Some time ago, I read a review of UPB (having never read the book itself, nor have I read it since), and my immediate reaction was the following: that an ethic is universalizable does not demonstrate that it is objectively valid. And with that I left UPB, not giving it another moment's thought until this evening. What I realized this evening is that I had casually granted M. his claim that libertarian ethics is the only universalizable ethics - when in fact all that UPB demonstrates is that libertarian ethics is a universalizable ethics. Furthermore, I realized that for an ethic to be "universalizable" in M's sense of the word is nothing other than for it not to be self-contradictory, i.e. for it to be internally coherent. So UPB demonstrated that libertarian ethics is internally coherent. Great, so are an infinite number of other conceivable ethics: including strongly anti-libertarian ethics. For example, "everyone should attempt to kill everyone" is a perfectly universalizable ethic. Everyone can fulfill an ethical obligation to attempt to kill everyone else at the same time without logical contradiction. The same with "everyone should pay every stranger he meets everything he owns at that time" or "everyone should make cow noises whenever he sees a red car" or "everyone should commit suicide" or any number of other horrific or absurd ethical propositions.
Not only that, but even propositions like "no one except me should kill" are universalizable. They can certainly apply to all people, at all places, and at all times.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
I haven't read UPB either, but I can't help thinking about how pretentious and arrogant you are if you think he hasn't considered and preempted such an obvious objection. Clearly, by your own admission, you don't actually know his theory completely, except that you read a single objection to it (and not even Molyneux's response to that objection) so this thread is sort of null and embarassing to the intellectual honesty people expect from this community.
Feel free to point out how I've misrepresented Molyneux. The fact of the matter is, the argument in UPB is simple, and fallacious from the get-go. There's no need to wade through 100+ pages of pseudo-intellectual nonsense to be able to say that. What's amazing is that Molyneux is viewed as any kind of intellectual in the first place. He's a hack, a charlatan.
EDIT: re the underlined part, I suggest you read the articles about the saga of UPB that I cited below. Stefan does not handle criticism very well, to put it mildly.
Minarchist: I haven't read UPB either, but I can't help thinking about how pretentious and arrogant you are if you think he hasn't considered and preempted such an obvious objection. Clearly, by your own admission, you don't actually know his theory completely, except that you read a single objection to it (and not even Molyneux's response to that objection) so this thread is sort of null and embarassing to the intellectual honesty people expect from this community. Feel free to point out how I've misrepresented Molyneux. The fact of the matter is, the argument in UPB is simple, and fallacious from the get-go. There's no need to wade through 100+ pages of pseudo-intellectual nonsense to be able to say that.
Feel free to point out how I've misrepresented Molyneux. The fact of the matter is, the argument in UPB is simple, and fallacious from the get-go. There's no need to wade through 100+ pages of pseudo-intellectual nonsense to be able to say that.
And now, who is Stefan Molyneux?
Here is an interesting series of articles about the saga of UPB's development, its feverish promotion, and its spectacularly aweful reception by all critics outside of Stefan's FreeDoman Radio "club" (one could perhaps use another c-word).
http://www.fdrliberated.com/stefan-molyneux-promise-failure-upb-inside-story-part-1/
http://www.fdrliberated.com/stefan-molyneux-promise-failure-upb-inside-story-part-2/
http://www.fdrliberated.com/stefan-molyneux-promise-failure-upb-inside-story-part-3/
http://www.fdrliberated.com/stefan-molyneux-promise-failure-upb-inside-story-part-4/
http://www.fdrliberated.com/stefan-molyneux-promise-failure-upb-inside-story-part-5/
And here's some general information about Stefan's "club"
http://www.fdrliberated.com/freedomain-radio-destructive-cult/
http://www.fdrliberated.com/freedomain-radio-destructive-cult-part-2/
http://www.fdrliberated.com/freedomain-radio-destructive-cult-part-3/
http://www.fdrliberated.com/freedomain-radio-destructive-cult-part-4/
And here's a website started by the grieving parents of children who have joined Stefan's "club" and subsequently "defooed"
http://www.molyneuxrevealed.com/
hashem:I haven't read UPB either, but I can't help thinking about how pretentious and arrogant you are if you think he hasn't considered and preempted such an obvious objection. Clearly, by your own admission, you don't actually know his theory completely, except that you read a single objection to it (and not even Molyneux's response to that objection) so this thread is sort of null and embarassing to the intellectual honesty people expect from this community.
The irony of this to me is that I see Minarchist as being more intellectually honest here than you. Do you yourself see any logical flaws in the OP? Or can you correct Minarchist's understanding of UPB?
Malachi:"no need to read books, I already know what I think!" rolf
With all due respect, I think you can do better than this.
Why such a strong negative response out of the gate to Minarchists question?
Molyneux simply attempts to bridge the is-ought problem. Ayn Rand did the same thing. So do all religions. It's been demonstrated by others that the way he did it is not sound. I personally have character and personality issues with the way that Molyneux presents himself and interacts with people. I've experienced some of it first hand via his supporters on his forums. There's a cultish problem there, and I'm a bit leary of those kind of interactions.
At the core of the issue is understanding the relationship between true and good; the confusing line between what is true and what one should do.
A problem I'm struggling with now in my head is coming back to the line I've drawn for myself between truth-bearing knowledge like science and purpose bearing knowledge which I'm calling technology.
The problem is that science itself serves purpose, and we call a science good because we believe it says true things. That's the criteria for scientific law, it explains things in a true way, and that makes it "good". In other words the value-free nature of science is itself a valued characteristic... That seems troublesome, but not such that I throw out the idea of truth, just that I realize that knowing something to be true is only important because it's useful to some end... Hell saying something is important implies that there is some criteria for evaluating a phenomena.
Not only do I think Molyneux failed, I think he's looking in the wrong place. Mises had it correct by placing the praxeological nature of man under everything. Because we can't but start from anywhere else. Man's formation of and application of knowledge begins with the praxeological nature of man. That places purposeful behavior under knowledge (epistemology) and places the elements that produce ethics (What is good?) underneath the very formation and accumulation of categories and concepts.
Perhaps purposeful behavior is bootstrapped in the hardware. In fact, I'd assume that things like hunger, fatigue, cold, hot, sex drive, desire for play, etc. all constitute hard-wired phenomena that do in fact bootstrap the brain down certain pathways in terms of concept formation and communication.
So, I'm curious about this incestuous relationship between purpose (the source of the normative statements) and knowledge (the source of truth statements). It seems that they cannot in fact be divorced from each other, and in fact condition each other. This seems to provide a very strong motivation to find a way to bridge them into each other. Perhaps however we're missing something very basic about our nature. Perhaps this desire to bridge this dividing line is in fact a siren song that calls from deep within the underbelly of the human mind. Perhaps this siren song springs from our desire to be right about what is and to be right about what's good (for me).
The battle of a limited mind, with necessarily limited concepts, and necessarily limited data with a world that is uncertain in outcome but predictable in it's rules is the reality from within which we operate as individuals. How can we know what's good? I understand the desire to figure this out in a certain way that's substantially similar to science, but is that actually a reasonable goal? I think not, every man has to rediscover the "truth" of his own moral concepts for himself.
I said : "Every man has to rediscover the truth of his own moral concepts for himself."
This is to me the crux of the libertarian stance. I will respect your inherent self-determination with all of it's implications. You are responsible for your behavior, for the effects you create in reality and the consequences of those. You are responsible for the moral code you adopt and form and how it evolves. The behavior of the man flows from these maxims, proverbs, morals, codes of ethics, etc.
Each man contains his own set of morals. Rules he uses to condition his attempts to satisfy his desires. Regardless of whether or not he acknowledges it, or formalizes it, the behaviors he engages in are conditioned both by knowledge which represents the physical conditions in reality but also with which he evaluates the intentions and behaviors of others. He also has knowledge that he uses to evaluate how he acts in response to this perceived world, as opposed to the world as it "really is".
The way in which a man interprets and judges the desires, motives, actions, and outcomes that make up the realm of human action is his own internal "ethical system of knowledge". We may take such a system and write it down, but that doesn't necessarily have a direct bearing on reality. What I read in Proverbs from the Bible, is very interesting, some of it I take and include in my own perceptions and evaluation process, other aspects I may not. Another man can read the same work, the same words, and will have his own uniquely different version of the same knowledge.
All men perform this weighing and evaluation of behavior. All men form knowledge that they use in this process. It converges in very specific ways. Certain types of ethical propositions if they dominate a social group will lead to high internal friction and will limit the ability of the members to cooperatively seek to satisfy their ends, to engage in productive action.
If you place a moral premium on artfully lying, it's going to have an effect. If you place a moral premium on deflecting responsibility, it's going to have an effect on the larger social group. If you place a moral premium on rejection of males who act in effeminate ways or have sexual attractions to other men, it's going to have a direct impact on the society. If on the other hand you place a moral premium on sexual promiscuity, indulgence, and hedonism, it's also going to have a direct impact on the society that emerges.
I have my own internal ethical system. I can't say that it's all completely integrated, or that I understand how my emotional states cause me to diverge from my ethical standards to engage in behaviors that satisfy me emotionally, but have consequences that aren't ideal by my own estimation. That's the battle every man faces, we should embrace, acknowledge and empower each other in this fight. Not browbeat, dictate, berate, coerce others into submission to our own standards.
We must share some basic norms about property and rights, and we must provide to ourselves services provided by institutions we choose to protect and enforce those norms. The rest is up to us, enhancing freedom doesn't weaken us, it strengthens us all at the individual level. It encourages humility, responsibility, curiousity, self-confidence, self-respect, tolerance, kindness, empathy, mercy, patience, honesty, productivity, and forgiveness.
When we seek to have our social institutions remove the social, economic, and natural consequences of our behaviors we weaken ourselves at the individual level. There's a reason our kids take longer to become adults. Used to be 14-16 they were starting to engage in adult life. I went cold turkey and joined the military at 18. I knew something was wrong, and I needed to get out and learn how to be a man, to stand on my own feet. Now we have them heading upwards of 22, before they head out and start a responsible life. Student loans and no jobs are forcing them back into parents basements into the mid-20s or later. We're not even smart enough to figure out that freedom, liberty, and responsibility are the fundamental crucible for forging the moral character of strong independent and resourceful men and women.