Freedomain Radio

This is something I have seen several times here on the board in quotes so I am assuming it comes directly from Stef though I have not been able to find the original podcast that breaks this down. Regardless, I agree with this sentiment.  My question is about other opinions I have heard/read here that seem to contradict this premise.  I am hoping you can clarify these two examples for me:

 
1.  FDR 920, The message I get from this podcast is that as a member of this intellectual community you have a responsibility to help spread the message.  I am particularly confused by the refrain at the end: "It is not about you."  But, if it is my right to choose any positive obligations then it is about me and my reason and my choice.  As an aside I am not using this as an excuse to not spread the message, my facebook page (available to anyone, not just my friends) lists me as Atheist and Libertarian, I actively participate in several facebook groups and have invited others to join, everyone in my family knows my beliefs, etc.  My question here really is about what seems to me a logical contradiction between the right to choose positive obligations and message that it is your responsibility to spread the message.

 
2.  Blog: "My secret life as a black man..."  The message here seems to be that it is everyones responsibility to disassociate from people who refuse to accept this conversation.  My confusion again is basically the same as above.  Where does this responsibility come from if I did not choose it?  What if I think I gain in some other area of my life from associating with these people?  What if I even think that these people might inadvertently help me spread the message to others even if they don't accept it themselves?  For example, my mother despite many discussions I have had with her is still marginally religious and just cannot comprehend the arguments as to why the even the most benevolent state necessarily does damage.  Yet, I think she is pretty harmless as far as spreading statism, and I think my life benefits in other ways from the relationship.  Furthermore, even if I wouldn't associate with her otherwise, my relationship with her facilitates communication with other family members who have accepted the message. 

 

If you could clarify this for me I would really appreciate it.  I have gone back to the "Intro to Philosophy: Ethics" looking for an explanation, if this is laid out in one of the other podcasts let me know and I will check it out. 

 

Well, if you want to be honest, you have to tell the truth, right? No one can force you to be honest, but once you choose to be honest, there is a requirement to tell the truth.

You don't have to sign a contract, but once you do, you're bound by it.

Similarly, if you are a doctor it would be kind of bad to refuse to speak up when someone called for a doctor in an emergency. You cannot be forced to respond (or to become a doctor) but since you have chosen to become a healer, you should speak up.

You do not have to have kids, but once you do, you have to care for them or give them up. 

You don't have to dissasociate from corrupt people, but if you do not, you are not living with integrity. 

Does that help?

You don't have to do any of these things. Stef's position was that if you are in possesion of the knowledge and are able to help others but you neglect to, then it will probably have a negative personal impact. Have a listen to the obligations of doctors podcast (926)

Stef I am not sure which statements you intend to have moral import.  Here is how I am interpreting it, let me know where I am going wrong.

 The statement "There are no unchosen positive obligations" has to be a moral statement, otherwise it doesn't make any sense.  If it is not a moral statement then it means: unchosen positive obligations don't exist, which clearly is not true.  An obligation to pay taxes is enforced against my choice.  You could counter that I can refuse to pay taxes (and suffer the enforcement), but then you are just stating a tautology: "there are no positive obligations if you don't accept positive obligations" or more simply "there are no positive obligations if there are no positive obligation."

 So I am starting from the premise that this is a moral statement.  Moreover, it is a true moral statement as I will get to momently. 

As I am interpreting your response, things like integrity don't have moral import.  This makes sense as you explain in "Intro to Philosophy: Ethics, part 2 (theft argument): a positive moral obligation is nonsensical.  In your example, if we propose theft as a moral imperative then we end up in an untenable situation where we are just constantly stealing back and forth, and if at any time we are not stealing (eating, telling other people to steal, debating morality, etc) then we are immoral.  Likewise, telling the truth cannot be a moral imperative otherwise we would be obliged to constantly do nothing but tell the truth.  Dissassociating from corrupt people cannot be a moral imperative otherwise we would be obliged to only associate with those who had the full complete truth, which none of us has.

 Therefore I come to the conclusion that your message is "there are no positive moral obligations but you are generally better off following this program."  This is what derives from my analysis above, but it sure seems like you are making a stronger claim than this.  Also, this contradicts the refrain "Its not all about you."  If the appeal is to making the reader better off (as Ash also asserts) then it is "all about you (the reader)."

 What am I missing? I really appreciate your response. 

Stefan Molyneux:

You don't have to dissasociate from corrupt people, but if you do not, you are not living with integrity. 

Which is why you do have to disassociate from them; because morality mandates it. What other authority would you be talking about? 

Here is my (beginner's) understanding of it: Ethical behavior is always optional (thus, the 'no unchosen positive obligations' statement).

If you choose to live ethically, then certain actions are therefore binding upon you (as well as many 'non-actions', such as not raping, not stealing, not murdering).

Dave
 

Static43:

Also, this contradicts the refrain "Its not all about you."  If the appeal is to making the reader better off (as Ash also asserts) then it is "all about you (the reader)."

If you refuse to help others, you won't feel quite as good.  Do you agree with that ?

Would eating and drinking water be an unchosen positive obligation?  I could choose not to do either but I would be driven by my biology to eat after a few days and drink water after about 24 hours.

FreeRadical and Bockman:

You are taking the interpretation that there are positive moral obligations.  This as explained above and as Stef explains in "Intro to Philosophy" is illogical because it is impossible.  "Spread the message" cannot be a moral obligation; if it were any time spent on any other activity would be immoral.  Do not lie could logically be a moral obligation because this is a negative obligation but that obligation does not imply the positive obligation of spreading the message (tell the truth), it only implies that when you spread a message it must be the true message.  Likewise, the moral obligation "disassociate from corrupt people" is practically impossible.  As I explained above, no one has the complete truth and therefore no one is completely uncorrupted (to use Stef's language), this is an issue of degrees.  Furthermore, you cannot possibly know the philosophical/ethical/political positions of everyone with whom you associate and therefore you cannot comprehensively disassociate from corrupt people without living in solitude.

 

I agree that it is generally a good idea to disassociate from irrational people just as I agree that it is generally a good idea to tell the truth and when appropriate spread the message, but as a universal moral imperative these positions are untenable. 

 

Therefore you have to take something like the positions offered by Mr. C and Nathan: 

These positions logically make sense but they contradict the refrain "Its not all about you" insofar as they are both conditional on the interests of the reader/actor.  Nathan, yes you have to eat and drink to survive but that is conditional on your decision that it is in your best interest to survive.  Therefore eating and drinking is a chosen positive obligation.  Furthermore, eating and drinking cannot be an imperative because it is not always good.  Overeating or overdrinking will cause ill health.  In response to Mr. C's suggestion, I do not agree that helping others will always make me feel better or that not helping people will always make me feel worse.  This depends entirely on who the person is and why I should want to help them.  And again you are appealing to self interest. 

This brings me back to the original question: Is it about self interest (following this program is good for you) or is it about outside imperatives (you should do this because it is right). 
 

Static43:

In response to Mr. C's suggestion, I do not agree that helping others will always make me feel better or that not helping people will always make me feel worse.

You thought I was talking about changes in happiness from individual instances of helping others, and I can see how my question was ambiguous, so I think I should clarify a bit what I meant.

If you should decide to refuse to ever help anybody in the future, do you think it's possible to be a happy person ?

Static43:

FreeRadical and Bockman:

You are taking the interpretation that there are positive moral obligations.

No, I was just pointing out the contradiction in this sentence:

"You don't have to dissasociate from corrupt people, but if you do not, you are not living with integrity."

Because to say "You don't have to" is to make a statement about morality/integrity. What other authority would "You don't have to" be referring to?

Static43:

FreeRadical and Bockman:

You are taking the interpretation that there are positive moral obligations.  This as explained above and as Stef explains in "Intro to Philosophy" is illogical because it is impossible.

If you chose to have a child (a choice), then you have a positive moral obligation. You must engage in certain actions (unlike certain moral imperitives which dictate NOT engaging in certain behaviors). Or am I missing some part of your argument? 

Static43:

The statement "There are no unchosen positive obligations" has to be a moral statement, otherwise it doesn't make any sense.

You make a good point.  If that is a moral statement, then we need to seriously look at how UPB can support it, since I don't think it is deliberately outlined (in the book at least).  We'd have to say that it is Universally Preferable not to enforce positive obligations.  Anyone have any thoughts?  I'm going to have to reread the book before I get the hang of UPB enough to apply it.

Nathan:

Would eating and drinking water be an unchosen positive obligation?  I could choose not to do either but I would be driven by my biology to eat after a few days and drink water after about 24 hours.

I'd say no tentatively, because you can choose to commit suicide.  Biology pushes us to have sex, breathe, urinate, eat, drink, ect., but we can overcome all of those behaviors through suicide.  Of course, I guess that's like saying that taxation is not an unchosen positive obligation because "you can leave the country."

Stef,

 

As you are pretty much widely recognized as the best doctor among this group are you obligated to respond to these questions and explain thing to static if you wish to live with integrity? Will not explaining the answers to these questions make you feel bad? 

Oh I've written 2 books, and done dozens of podcasts on this very topic, so the answers are there if people want them.

Plus, Free Radical is a person I've asked to stop posting here many times, so I try not to get involved in discussions with people like that.