Kevin Beal

I really don't think so. Is the question even remotely coherent? Good enough! Do you agree or don't you? If you don't agree, can you see why I might think that's just a tad insane? But if you do agree, then the debate is over. I'm simply appealing to what we can all agree on: first principles. We can nit pick into infinity, but philosophy is a little more important than an asterisks or an exception. When people nit pick, it's not really about the truth. It's about fogging people. And the vast majority of what is called philosophy is really about preventing philosophy. There are serious psychological implications in believing that we don't have self ownership. We could just talk about that instead...

I honestly can't tell if you're trolling me right now or not. I have it in my head that your criticisms have been successfully countered, and that you are being obtuse in order to irritate.

Good is distinct from virtuous. Virtue looks more like:

CNN, MSNBC, ABC etc are considered left wing typically because of their consistent demonization of the right. Ironically for just the kinds of things they too are guilty of, ... oh! and racism. Like how FOX was accused of becoming lap dogs when George Bush took office, the same thing happened with these broadcasters when Obama took office. The people I know from the left almost all support these stations and Obama (but look tortured doing it). This is people doing anything they can not to consider themselves right-wing, even though they are by the standards of a decade ago. As far as the mainstream goes, there hasn't been any substantive difference between right and left since I started paying attention in 2000.

This is the conclusion of the coma test: if a man in a coma can be immoral, then your moral argument is wrong.

And I gave you the reasoning behind that. I said:

The part in the book about moral opposites is how I described it above. I don't believe there is any requirement in UPB for "what is not immoral is automatically moral". Please correct me if it does. There is already an established distinction between these senses of "objective". It's the difference between ontological objectivity ("dollar bills are made of green fibers") and epistemic objectivity which refers to truth claims. The subjectivity we are talking about is ontological subjectivity for the reasons you've accurately stated. The equivocation of these senses of the terms objective and subjective get us into lots of trouble, which you are probably already aware of to some degree. That's why I appreciate you raising that issue. I don't remember whether or not any definition has been given, and probably it should be given, but I don't understand how you could conceivably divorce a person from their behavior. Maybe it's just a failure of my imagination... Could you please state what Stef's argument was and give a clear argument about what exactly is the error? I can't say what Stef meant and I can't offer you a counter argument (or accept your argument) if you don't provide an argument yourself.

Totally, I agree with only one reservation: It's the act itself that we are looking at rather than the context that surrounds it. We could have a rule not to show up late to meetings is bad, but context may justify it, like if a meteor landed on the freeway you planned on taking. I took the approach I did initially in this thread because I've been asked to be reasonable before and it was productive.But if a methodology is flawed (asking someone who is being unreasonable to reasonably stop being unreasonable) and it still ends up working, it's still better to try something else, despite that success.

Hey! Welcome to the forums! This is a common objection as you've pointed out, but the answer is actually surprisingly simple. First we must recognize the impossibility of a positive moral rule (thou shalt) because of tests like the coma test. So the "negation" is the opposite in a negative moral rule (thou shalt not) such as "do not rape", the opposite of this rule must necessarily include some rape somewhere. And this applies generally to negative moral rules. Obviously, the opposite of some positive moral rule is open to too much interpretation for an opposite to be very meaningful: what is the opposite of paint on the computer in front of you? We may be able to figure out the opposite there, but this is not enough to base a definition of a moral good and a moral evil. This is talked about in this podcast in much more detail (if I remember rightly): Shooting Down UPB...(a listener conversation) http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_928_Shooting_Down_UPB.mp3 I think this is very interesting and has many implications, but the conclusion you draw here "science can be subjective" is categorically false. There are many real phenomena that are completely subjective, that is they are observer relative. They would not exist without minds to experience them subjectively. Things like the value of goods, of pains, of psychological ill-health, and point score of certain actions in sports. They are (ontologically) subjective, and yet it's entirely possible to have an (epistemically) objective science (that term being redundant). Economics is a science that looks at subjective things. The part of it that can be considered a science is objective, while the phenomena themselves are subjective. Same with psychology, praxeology etc. Economics gives us a measure of the value that people subjectively assign to goods, and not the value itself. Psychology has an objectively causal account of psychological phenomena, and yet the psychological phenomena being looked at causally are themselves locked inside our heads where nobody can simultaneously experience them the way we do. The science here describes the theories and methodologies we use to achieve objectivity in our claims about these phenomena. Like a simulation isn't the thing itself, science is not what it's science-ing. The two are separate categories. Actually UPB evaluates propositions that inform behavior, not behavior itself. It obviously extends to behavior logically since those propositions involve behavior necessarily. And in the same way it extends to people who are themselves the ones who act that behavior out, since behavior is not being acted without the moral actor. If you can say that it applies to behavior, you ought to accept that it applies to people as well, not in the exact same sense, perhaps, logically it does describe something real and true about moral actors if it does describe the behavior these actors,... act. (Sorry for the confusing language).

A consensus that turns out to be wrong is more memorable than a consensus that was right all along. The very fact that a debate from first principles is possible about scientific disciplines is only possible because of an overwhelming amount of shared conclusions about the natural world. The existence of a premise in an argument is an appeal to shared consensus. Language is an appeal to shared consensus! Shared consensus is ubiquitous and you engage in it every single day hundreds of times. The appeal to numbers is a logical fallacy because if offered as proof of a conclusion, then one can always say "not necessarily". But it is absolutely evidence. I have never been to australia. It could be that all these people are making up this strange continent's existence as part of some monumental error. The primary reason I believe that australia exists is because almost everyone tacitly accepts this, and only after the fact did I look at images from space, talk to people from Australia and whatever other non-consensus pieces of evidence. If the majority of scientists who are experts in a field have a conclusion about that field that they all operate from and have for a hundred years and make lots of progress operating under that theory, then I'm inclined to dismiss skepticism like the kind expressed in the original post. Especially after it's pointed out that Gould's criticisms were far too trivial to be considered being against Darwin's theory. There is no one that I'm aware of that says that Darwin was right about every single thing. And neither is it established that Gould was right about his punctuated equilibrium. Like the atomic theory of matter, the evolutionary theory of biology is so incredibly established because it's as proven as these things can be. Speciation has been observed many times in nature. That's proof as far as I'm concerned.

People with self knowledge too are susceptible to reacting thoughtlessly. I think it's pretty inescapable that people can be reasonable in one area and not others, and that they can be reasonable some times and not others. If you and I have a relationship, it may be necessary at some point for you to help me see that I'm not being reasonable and make some sort of appeal to reason. Hopefully you don't do that by saying "why are you so unreasonable?", but it does happen to the best of us. It may jar me into reorienting myself with what I believe to be reasonable from the principles that I already accept, and I may see the light. But if you believe that I am being unreasonable and you want me to start being reasonable, then the suggestion that I start being reasonable is itself irrational, since it requires me to be reasonable in order to fulfill the request. We would assume the unreasonable person would continue to be unreasonable. The form is irrational, but it actually may work as a strategy. I don't know about your relationships, but if you suspect that you could be enabling people to do toxic or immoral things, then that's something worth exploring, I think.

That's easy! Should I make valid arguments and say things that are true? If yes, then you already implicitly accept this link from "is" to "ought", generally. If you have a greater claim to your own body than I do, then I ought act accordingly, since we agree that what is true is what matters. We both accept that we ought make valid arguments because we both prefer truth over falsehood You have a greater claim to your body than I do It would be honest (true) of me to behave accordingly with these facts We can deduce these things simply from the fact that you and I are arguing about it. And if you are going to deny it while necessarily accepting it, no debate is possible because first principles cannot be established. Also, it would be completely insane. There are no ontologically objective "ought"s. They do not exist anywhere inside our atoms, or tissues, or systems, or even our brains. They are ontologically subjective, because they are observer relative. This is the same sense that money has value or that a field goal in american football is 6 points. These are true statements, but they requires minds to observe them. Some ontologically subjective facts are the result of some consensus (like the point value of a field goal) and some are not at all arbitrary. There is no objective scale of value for goods (despite the effort of the socialists), and yet we have praxeology and economics to describe these subjective values in an objective manner. We know that people value nice pens more than they value the 5 dollar bill in their wallets because they regularly do trade these things, which is why the asking price is around 5 dollars. Likewise, there is no self ownership stamp in your body put there by Yahweh (or whatever description that could be comprehensible), and yet it's absolutely true that people do own themselves. You've practiced self ownership consistently and repeatedly in this thread: You responded to posts directed to you and not someone else You've acknowledged what position is your own and not mine You are using your eyeballs to read, your fingers to type The only conceivable way out of this is to suggest that we do not act. That our consciousness is illusory and we are either controlled by somebody else (which just pushes the "problem" back), or by dumb blind forces (making this debate literally nonsensical).

Hi Alexander! Welcome! I'm one of those 2,500 subscribers (and congrats on that). I thought that your criticisms of the fatalism in some MGTOW work was spot on and very insightful. And I'm sorry about the childhood you've had to go back and process. In some ways those more subtle traumas are even worse since they are so much harder to point to and communicate to other people, especially people who haven't done any work on themselves. And I can relate about the friends who would rather party than talk about anything meaningful Thank you for the comprehensive introduction

What did you think about RTR? Have you read it yet? Stef has said that he regards these three books as being grouped together, in that On Truth is about the past, UPB is about the present, and RTR is about the future. In that way, maybe RTR is the most important one. UPB is great for seeing corruption, but hopefully getting away from corrupt and evil people is doable and you can have good healthy relationships instead. That's where RTR comes in. And being that we are all hopefully working to get to this point, RTR would be the most applicable in the long term, for healthy people like hopefully we are (or are becoming). I think, in a way, that On Truth and UPB build up to RTR. Being that On truth is about being honest about your past, and UPB is a methodology for honest virtuous action. RTR is how you are honest in relationship to others (and yourself) which is the gold medal of honesty, I believe. So, I'm flip flopping. I say RTR is the most important work. The Ricky Sandwich Part 1: Stef, Ricky and RTR http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_923_RTR_Ricky_and_Stef.mp3 RTR Squared http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_977_RTR_Squared.mp3 RTR Reader Conference Call (follow up to 977) http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_981_RTR_Reader_Conference.mp3 Self RTR While Dating (A Convo) http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1407_Self_RTR_When_Dating_Convo.mp3 RTR@Work http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_1454_RTR_At_Work.mp3

Reasonable as compared to what? If I am uncharacteristically calm, grindingly specific and preface anything even remotely controversial with a qualifier, then that is a kind of reasonableness that would make me want to pull my hair out. By asking them "as compared to what?" they have to make explicit some kind of standard. With a standard in mind, you can either try and meet that standard so that they will (presumably) be satisfied, or you can reject the standard on some grounds. A criticism like "you aren't X enough" is meaningless without some understanding about how X can be achieved. And sometimes "reasonable" means nothing beyond "what you are saying makes me feel uncomfortable". So, make sure to get some kind of standard out of them

No problem at all! Another tip, in case you want to find a podcast where Stef said something in particular, you can google search the content of these sites. That looks like this (inside the google search field): site:http://readfdr.wordpress.com/ "I like turles" or site:http://freedomainradio.info/index.php/transcripts/ "anarchism FTW"

Okay. Then what do you need to be convinced?

And here are 60 or so done by different people (not a machine like the above one), so the quality is better, but there aren't as many done.

Somebody has already done a ton of them here. It says that the accuracy is around 98%. That sounds pretty good to me

You've moved the goalpost. "all parts of the definition of property" is not a standard that makes any sense. Property is property is property. You implicitly accept that people own themselves. In what respect people own themselves is another matter. You first have to acknowledge that people own themselves in order for this conversation to continue. You didn't even know what the argument was, and you claimed it was the basis of UPB. And you didn't acknowledge that you got either one wrong. It can only be a strawman that you are challenging. There is no other option.

No, the argument is: P1: You make claim X which stands opposed to A P2: X necessarily implies A in order for the claim to be made P3: X is a statement that denies A only in utterance, but wholly requires A in action C1: X, the claim contains a contradiction when compared to it's form P4: The statement "language has no meaning" is absurd (and untenable) for exactly the same reason C2: To accept property rights in action while simultaneously rejecting it in words is insane in just the same way that rejecting the meaning of language in words is insane C3: WTF, mate? Also, you didn't answer my question about self defense. If you need to reject self defense in order to sustain the position that property rights are invalid, then just intuitively we get that there's something wrong here.

No, that's very clear about what you are saying, not clear at all why you are saying it. Would you say that if someone attacks me, that I'm justified in protecting myself? If you deny property rights, on what basis do you justify self defense? When I say I banged my finger, that actually means something. I'm not talking about your fingers, right? I'm the one who feels the pain and will need to have it bandaged or whatever. Speaking philosophically, I am an object. I have certain features. One of the features that belongs to me is that I have digits on my hand. Another feature is that I act with my own volition toward my own goals. The very act of defining me necessarily implies ownership. From self ownership, all other ownership follows. (This is however a separate discussion, unnecessary to justify the proposition). Could you say why the previous argument around it being necessary to accept it in order to argue against it is bad? As far as I can tell, your objection is "not necessarily" and that there are implications (if self ownership is invalid) that make things we do unjustified. You've been asking people to justify the claim then rejecting all attempts to do that. Maybe it would be more productive to pose a clear counter argument of your own. In formal debate, there isn't one guy with a pro proposition and another guy who's like "justify it to me because I'm not satisfied". There is a clear and concise general counter argument so as to provide a clear outline for what is meant by success and specifically what arguments are needed to justify the proposition within the context of the debate. In other words, what do you need to be convinced?

I don't know what "intrinsic" means in this context. Nor do I get why it should need to be automatic in being human not to justify violence. Nor do I understand how there is any meaningful distinction between these senses of property. I don't understand these leaps you are making. The features of this object (me) includes things like autonomy, the ability to act and create in the world and by simple logical consequence a responsibility over the results (since I act). Which is exactly identical with saying that I own the results of my actions. How is it not simply self evident that we have property rights just like it's self evident that we digest food? Both seem equally undeniable as far as I can tell. It might as well be a tautology that I have property rights since I act.

Nate dawg is totally right. To see how this fits into everything you listen to and probably appreciate on the show, please watch these videos (you will not regret it). This goes out to all the counterfeiters! Also, there is a running joke that podcast #70 is the best one and everything afterward isn't as good. How to control a human soul http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/how_to_control_a_human_soul.mp3

How so? That doesn't seem to follow... I mean, the two aren't mutually exclusive.