations were legit. Anyway, so I don't like

13:09being rushed, and I want people to understand my skepticism, and help me work through it in a positive

13:16and benevolent way. But that's not how people are raised. People are just raised, I mean, you were

13:21raised, I was raised with just punishment, punishment, punishment. And the degree of the

13:26punishment is the degree to which they can't explain why they want you to do things. So sort of that

13:32all

13:32having been said, when it comes to vaccines as a whole, I mean, what is it, over 70 now, in

13:40some places

13:41in America. Of course, in 1986, I think it was the Vaccine Injury Safety Act was passed because the

13:51vaccine manufacturers were saying that they couldn't continue to offer vaccines, because they were

13:55getting so many lawsuits about vaccine damages. Now, whether I mean, America's sort of famously litigious

14:03a society. So whether those are valid or not, I'm not in any position to judge. But when a manufacturer

14:12says that they can only continue their business, if they're no longer to be held liable for the

14:17damages of their product, I have doubts. Now, I mean, people have actually mailed me books like,

14:25there's no such thing as viruses, and the Spanish flu was radio waves. And like, again, I can't,

14:32I have some sort of a natural skepticism to that kind of stuff, too. I can't judge it. And the

14:37methodology did not seem particularly sound in the book that was sent to me. And I've had other people

14:44say, go learn this, go learn that. I'm not, I'm a philosopher, not a doctor, Jim. And so I can't,

14:52judge these things. I do have some real skepticism about the fact that our immune system is so

15:08terrible that we need 70 different injections just to get through life. That seems odd. Of course,

15:18if people were very concerned about our susceptibility to various illnesses,

15:24then there would be very strict medical screening to people coming into the country, right? And there

15:28would be a discouragement of mass migration because there would be concern about people with different

15:35etiological health habits and exposures coming into the country. But none of that, none of that happens,

15:41of course. So vaccinate or your kid will die. I mean, look, I'm not a doctor. I'm never going to

15:51give anybody any medical advice and you should never make any decisions based upon my arguments or musings

15:58or whatever it is. So I can't tell you what to do when it comes to vaccines. I can't tell

16:02you whether

16:03to vaccinate or not vaccinate. I have no competence. I'm simply talking about the philosophical principles

16:08that generate skepticism within myself. If we're so frightened of germs, then why are millions of

16:19people pouring into the country unvetted? I mean, that would be kind of a question for me as a whole.

16:26Maybe they are vetted. I don't know. I can't speak for every country's immigration policy or even travel

16:30policy. But I do know that in general, the manufacturers want to avoid liability. I do know that there are

16:41scarce

16:41scenarios. I also know that it would be practically impossible to do a double-blind experiment on the

16:51interactions of 70 different vaccines. I mean, you can't do it for practical, mathematical, ethical, whatever it is,

17:00for various reasons. You simply can't test these vaccines. And every time a new vaccine gets added to the schedule,

17:06the potential interactions go through the roof. And I mean, academia as well is facing a massive, massive

17:16replication crisis. I've been talking about this for like over a decade that, you know, in most fields, at least

17:24half the published studies can't even be replicated. So the study quality is terrible. The fear mongering is

17:32intense. The experiments for safety have in general not been performed. And so much of social policy as a

17:44whole is based on the assumption that viruses and germs can't be that bad. Again, sort of mass human movements

17:52and so on, right? So I don't know. I don't know. I don't know what you should do. But

18:02I don't trust government science, quote, science as a whole, for reasons of the replication crisis and

18:09bad incentives and so on. And fear mongering, I have a base resistance to rampant fear mongering. Do this

18:21or your kid gets it. Make the case, build the case slowly and carefully with all the data. Make

18:29presentations, you know, make all the data available to everyone and talk about the limitations. Say,

18:36yes, we've added a new vaccine to the schedule. It's never been tested in its interaction with all

18:41other vaccines. And it certainly hasn't been tested in its interaction with all other vaccines versus

18:45nothing or a placebo or, right? So just to be honest, and there was such a level of cover-up

18:52over COVID that I didn't believe it. All right.

19:01Why do you think it is so difficult for people to listen? Stefan, you were an excellent listener,

19:07backed by countless examples. What are your top three to five tips on how to become a great listener?

19:12I, you know, I, I love learning about people's lives. I always have. I was always asking,

19:17since I was in my teens, I was in my, I remember when I worked near, I worked in Thunder

19:24Bay. That

19:25was sort of our base for going out to do gold panning and prospecting. I was like 19. And I

19:31went

19:31up north to make money to send it back to the family. And I remember being in a nightclub. It

19:39was,

19:39I guess you could call it a disco. It was a dance club. It actually had live bands. So it

19:42wasn't

19:42really a disco. And I remember talking to some woman there and just asking her about her,

19:48her childhood and what her mother was like. And, and she was quite, quite startled. We actually had a

19:53really good conversation almost 40 years ago, 40 years ago. Yeah. 59, 19. And I've been doing this

20:01since I was in my teens. And so when I kind of erupted with my call in shows, I wasn't

20:07exactly doing a

20:08standing start. I've been asking people about their lives. I'm just rapidly curious about people's

20:13lives and people's existence and what makes them tick and what their history was. And, you know,

20:17hopefully if I can, putting some helpful connections together or something like that,

20:22as I try to do with my own life as well. So you have to want to know what other

20:28people,

20:28I mean, it sounds kind of obvious, right? You have to want to know what someone else is saying

20:34in order to want to listen, right? If you lost something of great value and somebody was describing

20:42where they had last seen it, oh, it was right under the park bench just as you left, you know,

20:48not, not five minutes. You'd listen very carefully because you'd really want to know what they'd said.

20:53Okay, put your park bench, just remind me again, come with me, right? You'd be very curious and

20:57rabidly attentive to the contents of their mind because what they were saying would be of great importance

21:03to you. I saw somebody said, I lost my keys $10,000 reward. And on the key chain was a

21:11ledger,

21:11which I guess had some crypto, which is why they were offering so much as a reward for the keys,

21:14because normally be cheaper to replace them than 10 grand. So the first thing to being a great listener,

21:21and I know it sounds kind of obvious, but a lot of philosophy is dating the obvious to make you

21:26aware of

21:27that. But to be a great listener, you have to really want to know what the other person is saying.

21:35Because a lot of people who are pretending to listen, right? What are they doing? They're just

21:38waiting for their turn to talk and talk about themselves and brag or make their status points

21:44or whatever it was, right? I mean, I remember being at a party when I was 20. I remember two

21:49things.

21:50One is that one guy was talking about how his hair seems brown, but in the sunlight it can seem

21:56almost

21:56red on particular edges of the curls. And I'm like, oh my god, how boring a conversation is that about

22:02what color your hair is under different forms of light. I remember actually a friend of mine

22:10had pretty dull dishwater hair and he went on vacation for a month to a sunny place. He came back

22:17with the most glorious sun-baked streaks in his hair and I was like, dang, that's great stuff.

22:24So, and another time I used to talk about my travel experiences, you know, growing up in England,

22:30traveling to Ireland, taking entrance exams for school in Scotland, coming to Canada. I went, of course,

22:36to Africa and Germany because of my mother's German. My father was Irish, but I worked in South Africa.

22:46And anyway, some, I would have said maybe 20, and some guy was telling me about his travel experiences

22:52and I'm like, it's actually kind of boring. Yeah, you went there, you went there, you went there.

22:56And then I was like, oh my gosh, I'm that guy. And of course, I was talking about my travel

23:03experiences

23:04as a way to try and raise my status and look cool and not appear to be as broke as

23:08I was and so on.

23:09And so I realized that I was telling people about my travel experiences, not because I thought I had

23:15interesting stories for them, but because I wanted to look cooler and more cosmopolitan and maybe

23:23wealthier or something like that. It was a status signal. It was not, it was utilizing these stories

23:30to look more important or cooler to other people, which is using them and not telling things that I

23:36think might be of interest to them. And so I stopped doing that in that kind of way. If the

23:42topic came up,

23:43I might mention it, but I stopped talking about how cool it was to travel because it was not a

23:53topic

23:53that was entered into with good intentions, but rather to look cool to raise my status, which is using the

23:59other person. You're like, you know how you, you need a stepladder to get something from the top shelf.

24:04I was just using people

24:06like a stepladder to gain status.

24:07And when you use people, you can't be a good listener and neither can you be a good conversationalist.

24:11Like I'm trying to provide value in this. I'm not thinking about, do you think I'm cool or look great?

24:16Or how's my hair?

24:18I'm like really focused on trying to

24:20generate and provide value for you in the time that you sacrifice doing other things to listen to or perhaps

24:26even watch

24:27what it is that I'm doing. So I don't know about the top three to five tips, but

24:34if you're not interested in what's coming out of someone else's mouth, it's usually because

24:39they're doing my boring, youthful, I went here, I went there stories. They are preening, they are

24:46showing off or trying to look cool or elevate their status or something like that, in which case

24:53they're not having a conversation. You can either call them out on it or

24:57you can move on to someone else. But when you enter into a conversation, you have to ask yourself,

25:03am I really, really interested in what this person has to say?

25:06Are they speaking authentically? Are they speaking honestly? Are they speaking directly? Do they have,

25:11they thought about life? And also, when people are talking to you,

25:17are they scanning you to see if what you're saying, oh sorry, are they scanning you to see if what

25:23they're saying is interesting or valuable to you? Because a lot of people will just talk like you're not

25:29even there, like they could talk as easily to a mannequin as they could to you. So is there two

25:35-way

25:35communication? Because a lot of listening well is the other person

25:41caring that you're finding value in what they're saying. I mean, I've heard this, you've probably

25:46heard me say this a million times in call-in shows.

25:50Does it make sense what I'm saying? Is it providing value? Let's make sure we're getting to the most

25:54important issue. What would be considered successful in your eyes at the end of this conversation? How would

25:58you know it was a successful conversation? So if people are just droning at you and they don't care,

26:05whether you're interested in what they have to say, it's not your fault for not being interested

26:10in listening. You're just there as a prop for them to elevate their ego. It's pretty gross.

26:14All right. Hi Steph. In regard to UPB and the coma test, if someone in a coma is unconscious,

26:21they also have no choice. As a result, they do not have the ability to prefer anything. Should someone

26:27in the coma not be excluded from any assessment for UPB? Thanks. No, I don't think so. So

26:37UPB denies positive actions. So UPB says it cannot be moral to give to the poor or it cannot be

26:47a

26:47foundational moral commandment thou must give to the poor because it can't be consistently maintained.

26:54Because in order to give to the poor, you have to gather resources. In order to give

26:58a hundred bucks to a poor person, you have to go and earn a hundred bucks. While you're earning a

27:01hundred

27:02bucks, you're not giving it. Also, you have to sleep. Also, you have to shower. Also, you have to

27:07do other things. You've got to go to the dentist and all those times you're not giving

27:12a hundred dollars or whatever it is or money to the poor.

27:17So, a positive moral obligation is not sustainable by UPB. Now, the coma test is just a quick mental

27:24shortcut for testing a moral theory. So, if you have a moral theory that says it is universally

27:32preferable behavior to give to the poor, well, it doesn't pass the coma test because it's a positive

27:37moral obligation. And so, if it is to give to the poor is moral and good, therefore to not give

27:46to the

27:46poor, which is the opposite, or maybe to take from the poor, but to not give to the poor is

27:50immoral, right?

27:52To give to the poor is moral. To not give to the poor is immoral. So, a person who's asleep

27:57or in a coma

27:59is not giving to the poor. Does that mean he's immoral? So, if you say, well, no, a guy who's

28:04asleep

28:04or in a coma who's not giving to the poor is not immoral, then it can't be that giving to

28:10the poor is

28:11universally preferable behavior. Because by that definition, somebody who's asleep or in a coma is

28:16immoral because they're not giving to the poor, and somebody who's gathering resources to give to the poor

28:21who's going out to earn the hundred dollars to give to the poor is also immoral because he's

28:24earning rather than giving. But the giving requires the earning, therefore the moral action of giving

28:30to the poor can only be achieved by the immoral action of not giving to the poor, and then you

28:36have a moral contradiction. And so, that's how you know. Now, you can, a person in a property,

28:42a person in a coma is not violating property, he's not raping anybody, he's not murdering anybody,

28:47he's not assaulting anybody, he's not stealing, obviously. So, you need to have moral obligations

28:54that do not define somebody who's sleeping as immoral, and therefore you can't have positive

29:00moral obligations. That's a real shortcut, but no, I don't think so. Hi Steph, this is a follow-on.

29:09Oh, the other thing too, sorry, let me just say this, I wanted to mention this. As a result,

29:13they do not have the ability to prefer anything. Well, you can't have a moral system that relies upon

29:23subjective self-reporting. So, if you have a moral system that says that you have to be conscious of a

29:38choice in order to make a moral decision, then you rely upon subjective self-reporting. So,

29:48you've heard me, if you've listened to my call and chose, this has happened like a billion times,

29:52somebody says something that is annoying, offensive, contradictory, manipulative, or whatever,

29:57and I call them out on it, and what do they always say? Oh, I didn't mean to, I didn't

30:00mean to,

30:00I didn't, that wasn't my intention. So, that's, and I don't care about subjective

30:05self-reporting of intentions, because it's not empirical, it's not objective, anyone can say

30:08anything. I didn't mean to, it wasn't my goal, it was an accident, blah, blah, blah, blah, right?

30:14I mean, you know, people who, um, you know, a kid knocks over a lamp and the mom comes in,

30:21she's upset, and he's like, I didn't mean to, it was an accident, right? That's the first thing that

30:24people, oh, can you report, can you objectively know that? No, you can't objectively know that.

30:29I mean, I suppose you could know, this is why first-degree murder is better than negligent

30:34manslaughter, in terms of being able to prove it, because first-degree murder, you can see,

30:39oh, they planned it, and they paid the guy, or they got the poison, or the knife, or whatever it

30:44is,

30:44and so you get more punishment, because you can prove intentionality, whereas negligent homicide,

30:49whatever, you didn't take care of something, and somebody got killed, that certainly is not

30:55intentional, because there's no evidence of prior intent, and so on. So, that's why we punish

31:00first-degree murder more than negligent homicide, or negligent manslaughter, or something like

31:05that. I'm not a lawyer, so you understand what I'm talking about. So, for the most part,

31:10subjective self-reporting can't be part of a philosophical system. So, if you say

31:17that if somebody does not have the ability to prefer something, then if that's your standard,

31:22people will say, oh, it never crossed my mind to, I didn't think about it, I meant to, but I

31:27didn't,

31:27like, you get into subjective self-reporting, which can't be part of your moral system at all.

31:32All right. Then this is a follow-up from my previous question. Do you think that people

31:37resist UPB in part because it leads to the realization of how unloved they are? If there

31:42is a secular explanation for morality, and the love and morality, and that love and morality

31:46aren't separate from each other, then we also end up with an understanding of love centered around

31:51volunteerism, a respect for property rights, peaceful parenting, and the mutual exchange

31:55of value, free trade. In many social relationships where people claim to love and be loved, there is

32:01no volunteerism, only social obligation, no peaceful parenting, negotiation, but instead

32:05manipulation and violence, and no mutual exchange of value, consistent positive behavior that is

32:10reciprocated, but instead exploitation. This is particularly true for parent-child relationships.

32:15Is a rejection of UPB, therefore, a desire to hold on to the illusion of parental love being real,

32:20even if it is centered around social obligations, emotional and physical coercion,

32:25and as well as exploitation, e.g. parents expecting children to take care of them, even when the

32:30parents fail to protect and nurture their own children. Is so much of the resistance to secular

32:34ethics, at least from the masses who wield no true political power, simply a desire to escape

32:39grief? That's beautifully put, and by the way, extraordinarily well written and argued, like,

32:44well done. That's magnificent. And it's a very, I think it's a very true statement.

32:52I put human corruption through the raw processing of brutal evolution.

33:00So, if you think of two countries engaged in a war, country A and country B, country A

33:12can, like, violently indoctrinates, brutalizes, and threatens children to serve that state and will

33:17shoot anyone who doesn't sign any male who doesn't sign up to be a soldier and will shoot any soldier

33:22who doesn't run into no man's land, whereas country B doesn't do any of those things.

33:28Which country is more likely to win a war? Well, it's country A.

33:33So, brutalizing children has had particular evolutionary advantage throughout human history as a whole.

33:42If you are a leader and you don't have a good reason or explanation or argument as to why people

33:48should be good, what do you do to make them obey the law, to make them obey the good, the

33:53virtue, the

33:53moral standard, or whatever? Well, you have to threaten them. You threaten them with imprisonment,

33:58torture, other kinds of punishment, being put in stocks, being starved, and so on.

34:04And, of course, hell, and if you don't obey the king, you're disobeying God, you're going to go to hell

34:10for eternity, be tortured for eternity. So, if you have a moral standard and you don't have a proof

34:16for that moral standard, and that moral standard serves the productive maintenance of your society,

34:25you have to threaten people, right? So, why should people not steal? Especially because the political

34:31elites generally steal on a continual basis through money printing and so on and other things. So,

34:38you have to have a rule in your society called thou shalt not steal, but you can't prove it without

34:43also proving that the political elites are also stealing and therefore causing giant wrenching

34:50in your social perceptions, which is quite dangerous as we saw from the French Revolution. So,

34:58if you need people to not steal in your society, and you do, because if there's no

35:03property rights at all, then everyone steals from everyone and there's no production and everyone

35:08starves and you get taken over. So, you have to tell people don't steal, but you can't have an

35:13objective philosophical proof of don't steal, such as UPB, because then that exposes the brutality of

35:19the political power, so the people in charge want their subjects to not steal while they themselves

35:24get to steal at will. And so, and anybody who points out that thou shalt not steal destroys the moral

35:33validity of the political elites. That kind of person, well, it's going to get taken out by the elites,

35:41right? I mean, that's natural, right? So, how do you get people to not steal when you desperately need

35:49them to not steal, but you as a political leader need to have the right to continue to steal, right?

35:53The king takes land and money from people and so on. So, what you have to do is you have

36:00to threaten.

36:01You have to be very aggressive and you have to threaten. If you need your children to obey you,

36:07right, but you don't have moral authority with your children, then you just have to threaten them,

36:15right? And if you're not willing to threaten them, you can't get your children to obey you,

36:19to obey the generalized social rules. And if your children don't obey the generalized social rules,

36:23they have a tough time reproducing and they also have a tough time surviving in what is often a very

36:29aggressive and violent social system. So, what do you have to do? You have to threaten them.

36:35So, we have an urge to bully those below us. We have an urge to comply to those more powerful

36:44than

36:44us and we have an urge to bully those we have power over, right? I mean, you know the old

36:50story that

36:51the boss yells at the husband, the husband yells at the wife, the wife yells at the kid and the

36:54kid

36:54kicks the cat, right? I mean, so we tend to obey and comply with, with a smile, with a tight

37:03smile

37:03on our face, those who have power over us and we tend to bully and have great aggression towards those.

37:12I mean, you should look at the Indian caste system as a perfect example of this. So,

37:19that's how we evolved and people who didn't evolve that, societies that didn't evolve that tended to

37:25fragment to fall apart and so on. It's the Carthage versus Rome, it's the Athens versus Sparta that the

37:31more brutal society will generally win throughout human evolution. Now, of course, we have philosophy,

37:38we have the internet, we have ways of reversing and changing all of this in the same way that slavery

37:43was

37:44the primary unit of production for almost all of human history until it wasn't and then we got

37:48the industrial revolution, we got the modern world. So, it works when you apply universal moral principles,

37:54but it goes against the grain. So, are you

38:01loved or are you praised and punished? It's a big question. Companies always try and do this,

38:09we're a family, you know, and that's just a way of exploiting the workers by pretending that they owe

38:14obligations to the company in the same way that they would owe obligations to good parents. It's a

38:18really brutal kind of pathetic manipulation and exploitation as a whole. So, love is our

38:25involuntary response to virtue if we're virtuous and virtue is universally preferable behavior.

38:30Very few people in the world manifest universally preferable behavior and as a result very few people

38:37in the world are loved or manifest the actions that will result in genuine love, not sexual attraction,

38:46not habitual attachment, not Stockholm syndrome or whatever it is, right? So, very few people in the

38:53world are loved because very few people in the world are good, right? I sort of think with UPB like

38:59that physicist who first figured out why stars burn and he was out with his girlfriend and she said,

39:05oh, there's a beautiful stars up there and he says, yes, and right now I'm the only person in the

39:10world

39:10who knows why they burn. It's amazing, right? Beautiful. So, philosophy, rational philosophy, UPB is a way of

39:23generating actions consistent with being loved and generating love in the world and replacing attachment,

39:28bullying threats, lust, vanity pairings. So, we're going to be a power couple. We look great together.

39:35Like all of that nonsense is not love. It's not love. And through UPB, we can actually do good.

39:47Through doing genuine good, philosophical moral good, we can love and be loved. And so, yes, UPB,

39:54as you rightly point out, shows people very clearly that the positive regard they have received prior to

40:02being truly good is kind of a superstition, not a real thing. So, very good point.

40:15Hi, Steph. If love is our involuntary response to virtue and virtue is caused by free will,

40:20how do we discuss free will in the psychological sense without undermining it philosophically,

40:25through introducing deterministic explanations for human behavior? Free will is defined as our

40:29ability to compare proposed actions to ideal standards. And if we can do this consistently

40:34through moral action guided by UPB, then we can be loved. This is the philosophical explanation,

40:40but psychologically we need to put an emphasis on peaceful parenting, because loving parents make

40:44it more likely for a child to develop a conscience, which then allows them to exercise free will,

40:49be moral and thus be loved. I use the term loving here in reference to familial love,

40:53which doesn't appear to be an involuntary response to virtue, since children are still developing a

40:58capacity for free will. Yes. Therefore, psychologically, familial love creates a conscience,

41:04which then creates free will, which then creates moral action, which then creates love,

41:08both familial and romantic. Again, beautifully written, beautifully put. The psychological chain thus begins

41:14with love and ends with love. But the philosophical chain begins with free will and ends with love,

41:19since a bad childhood isn't an excuse for immoral behavior. How do we reconcile these two seeming

41:23contradictions, especially since peaceful parenting is emphasized as one of the most important levers

41:27for helping people be more open to free trade, property rights, and UPB? If we say that peaceful

41:33parenting will lead to more virtues, are we undermining free will through introducing psychological

41:38determinism? Thank you. It's a great question. And I don't think I can add to its clarity, which is,

41:45which is, you know, good for you. I appreciate that. So,

41:50yes, the world will be saved if it is going to be saved through peaceful parenting, which is the

41:56application of universally preferable behavior to the issue of raising children. So,

42:03I mean, a socialist many decades ago had a project called Esperanto, which was going to be a language

42:09that everyone could speak, that was sort of rationally created so that different classes in

42:13different countries would realize how much they had in common and fight against their capitalist

42:17overlords and so on. And it didn't go very far because very few people want to learn an additional

42:21language for the sake of the socialist revolution, but we're trying to teach the world a new language.

42:29Well, sorry, UPB is simply the extension of local ethics to universal principles.

42:40I mean, if you think of gravity, right, gravity is the extension of local principles of heaviness

42:47to universal physical principles of gravity, of the attraction that mass has from mass.

42:55So, when you take locally understood principles and universalize them, things get very disorienting,

43:03right? It kind of feels still like I'm sitting on a chair here, I've got a phone on a stand,

43:10it's not wobbling or turning over, I don't feel like I'm moving, but we are, of course, objective to any

43:14stationary standpoint. I'm rotating around the earth, the earth is rotating around the sun, the sun is

43:21rotating around the galaxy, and which is I'm whipping through time and space in blistering madness, which

43:26is why time travel is kind of funny, because if you went back in time you'd just be hanging in

43:30space.

43:31You'd have to go through time and space instantaneously, which is impossible, so time travel,

43:35while the fun science fiction or fantasy idea is not real. So, with regards to parenting,

43:48I try not to morally judge people by standards they have not themselves espoused.

43:57Right? So, I wouldn't hold someone subject to a contract they have never signed.

44:07Right? There's no social contract, we don't sign a contract. And children who are born a million

44:13plus dollars in debt in the West are not responsible for that debt, because they never signed a contract,

44:19they didn't take on the debt themselves, they weren't even born.

44:22Right? So, I don't hold people accountable to contracts or to standards they have never

44:33espoused. So, you've heard me again a million times say this, that if somebody has an issue,

44:41like say their parent hit them or beat them or called them terrible names and fought like crazy with

44:47the other parent in front of them, which is a form of child abuse, of course.

44:51I would not say, I've never said, judge that parent by the standards of peaceful parenting

44:58and hold that parent immediately accountable to the standards of peaceful parenting.

45:04Right? The first guy to figure out why the stars burned didn't immediately say

45:09that everyone who didn't understand this was an idiot, was bad at physics, right?

45:14Now, if you claim to be really good at physics and you have no idea why the stars burned,

45:17you would be deficient because the knowledge is generalized and widened.

45:23So, I don't hold parents by the standards of UPB. I hold parents to the standards that the parents

45:32imposed upon their children. So, if the parents said to the children, you need to tell the truth

45:41and you need to tell me what's going on in your life, then if you tell the truth to your

45:49parents

45:49about negative things they did when you were a child, you are actually complying with the moral

45:54standards they imposed upon you as a child, right? And so, if someone punishes you for the moral rules

46:03that they imposed upon you as a child, that's hypocrisy. And you don't need to be a philosopher,

46:09right? I mean, a thief steals someone else's property and then would be outraged if somebody

46:16steals that property from the thief, right? So, that would be a kind of hypocrisy. And most

46:20immorality is a kind of hypocrisy. So, if your parents hit you saying, don't use force to get what you

46:30want, don't use force to achieve things, then that's hypocrisy, right? If your parents steal from

46:40you or take your property in order to teach you not to steal from people, that's hypocrisy. You have

46:48to find ways to teach people what wrong behavior is without doing the wrong behavior yourself, right?

46:56It's really, really important and a kind of foundational, right?

47:02So, I mean, you don't teach someone to take care of their health by harming their health,

47:06right? And so, you have to find a way to teach moral rules without violating those moral rules

47:10in the teaching, right? And so, if parents threaten their children when the children are growing up,

47:21I mean, it could be mild, like you're going to be on Sanders' naughty list, or more extreme,

47:25like you're going to hell if you don't do what I say. If parents threaten their children, then,

47:32if their children threaten other people and they then further attack their children for threats,

47:36then you are modeling behavior to your children that you then attack them for reproducing. And

47:42that's not good, right? You don't need to be some big brain philosopher guy to recognize that as a problem.

47:54So, if your parents want you to tell the truth, and then you tell the truth about things that make

48:00your

48:00parent uncomfortable, and then you get attacked for that, then you are told that telling the truth is

48:05both good and bad, and that's a contradiction, right? And so, I'm not asking people to be experts in the

48:11non-aggression principle, in UPB, in peaceful parenting, in order to be good parents. I'm just

48:16asking them to not be wildly hypocritical, or if they are hypocritical, then that needs to be acknowledged,

48:23because basic honesty is the requirement for all relationships that are real relationships.

48:30All right. There's a long question about democracy. I don't really particularly care

48:40about democracy. It's a political system, and you can... Everyday Anarchy, Peaceful Anarchy are the

48:45two books you need to check out with regards to my views on political systems. How would you debate

48:50Andrew Wilson or Jay Dye regarding UPB? They would agree with all your proofs, and they would still

48:55counter that it is just your preference. I think you may bring up your statements that

48:59you have presented UPB to atheists, and they rejected it because it is not their preference.

49:05Yeah, well, I mean...

49:13Religious morality is also just a preference. It is God's preference. Now, saying... So, if you take...

49:22Let's say I take my preference here, let's... Right?

49:27Yeah, I got a little garbage can here, right? Let's say I take my preference. Now, let's do something

49:34else here. Let's do... Here's my tripod, right? This is... I tried using this, but it wasn't tall enough.

49:42So, here's my tripod, right? So, if I say, human preferences are not a valid basis for morality,

49:54but I'm going to take the preference of my tripod that is all-knowing, all-powerful, and cannot be

50:00wrong, and that preference escapes the problem of human preference being subjective.

50:07Have I solved the problem? I have not solved the problem. I've simply created a fantasy object

50:13whose preference is not preference, but somehow superior to physics. So, what I've done is I've

50:18created a little tripod here, right? And I've said, the preference of this tripod is absolute and universal.

50:27Right? Well, I haven't done anything. I've created a magical being whose preferences

50:33are objective and universal. In other words, I've created... I said, well, the problem with

50:38preference is that it's subjective, and it resides within the consciousness.

50:43And then I say, well, no, no, no, I've created a super consciousness for which preference is

50:47universal, absolute, and perfect. And it's like, nope, I haven't solved the problem. I've just created

50:52a magical entity that solves the problem of preference being subjective by claiming that this

50:57magical entity is somehow universal. I have created a magical being that solves, quote,

51:05solves the problem by taking on the opposite property. So, all preferences are subjective,

51:09let's say, all preferences are subjective, but I've created a super consciousness whose preferences

51:14are not subjective. That's just a magical slate of hand. Right? It's like that famous cartoon,

51:21if somebody's got a bunch of equations on one side, a bunch of... and the solution on the other side,

51:27in the middle, there's a cloud, and it says, here, a miracle occurs, and the supervisor is saying,

51:32you might want to break that part in the middle out a bit here, right? So, I don't get to

51:36create

51:36magical entities, right? If I say, well, I'm always subject to error, I can make things,

51:45I can make statements that are false or anti-rational or inconsistent or contradict the facts, right?

51:50Reason and evidence. I can be at fault, all consciousness can be at fault, but this tripod,

51:55you see, see? Father, Son, Holy Ghost. We've got a tripod here, right? A trinity, right?

52:00A trinity, one, right? Trinity of one. So, God, Father, Son, Holy Ghost. So, I've got a trinity here

52:09that can't ever make mistakes. So, all consciousness is subject to error, but I've got a trinity here

52:16that is not subject to error, and I just listened to that. I haven't solved the problem. I've just

52:21created a magical entity with the opposite properties of actual consciousness and said,

52:29it's infallible. No, I am totally fallible, but don't worry, because I have an invisible friend

52:37who's infallible, and I just have to obey my invisible friend. Oh, by the way,

52:41you can't talk to my invisible friend. You can only talk to me. I'll go ask the invisible friend.

52:44Like, it's a con. It's a con. And saying, well, morality is subjective, but I have created

52:53a magical entity for whom morality is not subjective. It's like, that's not an answer.

53:01That's not an answer. I mean, can you imagine, in a math test,

53:06you say, two and two make five, and you get marked out. I say, no, that's wrong. Two and two

53:10make four.

53:10And you say, no, no, no, no. No, I have an invisible friend for whom two and two make five,

53:18and he cannot be wrong. And he told me that, therefore, two and two make five. I mean,

53:23you would be laughed out of the math class. Actually, you'd probably be medicated these days,

53:26because they'd jam SSRIs into your eyeballs with the claws of a dove or something like that.

53:33So you don't solve the problem of morality by creating a fictional entity that is perfect,

53:38that gives you moral commandments, that can't be disobeyed, and that's somehow true. Nope.

53:43You don't solve it philosophically. I mean, if you're into theology, maybe you think you've solved

53:47the problem. But if you don't know why the earth moves, you say, I don't know why the earth moves.

53:56If you say the earth moves because there are godlike invisible horses that are pushing it continually,

54:06have you solved the problem? No. You have just created impossible entities and pretended to solve

54:12the problem, right? There used to be the old story that the sun was being pulled by a god in

54:18a chariot,

54:18and it's like, you've got the illusion of an answer, you don't have a real answer. And religion

54:23has prevented the rise of philosophical morality, as in universally preferable behavior, UPB,

54:29because it's a pretend answer. So where do you get morality without god presupposes that you get

54:37morality with god, which presupposes that god exists, that god is perfect, that god communicates to humans,

54:42that these commandments are valid, right? And none of that is true. None of that is proven.

54:47There's no proof of the existence of god. There's no proof that god somehow escapes the problem of

54:53subjectivity and so on. So if you say, your morality that is reasoned out from first principles and

54:59perfectly consistent and aligns with all reason and evidence in history, that your morality is subjective,

55:05but my morality is not subjective, because I have created in my mind an imaginary entity

55:12for which morality is not subjective, and I'm just obeying that. It's not an answer.

55:18Not an answer. It's not an argument. It is a fantasy. So, I mean, that would be one approach that

55:26I would take, and we can talk about others if you're interested. Thank you so much, my friends.

55:30FreeDomain.com slash donate to help out the show. You know how great it is, how many thousands of

55:36hours I've saved you by being commercial free. That comes at a price. That comes at a cost.

55:39Everything I do here costs money. FreeDomain.com slash donate to help out the show. Lots of love.

55:44I'll talk to you soon. Bye.

Category

Transcript

Comments

Recommended