Freedomain Radio

Hello, all!

I've known about Stefan Molyneux's arguments for many years now, and have read Universally Preferable Behaviour several times. There are at least two flaws in Molyneux's reasoning that I can see, which I have never had anyone reconcile. These flawed arguments are fundamental to Molyneux's conclusions: the argument for property rights, and the argument to dismiss moral nihilism. 

I would like to debate someone with an understanding of UPB. Anyone who accepts Molyneux's final conclusions of anarchy, the non-agression principle, etc., should understand these arguments, since it's what his later conclusions rest on. Despite this fact, I've found that not all FDR members who accept his conclusions do understand it, which is very backwards. So, I would like debate with someone who feels like they understand the arguments pretty well, or someone willing to debate it anyways. After all, the book is free and available to anyone, so it's very easy to debate the arguments as described in the book. 

I'm willing to debate this in any format. Chat/Skype call/forum posts. I've tried the first two methods, which is why I'm here now, so debating through forum posts would be my preference, as all can see the back-and-forth arguments in the written word. I think this will help people understand it.

Any takers? Thanks.

I'm not going to talk about UPB, because I do not understand it. However, anarchism does not require UPB. Statism is the positive claim, anarchism is the null hypothesis. "We need a state because (it would be a violent blood orgy of all against all, the greatest number would be better off, god gave our leaders dominion, etc.)." The claim we need a state, or a state is morally justified because has to be proven, with reference to the laws of logic and the evidence of the senses by which that logic is derived. If it is not proven, then we must accept that we do not need a state and/or a state is not morally justified.

Benjamin:

I'm not going to talk about UPB, because I do not understand it. However, anarchism does not require UPB. Statism is the positive claim, anarchism is the null hypothesis. "We need a state because (it would be a violent blood orgy of all against all, the greatest number would be better off, god gave our leaders dominion, etc.)." The claim we need a state, or a state is morally justified because has to be proven, with reference to the laws of logic and the evidence of the senses by which that logic is derived. If it is not proven, then we must accept that we do not need a state and/or a state is not morally justified.

Thanks for your reply.

I realize that people can have different reasons to arrive at anarchy than actually having a moral basis for it––but that is not the tactic that Molyneux uses. If you are not arguing against the state on moral grounds, you can still argue against it based on it's impracticality, or something else. But if you have no moral justification to get rid of the state, you can see how many of Molyneux's claims would be shattered, making anarchy significantly less compelling. 

My position is that neither the state or anarchism can be morally justified. 

Hi Noesis. Have you considered calling in to the Sunday show to speak with Stef directly? He, after all, knows the material as well if not better than anyone. I'm sure if you gave a "heads up" before-hand there'd be more than enough time to fit in a conversation. Stef (or "Molyneux" as you say!) is very accommodating (and friendly!) indeed in and I believe that he enjoys doing the UPB stuff. Just a thought — it's completely up to you/him of course... 

fingolfin:

Hi Noesis. Have you considered calling in to the Sunday show to speak with Stef directly? He, after all, knows the material as well if not better than anyone. I'm sure if you gave a "heads up" before-hand there'd be more than enough time to fit in a conversation. Stef (or "Molyneux" as you say!) is very accommodating (and friendly!) indeed in and I believe that he enjoys doing the UPB stuff. Just a thought — it's completely up to you/him of course... 

Hi.

I just called in yesterday, actually, and I have called in before. Stefan was friendly to me yesterday, although I don't find debates with him to have been productive at all. He repeats his arguments without addressing the flaws I have mentioned. 

That is why I would prefer to do this in the written word, so it's easy to analyze the exact statement where he goes wrong, making it easy to understand how the argument fails. 

Hi noesis,

Normally I would be doubtful that such broad issues can be debated successfully in a forum, because people go off on all kinds of tangents and the discussion never gets anywhere.

But in this case, Stefan has made it easy for us. In Appendix A of his UPB book (appended to this message for convenience) is a concise step-by-step summary of his thesis. Does that provide a good framework for this discussion?

===

Hi Noesis, I'd be happy to talk about UPB with you.  I have also listened to the book through twice, the second time taking close notes, and tried to reproduce and understand the arguments in essays of my own.  So maybe we can see through to some conclusions.  You mentioned in your original post that it is the "argument for property rights" and the "argument against moral Nihilism" that interest you the most. 

I believe Stef's argument for property rights, is that an individual owns (or is responsible for) 100% the effects of his body.  You already agreed to this argument implicitly when you posted on the board.  You assume I will attribute your written words and ideas to you.  Otherwise, there would be no reason for me to debate with you.  Additionally you accept that the words and ideas I put forth can be attributed to me as an individuals, otherwise, you would not argue with me.  Let me know what you think about that argument.

If we accept morality can be defined by univerally preferreable behavior.  The argument for moral nihilism says "it is a univerally preferreable behavior that people not believe in universally preferreable behavior", which is illogical and so it would be logical to accept the argument for nihilism as false.  Let me know what you think about this argument and we can take it from there.

Cheers

Noesis:

My position is that neither the state or anarchism can be morally justified.

My position is that niether the state or anarchism can be morally justified, and in addition they are essentially the same. By that I mean that the state is just one particular manifestation of anarchism, albeit one that's not optimum for the human enjoyment of life.

I think Stefan's argument for UPB is weak in two places. In step 8 he argues that the act of debating contains an acceptance of the notion of UPB. I don't think that's so; the act of debating contains an acceptance of the notion of preferable behavior, but not of universally preferable behavior.

The second weakness is the appeal to empirical evidence. If we accept as empirical evidence the fact that most people find murder immoral, we must also accept as empirical evidence the fact that most people find the state morally acceptable.

KyleC:

The argument for moral nihilism says "it is a univerally preferreable behavior that people not believe in universally preferreable behavior", which is illogical and so it would be logical to accept the argument for nihilism as false.

Kyle, I don't agree with this. It's a bit like saying: The argument for atheism says "it is God's will that people do not believe in God's will", which is illogical and so it would be logical to accept the argument for atheism as false.

If there's no God, one cannot argue against atheism by presenting an argument that invokes God's will. In the same way, one cannot argue against nihilism by presenting an argument that invokes universally preferable behavior.

ribuck:

KyleC:

The argument for moral nihilism says "it is a univerally preferreable behavior that people not believe in universally preferreable behavior", which is illogical and so it would be logical to accept the argument for nihilism as false.

Kyle, I don't agree with this. It's a bit like saying: The argument for atheism says "it is God's will that people do not believe in God's will", which is illogical and so it would be logical to accept the argument for atheism as false.

If there's no God, one cannot argue against atheism by presenting an argument that invokes God's will. In the same way, one cannot argue against nihilism by presenting an argument that invokes universally preferable behavior.

moral nihilism = no morality exists

morality = universally prefereable behavior

Making an argument implicitly argues the that it is universally preferable that the truth exists and is preferreable to falsehood

The statement "moral nihilism exists" is an argument (implicitly accepting the universal preferable behavior of accepting truth exists and should be believed over falsehood).

If we subsitute "moral nihilism" and "morality", for their definitions above we get

"no universally preferable behavior exists(formerly "moral nihilism exists") and it is universally preferable to accept the truth(implicit to any argument whether stated literally or not)"

----

"God exists" is not implicit in the act of making an argument

ribuck:

My position is that niether the state or anarchism can be morally justified, and in addition they are essentially the same. By that I mean that the state is just one particular manifestation of anarchism, albeit one that's not optimum for the human enjoyment of life.

This is like saying that abstinence and sex are essentially the same thing. Or that sobriety is just another manifestation of alcoholism.

KyleC:

"God exists" is not implicit in the act of making an argument

"Nihilism requires a morality" is not implicit in the act of making an argument.

Therefore, as soon as we hear an argument of the form "The argument for moral nihilism has the following moral requirement..." this invalidates the argument rather than invalidating the conclusions of that argument.

Benjamin:

This is like saying that abstinence and sex are essentially the same thing.

It's actually like saying that abstinence is one particular manifestation of sexuality.

ribuck:

KyleC:

"God exists" is not implicit in the act of making an argument

"Nihilism requires a morality" is not implicit in the act of making an argument.

Therefore, as soon as we hear an argument of the form "The argument for moral nihilism has the following moral requirement..." this invalidates the argument rather than invalidating the conclusions of that argument.

 

You imply here that people are labelling the argument for moral nihilism as having moral requirements. This is untrue, the very argument itself begs moral requirement. You are making a statement about truth and it's Universality and the act validates moral requirement. It would be fairer to say the argument takes the form "Making the argument for moral nihilism asserts the moral requirement..."

"A" cannot be itself and the opposite of "A".

A state is a group of people who claim and exercise the right to initiate force against others.

Anarchism is the lack of a group of people who claim and exercise the right to initiate force against others.