Freedomain Radio

The only point for me is that UPB requires that any moral theory be rational and universal.

My newer article does not say that breaking the window is "right," only that it is a reasonable guess as to the owner's acceptance of it being broken. If the owner does not accept it, restitution must be made. That is the same principle as in the UPB book, just clarified in more detail.

Oh, and on gray areas and exceptions, there are many views which are perfectly amenable to there being gray areas.  Virtue ethics, for example, is often interpreted as saying that the right thing to do is what is "the most sensible."  What this means is that someone who doesn't follow strict rules, but is a totally good and moral person, can be relied on to do the right thing, and exactly what that is in every circumstance might be difficult to say.  Gray areas are the bread and butter of a view like that, and to dispute them is to talk past the holder of the view, who is starting from the idea that morality isn't a matter of strict rules, but is rather the product of a nuanced approach to issues which treats all situations differently and according to their individual merits.

So gray areas themselves aren't really problematic.  However, they might be more of a problem for Stefan's view than he seems to let on, in light of the structure of his particular moral theory.  Stefan talks about morality in terms of categorical imperatives (or as he puts it, "rules"), and specifically says on multiple occasions that a moral rule can't be true at some times and false at other times, and that an act involving violence can not be morally good for some people or at some times and morally bad for other people or at other times.  By defining morality in terms of rules, and by insisting that rules must apply to all people at all times (or else they do not meet the requirements he sets forth for a valid moral theory), Stefan makes it very difficult to see how he could accommodate something like a gray area. 

It seems that if Stefan were going to allow for gray areas, it would need to be through something like the Maxim Description Problem.  The idea would be that moral rules are universal, but that it might be difficult to know exactly what rule we were acting on in a particular situation.  So, for example, the rule "Don't infringe property rights" would forbid the window smasher from smashing the window, but "Always infringe property rights and pay compensation in order to save your life unless you want to die" would require the window smasher to do it.  So the gray area wouldn't be in saying that sometimes moral rules can be overridden (which seems incompatible with Stefan's views on ethics), but rather in saying exactly what rules were the correct ones.  If we held this view, we could still adhere to a set of rules which we knew to have exceptions for the same kinds of reasons that a realist might assume that action at a distance is impossible, even though we've seen the double slit experiment: Rejecting Einstein's theory of special relativity is unreasonable, even if we have good reason to doubt that it is completely true.

That being said, if Stefan's theory doesn't do any better than providing a vague framework for evaluating actions, and doesn't actually provide us with a true account of morality, then I'll pass.  I already have one of those.

Thanks for the answer, Stefan.  I'm going to have to be a pain in the rear, however, and ask for a further clarification.

You say that the act isn't right, but you don't say that it's wrong.  Given that the act in question involves the initiation of violence, it falls within the realm of ethics.  On page 69 in your book, you write that "...moral rules must be absolute and universal - if they are not, they fall into APA territory, and so cannot be inflicted on others."  Because smashing the window is an inflicted behavior, it must be either morally good or morally bad, right?  So when you say that it's not right, are you saying that it's wrong?

Well you're asking for knowledge that we can't possibly possess ahead of time. I don't regularly interview people to find out whether they would let me smash their window to save my life - I bet no one in the world does.

As you know from my book, I am a big fan of "real-world" problems. 

Hmm...I don't suppose it would be more effective to just ask you the question I was trying to have answered, which is whether property rights entitle the rights-holder to the final say, or whether we can appeal to some external standard in judging whether an infringement of rights can be justified in a case where the rights-holder refuses consent?  I'd guess that you would want to take the position that because there will rarely arise a situation in which such a question would be important (in almost every real-world situation in which consent is refused, any reasonable external standard would prohibit the infringement anyway), it's not worth spending time on?

I mean, the only reason it's important is that you've set up your theory in a very rigid manner, and it seems to me that this sort of problem could represent a structural difficulty for your argument.  But at the end of the day, it seems like what you're basically trying to say is that we ought to respect other people's rights, and that means that we shouldn't initiate violence against them, but if we find ourselves in a situation where we need to do so, then we should compensate them for it.  And for better or worse, it really doesn't seem like you're particularly excited by the prospect of getting too much more specific than that.

In saying that, I really don't mean any disrespect at all; I think that the above sentiments are all too often ignored, and that the world would be a much better place if people recognized their wisdom.  In fact, it's probably true that you could do a lot more to make a better world if you focused on spreading those ideas, and didn't waste your time with the kind of things I bother you about.  It's just that you presented your theory as a true account of ethics, and if it's true, then it must be able to withstand rigorous analysis.  As far as I've understood what I've heard from you on this board and in your book (which may not be very far at all), there are at least some real questions that are not easily answered with the framework you provide.  If you're not interested in working through the nuts and bolts of the theory to ensure that it's water-tight, I completely understand.  For most practical purposes, it isn't going to matter that your theory doesn't account for certain tensions in our conceptions of rights, justice and ethics.

But I'm not sure it's fair to dismiss those kinds of questions as unimportant while simultaneously making the sorts of claims which you've made about your theory and your interest in truth in moral philosophy.  If your goal is to promote a way of thinking and living that will bring about a better world, will make people live happier lives, and will provide a simple and effective way to evaluate moral issues, then for goodness sake, be proud of that!  To be perfectly honest, that seems a lot more admirable and important to me than the project you claim to be working on, which is producing a true theory of morality which provides a solution to the philosophical questions with which schmoes like me have been wrangling.  By your own repeated assertion, the problems which would distinguish a completely true theory from one which is "good enough" aren't important, and you aren't interested in dealing with them.  And to be honest, as far as most non-academics are concerned, you're probably right (though of course I'm biased by the fact that I'm a libertarian, so I think your theory is reasonably close to the truth; my non-libertarian friends in academia would be infuriated by that suggestion).  I'd only say that perhaps it isn't fair to tell people that your theory is true, given that you simply don't seem to want to deal with the question of whether or not it really is.

I hope that doesn't come off as condescending, though I can see how it would.  If so, I apologize in advance.  It seems like you're the type of person who would appreciate someone expressing their honest feelings, which is why I'm saying anything at all.
 

I'm very sorry, but I'm really going to have to ask you to stop posting here.  For the past several months, you have just seemed to consistently misinterpret or misunderstand what I say. For me, whether that is because I am unclear, or for some other reason, is pretty immaterial at this point.

In my UPB book, I do not claim that my thoughts are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in every conceivable situation; I am perfectly aware of and very happy to accept certain gray areas, such as when a child becomes morally responsible for his actions and so on. Also, in the very beginning of the book, I do not say that I have provided any sort of airtight moral theorizing, but rather that I have merely attempted to "slay the beast."

Furthermore, UPB is fundamentally not a moral theory, but rather a framework for evaluating moral propositions. I do provide some examples of how an adherence to UPB validates certain basic moral principles, but it is not accurate to say that UPB is a "rigid moral theory."

I also consider it inaccurate say that I "don't want to deal with the question of whether run not [my theory] is true." Just to take a single example, I spent a day writing a lengthy essay in response to one of your questions about the broken window, and have been trying to understand the nature of your subsequent objections.

Finally, I can't imagine that you truly believe that your post above expresses any kind of genuine emotion.

(Just for the reference of others, these tend to be composed of "mad, sad, bad, scared" and so on. There is no such feeling as "Your theory is not water-tight." Feel free to listen to my free RTR book for more about this.)

Given that my offer to debate you live has not been to your satisfaction, and that I do not in general enjoy your contributions to this conversation, I would appreciate it if you would stop posting on this board.

Most people that I ask to stop posting here are sorely tempted to post some sort of nasty "parting shot" attacking my integrity, maturity, dedication to truth, personality, motives etc. I trust that, should you be tempted, you care enough about ethics to avoid that sort of behavior.

[Insert string of needless and hateful polemics here!!!!!  Grar!]

But no, I can respect that.  I wish you the best of luck in pursuing your future goals, which I believe to be admirable ones, and I hope your projects prove as successful in the eyes of others as they are fulfilling for you.  Perhaps I have simply been dense-skulled in approaching your views, and where that has been the case, I sincerely apologize.

I especially apologize for making you think that I was suggesting that you haven't been willing to work hard in order to hone your views.  I don't think that at all.  I was only trying to suggest that at the extremely abstract level, where minute distinctions need to be made in order to understand the precise nature of a theory, you've repeatedly taken the view (and I think fairly so) that what's important is not precisely how a theory works on the minute level, but rather how it helps us understand the kinds of problems which we deal with every day.  Perhaps that too is a misrepresentation, but it seems true enough to me.

I also feel the need to say that the rigidity I appealed to in your theory was in the element insisting that all inflicted behaviors be evaluated [as morally obligatory or morally impermissible] in terms of universal moral laws which applied at all times to all people.  By calling the theory rigid, I didn't mean that it was inflexible or that it couldn't account for fine distinctions.  Rather I was appealing more to the fact that its structure is built on black and white distinctions (which can be very fine ones, and which can seem gray when they are not fully understood), and so it was hard to see how you could defend the view that gray areas are actually part of a moral system, and don't simply represent areas which we do not totally understand.  Of course, I could again be completely mistaken about this.

All that being said, I respect your desire to be finished with this.  I hope you take seriously the possibility that our inability to communicate effectively is at least partly a result of some unclarity in your ideas (I'm an honors philosophy student at a pretty good school, and I can't think of another philosopher whose work I've had so much trouble understanding).  Even if it's been mostly my fault, it can't hurt to make your ideas as easy as possible to understand.  Again, take care, and I hope things turn out well.

This is more to clarify my own thinking on UPB than anything else, but the "gray areas" as Stef defines them seem to be areas where it is difficult to determine whether a particular action is right or wrong.  In other words, I don't think that UPB defines gray areas as moral actions that can be 20% wrong and 80% right, or something like that.  Either we can use the UPB method to determine whether an action is right or wrong (murder), or we can't (abortion).  But if an objective determination can be made, the end result will always be either "100% right" or "100% wrong".  As the flagpole example shows, it is the consequences that are negotiable, not the moral status of the action.

Kevin P.

locke:

Why would you ask this person to leave, he simply didnt agree with you.

When I see someone with only a single post to their name, and that person is challenging a ban, it's pretty obvious what's going on. In this case, I'm not so sure, though. Donny didn't say anything rude to Stef or anyone else during his entire time here. If anything he was surprisingly polite for someone engaged in an argument (in the best sense of that word). And given how politely Donny left, I'd be kind of shocked if this one-off poster was him returning to get his "licks" in.

This is Stefan's message board, and he can ask anyone to leave at any time, but this case doesn't seem to fit the normal "dinner party" explanation at all. It really does look like Danny was banned simply for not agreeing...

 

exactly, why?

is it because you have been on a dis-inviting spree lately?

I have been watching the board for about a month or two and while I think Stef has a lot to offer he obviously can't stand being disagreed with and i wondered why. 

I wonder why all these people who are so concerned about the negative effects of my decisions don't give me a call or send me a private email and kindly help me understand how I am acting wrongly - but instead post ugly public accusations without asking for my side of things...

I guess they just know a lot more about honor and integrity than I do...

btw if anyone would like to help me out, my skype name is stefan_molyneux

I look forward to your calls, since you are clearly very concerned.