universally preferable behaviour

[Black Rose]

I have problems with Stephan Molyneux trying to prove morality.
His arguments in spoiler

Spoiler

Appendix A: UPB in a Nutshell
Below, please find a summation of the core argument for morality.

1. Reality is objective and consistent.
2. “Logic” is the set of objective and consistent rules derived from the consistency of reality.
3. Those theories that conform to logic are called “valid.”
4. Those theories that are confirmed by empirical testing are called “accurate.”
5. Those theories that are both valid and accurate are called “true.”
6. “Preferences” are required for life, thought, language and debating.
7. Debating requires that both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable.
8. Thus the very act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB).
9. Theories regarding UPB must pass the tests of logical consistency and empirical verification.
10. The subset of UPB that examines enforceable behaviour is called “morality.”
11. As a subset of UPB, no moral theory can be considered true if it is illogical or unsupported by empirical evidence.
12. Moral theories that are supported by logic and evidence are true. All other moral theories are false.

I have a problem with numbers 10. 11. and 12.

10. Enforceability morality can only be personal involving only the individual's actions.
Collective enforcement is called Ethics because it involves more than the individual.
11. Morality is true if the individual follows his own moral code.
Collective ethics is true if the group decides that actions have been taken that go against the collective will.
Truth is the proven behavior that has been deemed right or wrong by the individual or the collective.
12. Even if an action has been proven with evidence the rightness or wrongness of the action has no ultimate grounding by mans law.
To burn this in. Jesus was said to be working for Satan for healing the sick. He broke the law healing on the Sabbath. broke the laws forgiving sins and making the lame to walk. By all evidence, he broke the law. (the story says he got crucified)

 

[QuickTwist]

I guess the biggest problem I have with Stephan in this list is 10 because he doesn't say how an individual has the right to enforce their idea of morality on someone else. This is an impossibility considering sometimes there is not a clear cut answer. In short, he doesn't provide the means that one individual has the "right" to impose their views on someone else because he doesn't talk about the bridge from the individual to the group.

This is assuming that AK has Stephan's idea of morality fully mapped out.

 

[Black Rose]

This is assuming that AK has Stephan's idea of morality fully mapped out.

Oh, I had the arguments copied from a wiki page. So they should be accurate, I do not have time to read his books and in one video he was kinda discouraging people from reading if they did not appreciate him enough to make donations. He thought he would get killed if Obama was elected in 2012. or Hillary in 2016, it does not matter which one I just remember he thought FEMA camps were real.

 

[The Grey Man]

There are many problems with that "proof". One is that it endeavors to prove (in lines 6-8) something so trivial that nobody doubted it in the first place: that any group of people who debate amongst themselves prefer in each other at least one behaviour, assuming that they all prefer that the others would treat understanding of the truth as the goal of the debate.

Another big problem is that an ethical system built on the foundation of only those preferences that everyone shares would just be utilitarianism, because the only preference that everyone is sure to share is that for that which is better, an experience of relatively high utility, whatever that might be. So no progress is being made here, because there are no new ideas being put forward on how to maximize the good.

 

[Ex-User (14663)]

I don't recall exactly what I wrote in this thread before, but the conclusion is pretty much that Molyneux has a MA in history and no knowledge of philosophy nor logic, so these feeble attempts at formalizing his argument amounts to gibberish word games.

One thing he does is something a few other contemporary self-proclaimed "non-nonsense" guys like DeGrasse Tyson, Dawkins, Harris etc often do is that they always talk about the need for empirical evidence to "confirm" theories. That's simply not how scientific inference works. Using his definition, Einstein's General Relativity would be "inaccurate" when it was published, because being a scientific theory, it is an a-priori theory that can only be corroborated by not being falsified. Once again, Molyneux could benefit from a 101 course in epistemology.

Incidentally, they all often conform to utilitarian concepts of morality, which is a similarly naive doctrine.

 

[The Grey Man]

Most people are utilitarians; they may claim to embody a deontological doctrine ("it is simply wrong to do X, how can you not see that"), but will fall back on a sort of anthropocentric utilitarianism to justify their principles, usually with some concessions to other creatures who resemble them enough to be counted among the chosen few minds in their bizzare bipartite division of reality into mental and physical components.

"We weep for the blood of a bird, but not for the blood of a fish- blessed are those who have a voice." -Mamoru Oshii

 

[Black Rose]

When I followed my own deontological ethics was when I experienced severe psychological trauma and saw visions after resisting breaking my own moral codes. resisting breaking your own moral codes in face of spiritual oppression or earthly oppression hurts your deeply. In those times I cannot hold back the tears and emotions. I knew that I have to live with myself, I did the right thing. I was visited by a spirit.