Jump to content

Welcome to the Freedomain Radio Message Board


Sign In 

Create Account
If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible troll and spam accounts.

If you have supported Freedomain Radio financially and would like immediate access to the message board - or - your donation status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with your information and the situation will be addresses ASAP.
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

LISTEN TO A 24/7 STREAM ON THE NEW FREEDOMAIN RADIO iOS APP!


DONATOR ONLY PREMIUM CONTENT - For more information on donator levels click here

67 Philosopher King files - 73 Gold files - 48 Silver files - 51 Bronze files

One new Philosopher King podcast (Marriage Challenges: A Couple Conversation) and one new Silver podcast (Innocent Until Proven Guilty) have been added to the donator section.


If your donator status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with the relevant information and it will be corrected as soon as possible.


Photo

Hanging By A Thread: Flagpoles, Lifeboats, and the Edge of Ethics


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#1
Danny Shahar

Danny Shahar
  • 116 posts

Hi Stefan and everyone else.  I was just turned onto an article that Stefan posted on his blog entitled "Hanging By A Thread: Flagpoles, Lifeboats, and the Edge of Ethics," and I wanted to discuss what he wrote.  I tried posting the following as a comment on the article itself, but I'm not quite sure if it worked.  The thing said that the comments needed to be moderated, so it wouldn't appear immediately, but when I pressed the post comment button, I didn't get any kind of confirmation whatsoever.  I'm not sure if that's normal.  In any case, I didn't want the comment to get lost, so I'm starting this thread (this way I can see that it worked for sure!).  Without further ado, my reaction:

Interesting article; I'm disappointed that I didn't see it sooner.  I'm not sure if you intended this as a response to our earlier conversation on this topic, but some questions still remain.

First, the reason that I was worried about the situation is that in your book, you suggested that it would be wrong to kick in the window.  In this discussion, it seems like you've reversed that position.  Am I understanding you correctly?  If so, we agree.

Second, you say that the window-kicker might "guess wrong," and smash the window when the owner of the window would not actually have granted permission to do so.  I'm curious whether you would think the window-kicker to act wrongly if he kicked in the window with full knowledge that the owner would not have been willing to grant him permission.  That is, is it immoral to infringe on someone's property rights in order to save one's own life if one knows that the property owner would not have granted permission to do so? 

(To anticipate your frustration, I recognize that there are a lot of "if's" there.  The reason it's important is not to establish what the right rule would be in those particular circumstances.  I ask in order to understand how we are to think about property rights: are they absolute, or can they be bypassed for certain kinds of reasons?  To put it another way, is there ever a reason in which someone would not be morally entitled to having their property rights upheld?  I think that's a question that deserves answering, and it just happens that this "lifeboat" example is helpful in teasing out the issue.)

I look forward to hearing your answers!


  • 0

#2
neutrinoide

neutrinoide
  • 569 posts

You know what, I had an answer but deleted it.

After reading your question, my faith on humanity is hanging by a thread right now. So i'll ask you what do you thing is the answer to your own question. Please, go read or watch the video again, maybe you missed something. I can undertand, I've been raise to not see those things, I truly understand the need to ask your question.

But i'm asking you a favor here, try to find the answer or come up with your own theory of what could be a genuine rational answer.


  • 0

#3
Guest_Foogle_*

Guest_Foogle_*

Nowhere outside of a classroom is it reasonable to answer a critical question by saying, Please try to come up with the answer on your own. As far as I can tell, his questions are perfectly reasonable ones. They're also the sorts of challenges that anyone who is at all familiar with traditional ethical models is likely to come up with.

Your response was devoid of any factual assistance; moreover, it appears to be full of contempt. You started in with, "After reading your question, my fate on humanity is hanging by a thread right now." What is that supposed to mean? Is the original poster to understand that he's dashed your "fate" (faith?) in humanity by asking some innocuous questions? 


  • 0

#4
Dave Bockman

Dave Bockman
  • 2849 posts

Nowhere outside of a classroom is it reasonable to answer a critical question by saying, Please try to come up with the answer on your own. As far as I can tell, his questions are perfectly reasonable ones. They're also the sorts of challenges that anyone who is at all familiar with traditional ethical models is likely to come up with.

Your response was devoid of any factual assistance; moreover, it appears to be full of contempt. You started in with, "After reading your question, my fate on humanity is hanging by a thread right now." What is that supposed to mean? Is the original poster to understand that he's dashed your "fate" (faith?) in humanity by asking some innocuous questions? 

 

Innocuous? By his own hand, Donnywithana has indicated otherwise. Why are you obfuscating the Original Poster's own characterization of the seriousness or gravitas of his questions with your own? 


  • 0

"Use the flame of knowledge to light candles, not peoples' hair"-- S. Molyneux


#5
Danny Shahar

Danny Shahar
  • 116 posts
Well, if you want my own opinion, you can check out my essay, "Respecting the Rich Victim: Boundary Crossings and Critical Opportunities," which is posted on my blog.  But I'm not interested in trying to force my views onto Stefan.  I'm interested in hearing what he thinks, and why he thinks it.  If we disagree, and I find his arguments compelling, then perhaps I would be led to reject my current views.  I'm not sure what's so objectionable about that.
  • 0

#6
neutrinoide

neutrinoide
  • 569 posts

Nowhere outside of a classroom is it reasonable to answer a critical question by saying, Please try to come up with the answer on your own. As far as I can tell, his questions are perfectly reasonable ones. They're also the sorts of challenges that anyone who is at all familiar with traditional ethical models is likely to come up with.

Your response was devoid of any factual assistance; moreover, it appears to be full of contempt. You started in with, "After reading your question, my fate on humanity is hanging by a thread right now." What is that supposed to mean? Is the original poster to understand that he's dashed your "fate" (faith?) in humanity by asking some innocuous questions? 

I think it will be more construtive if he come up with his own conclusion at first before we spoon fed all the answers. The question can be answer by itself if we bring to its logical conclusion what it was said in the article and/or video. His question look more to be a reaction coming from a emotional scar tissu then from someone willing to take time to listen and understanding the arguments made by the writer.

Yes, I'll go nut and i'll show a big finger to humanity if I see the same question again. (It isn't the first time I see it). Just reading the comments under the Youtube video is enough for me to say people doesn't listen but just have knee jerk reactions.

That is the only thing I could say without using a bunch of "F" words. He doesnt have to answer my request, but i'm sure I have the same right to do so either.


  • 0

#7
Danny Shahar

Danny Shahar
  • 116 posts

Again, I offered a link to an essay I wrote presenting my own views on the subject.  I'm not asking to be educated on the correct view, or for you guys to help me see something I've been too lazy to think about myself.  As a political philosopher, this issue is at the core of what I do.  I want to know what Stefan's view is so that I can engage him in a way that is meaningful to both of us.  I take offense to the suggestion that I didn't take the time to understand Stefan's article; the questions I asked could not be answered solely by reference to what Stefan says in the piece.  Stefan could consistently take either side on the matters I raised. 

I just don't understand why my you think that my question has anything to do with emotion, or that it's some angry knee-jerk reaction.  It's an article about a thought experiment which has little or no relevance except through its importance in illustrating ethical principles.  I don't know about you, but I don't think that the nature of rights is something to get upset over.  It's more that I find it interesting because I'm a philosopher, and this is what I study.  I hope you can understand.


  • 0

#8
neutrinoide

neutrinoide
  • 569 posts

I asked could not be answered solely by reference to what Stefan says in the piece.  Stefan could consistently take either side on the matters I raised. 

I strongly disagree with you there.

We have a definition of what proprety rights is. We have a victim and someone who is responsible of the actions. Both individual will have to deal with each other and more individuals in the community. I really don't understand how someone could not come up with a theory that would be close to Stefan's answer to your question.

I understand the answer isn't intuitive in our time, which is why FDR is original and bring some fresh air into ethic. But I couldn't get my head around the fact that a philosopher who are train to come up with none intuitive answer could ask your question.

I assume the fact I am a jerk and I'll accept the outcome, but answering this question won't help me and any futur discussion on the subject.


  • 0

#9
Danny Shahar

Danny Shahar
  • 116 posts
Do me a favor and read my essay.  If you still don't understand why I'm curious, then we can talk.
  • 0

#10
Jad Davis

Jad Davis
  • 70 posts
I'm not understanding this issue well.  I scanned your article and will give it a more thorough reading when I have time.  I am also not well grounded in philosophy.  I read and (I think) understand the scenario you present.  Why would it not be the case that Jerry, if he breaks into Lucy's house, is obligated to compensate her for the damage?  Is it just a matter of amount?  I understand the calculation of utility, but if the job is worth more to jerry than paying for the window (or making payments for the window, etc.), then why can't he make a morally neutral choice of damaging property and then obliging himself to compensate the owner?  Am I looking at this in too shallow a manner?  Stef's article seemed to present a reasonable framework for an individual to make a decision in these instances.
  • 0

#11
Danny Shahar

Danny Shahar
  • 116 posts

The illustration hinges on the idea that Jerry would not be able to properly compensate Lucy, even if he got the job.  Does that help at all?

The thing that's really pertinent for this conversation is that I, and likely Nozick, would argue that Jerry would surely act permissibly, given his circumstances, if he could compensate Lucy.  The issue I take with Stefan's account is that in his book, he argued that in a situation like Jerry's, it would be wrong to smash the window.  I don't see why this would be the case, and I think I present a pretty decent argument to that effect in my essay.

The second question I raised is not so much an objection as a genuine inquiry about Stefan's opinion.  In my essay, you'll notice that I struggled a bit with the question of whether Lucy would be justified in refusing consent, and whether Jerry would be justified in smashing the window anyway.  I'm not completely settled on the matter myself, which is why I'm curious to see what Stefan's view is.  If you have an opinion on the matter, I'd love to hear it as well. 


  • 0

#12
RickyPG

RickyPG
  • 23 posts
Jerry is not in a lifeboat situation.  He just wants to improve his standard of living.
  • 0

#13
Danny Shahar

Danny Shahar
  • 116 posts

I didn't say he was.  I just haven't written an essay on lifeboat situations.  In my opinion, the issue has been dealt with pretty well by people like Judith Thomson and Joel Feinberg, and their conclusions are reflected in my essay, which attempts to move beyond lifeboat situations and break new ground in the discussion of rights.  I only cited it in order to demonstrate that I've done work in this area and am not simply attacking Stefan's paper out of some emotional need to reject his conclusions, and in order to show that this area of libertarian philosophy isn't as cut-and-dried as people were making it sound.

Is it really so unreasonable for me to ask that someone actually address the two questions I raised?  If the answers are so obvious, surely it wouldn't be too much trouble to spell them out to me, right?


  • 0

#14
RickyPG

RickyPG
  • 23 posts

Donny,

I don’t think you are going to get a reply from Stefan on this.  The point of his article was to answer you.  I listened to the video and read the article and I thought it was brilliant.  You are missing the main point which is that, “the desire for absolutism stalls ethics.”

I would recommend you listen to the series, Introduction to Philosophy by Stefan, especially the ones on Ethics.  This is a six part pod cast.  It is also on You Tube. 

 Your questions were to Stefan and I can’t answer for him.  I do have my own view based on what I’ve read and listened to from Stef.  I may be totally wrong and if so please correct me. 

 First, I did not see any indication that Stef reversed his position that it was wrong to kick in the window.  He said it was a “clear abrogation of property rights but was the right and sensible thing to do.” 

 The second question you had was also answered near the end of the article and video.  You asked if it was immoral to violate someone’s property rights to save your life, if you know that the property owner would not grant permission. Again it is a violation of property rights or immoral, but sensible to preserve your life and be liable for the damage you cause.

 The point I see in all of this is that ethics is much like biology.  Mutations in biology don’t make the science invalid.  Gray areas or lifeboat situations don’t invalidate ethics.

These points are made in detail in the pod casts mentioned above.  

 I hope this helps.


  • 0

#15
Danny Shahar

Danny Shahar
  • 116 posts

I don't think this is an issue of "absolutism."  This is an issue of understanding how Stefan's view works.  I don't care about its answers in lifeboat situations.  That doesn't matter.  The reason lifeboat situations are worth examining is that they help us understand how moral systems come up with answers in situations where there are conflicts between important values.  The answer itself, again, is peripheral.  The interesting thing is to see how Stefan arrives at an answer.

On page 55 of his book on Universally Preferable Behavior, Stefan writes, "This is not to say that breaking the window to save your life is not wrong.  It is, but it is a wrong that almost all of us would choose to commit rather than die.  If I were on the verge of starving to death, I would steal an apple.  This does not mean that it is right for me to steal the apple - it just means that I would do it - and must justly accept the consequences of my theft."

 In light of that statement, the position Stefan takes in his article seems like a change in direction.  Hence my first question.  In addition to clarifying what Stefan's position is on this particular point, his answer will also be important for my understanding of his ethical system as a whole.  An ethical system which acknowledges that it would be acceptable to do what's wrong seems very different from an ethical system which defines wrong as that which is unacceptable to do.  I'm hoping to understand how the concept of "wrongness" fits into Stefan's view.

 The reason I asked the second question is that Stefan's answer will reveal another interesting feature of his conception of rights.  Stefan suggests that the window-smasher would be justified in kicking in the window because the victim would likely offer consent.  But he also says that this assumption could be incorrect.  The purpose in asking if the window-smasher would be justified in smashing the window if he knew that consent would be refused is to establish what qualifies as an acceptable basis for infringing on rights.  Is it okay to smash the window because of what will happen to the victim, so that in an important sense, the victim would not be justified in insisting that her rights be upheld?  Or is it only okay to smash the window because of the assumption of consent, so that it wouldn't be okay in the absence of that assumption?  This is important in determining whether Stefan believes that the final say in whether a rights infringement is justified should be held by the holder of the right, or whether one can sometimes legitimately infringe on rights against the will of the holder of the rights.

So again, I really couldn't care less about the answer to the lifeboat example.  It really doesn't matter.  What's interesting is why Stefan answers the way he does.  Hopefully that makes some sense.


  • 0

#16
Stefan Molyneux

Stefan Molyneux
  • 19755 posts

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.


  • 0

Please join the new Freedomain Radio Facebook page:


Freedomain Radio | Promote Your Page Too
18322869182.6864.748552535.png



stefan_molyneux


#17
Danny Shahar

Danny Shahar
  • 116 posts

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.


  • 0

#18
Danny Shahar

Danny Shahar
  • 116 posts

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?


  • 0

#19
Stefan Molyneux

Stefan Molyneux
  • 19755 posts
I don't see how it's "inflicted." If you and I are neighbours, and we both allow each other to take each other's tools, that's not "theft" or "inflicted," is it?
  • 0

Please join the new Freedomain Radio Facebook page:


Freedomain Radio | Promote Your Page Too
18322869182.6864.748552535.png



stefan_molyneux


#20
Danny Shahar

Danny Shahar
  • 116 posts
I dunno...I don't have any mutual window-smashing agreements with my neighbors.  But that's why I asked what you would say in a case where the window-smasher knew that consent would be refused.  That seems like it would be inflicted, no?
  • 0

#21
Stefan Molyneux

Stefan Molyneux
  • 19755 posts

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. [:)]


  • 0

Please join the new Freedomain Radio Facebook page:


Freedomain Radio | Promote Your Page Too
18322869182.6864.748552535.png



stefan_molyneux


#22
Danny Shahar

Danny Shahar
  • 116 posts

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.  


  • 0

#23
Stefan Molyneux

Stefan Molyneux
  • 19755 posts

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.


  • 0

Please join the new Freedomain Radio Facebook page:


Freedomain Radio | Promote Your Page Too
18322869182.6864.748552535.png



stefan_molyneux


#24
Danny Shahar

Danny Shahar
  • 116 posts

[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.


  • 0

#25
KevinP

KevinP
  • 92 posts

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.


  • 0

"What if man is not really a scoundrel, man in general, I mean, the whole race of mankind—then all the rest is prejudice, simply artificial terrors and there are no barriers and it's all as it should be." - Fyodor Dostoevsky, "Crime and Punishment"


#26
locke

locke
  • 13 posts
Why would you ask this person to leave, he simply didnt agree with you.
  • 0

#27
Derrick

Derrick
  • 44 posts

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...

 


  • 0

#28
Stefan Molyneux

Stefan Molyneux
  • 19755 posts
Well Danny has strenuously disagreed for with me months here, why would I do it now?
  • 0

Please join the new Freedomain Radio Facebook page:


Freedomain Radio | Promote Your Page Too
18322869182.6864.748552535.png



stefan_molyneux


#29
locke

locke
  • 13 posts

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. 


  • 0

#30
Stefan Molyneux

Stefan Molyneux
  • 19755 posts

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. 


  • 0

Please join the new Freedomain Radio Facebook page:


Freedomain Radio | Promote Your Page Too
18322869182.6864.748552535.png



stefan_molyneux


#31
locke

locke
  • 13 posts
why not do it in public?
  • 0

#32
Jimmy

Jimmy
  • 1293 posts

why not do it in public?

Perhaps you have another forum in mind?


  • 0

#33
Stefan Molyneux

Stefan Molyneux
  • 19755 posts

why not do it in public?

I think that is a fine idea. I can do a call any time this week - we'll open it up to whoever wants to listen in, and publish it as a podcast and video.

Please let me know when the best time for you is.

I look forward to talking with you! [:)]

Thanks!


  • 0

Please join the new Freedomain Radio Facebook page:


Freedomain Radio | Promote Your Page Too
18322869182.6864.748552535.png



stefan_molyneux


#34
locke

locke
  • 13 posts
I just wonder why you have to ban/disinvite/ask to leave anyone who disagrees with you.  Are you afraid of being disagreed with?  are you afraid your members will leave and not donate anymore?  both are perfectly ok i would just suggest that you be open and honest about it instead of hiding behind your banstick.
  • 0

#35
locke

locke
  • 13 posts
bump
  • 0