AustinJames

What are your goals?

I'm not sure you are a minarchist. Being a minarchist implies that you would prefer a society that is, by definition, not "totally free," but rather 'minimally regulated.' You seem to advocate the ultimate goal of a "totally free society," which would be objectively contradictory to the minarchist position. If I am incorrect, please provide an alternative definition of minarchism to improve my understanding. Yes, "the societies we live in have state regulations," and some things are "at the moment dependent on the state;" this is a tautology. If the continuation of your argument were to be universal, however, we would say of slavery, "yes, it was a coercive, immoral enterprise; nonetheless, previous generations have deemed it necessary to secure the moral order of society. If slavery were immediately eradicated from current society, we would risk chaos. Many people are so used to living with slavery that it would be impossible for them to deal in a situation of non-slavery. Therefore, a modest reduction in slavery is the most reasonable and effective ambition for abolitionists to adopt in their drive to end slavery altogether." Do you agree with this universalization? If not, where did I go wrong?

The term itself is a definition. Universally-- concerning the functionality of an action, applied in all times, and in all places within the realm of human action; Preferable-- being a logically acceptable means of achieving the ends of human action; Behaviour-- objectively measurable human action. Therefore: Universally Preferable Behaviour = objectively measurable human action which can be applied in all times and places for the achievement of the ends of human action. The definition is a tautology, but this does not make it redundant.

I may be off-base, but it seems to me you are looking for support for a decision that you've already made: that you don't need to continue your formal education to get what you want in life. This could be projection on my part, seeing as I sought the same external validation in my own decision (even after it was made) to discontinue my pursuit of a degree. One realization that made my decision easier was this: any employer who would disqualify me solely for my lack of formal credentials is an employer with whom I would loathe to work. Though the statistical prospects of finding a high-paying job without a degree may be somewhat reduced, this statistic will never change if high quality individuals continue to accept, as a matter of course, the current academic standards.

If you want to know more about Stefan's definition of ownership, he has many podcasts and chapters in his books that address the topic. It is dismissive (or perhaps, dare I say, disingenuous) to take these two rather unrelated uses of the terminology in an attempt to seek further understanding. The dismissal of Kevin's commentary has led me to question the intent of the original poster.

I could go on all day, but here are some of my favorites... Abraham Lincoln ended slavery! Hitler was going to conquer the world! The U.S. defeated Communism! We invaded (insert country) in order to protect the population from genocidal, maniacal bastards! The "food pyramid" (constructed by the agricultural lobby) represents a perfectly balanced and healthy diet! If you don't get a college degree, you'll never have a good job! Taxes are voluntary because you can vote!

Thank you for posting. I was considering submitting an essay as part of TZM's 'challenge,' but after considering the feedback of the board, and the content of this letter, I have decided it would be a waste of time. Thanks to you, and others on this board, I will have saved myself a lot of time and effort.

I don't see how this is relevant to the assertion that children will "learn to read by whatever way their brain finds easiest, when their brain is ready for it." The Waldorf schools still use a consistent methodology to teach literacy; they don't just let the student figure it out based on "the way their brain finds easiest;" they just have a particular approach, reflecting what they think is easiest for the child's brain (for which there is little supporting research). If it were otherwise, their model would be able to accommodate children that wanted to learn to read at an earlier age. Moreover, if this were the case, they wouldn't advocate a consistent methodology, such as how to teach the alphabet in first grade. I agree that children are naturally keen to learn. For this reason, they do not need to be force-fed. They simply need to be introduced to the benefits, or rewards, of learning certain things, so they can prioritize their own education. If an immediate reward, such as a sweet, is what it takes to "prime the pump" and get the children connecting learning with tangible benefits, I can see no fault in it. I agree with this as well. I don't think anyone is advocating forcing children to learn anything. I can't help feeling my position has been misrepresented. The controversy to me is not whether we should peacefully present opportunities of learning, but rather how best to introduce the prospect of educational opportunities, in order to instill a positive attitude toward learning in the child.

Anyone interested in this thread may also benefit from a similar discussion here: http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/37985-pay-for-grades/#entry365281

Which one of my statements is an 'arbitrary opinion?' I described the use of extrinsic incentives in my career. I then made an objective statement about the nature of primates. My last statement shows the rational opposition between the ambition for extrinsic incentives and eating disorders. I fail to see any opinions here at all. Is there research that I missed in your posts that shows use of extrinsic incentives in childhood causes eating disorders later in life? Or have you not posted that research? If it exists, I sure can't find it. I would appreciate you bringing it to my attention. Children are generally capable of greater understanding than you imply by this statement. Simply explain to your child that it's important to eat healthy most of the time, but sometimes it's okay to have a sweet. You could go further and say that's why you save sweets for special occasions, like birthdays or holidays. Even if you are like some people I know, that want to raise their children on zero sweets, a pretzel or a piece of fruit works just as well. Children are quite good at regulating their own diets, if they are provided with a wide variety and freedom to choose (Birch & Deysher study, 1985). Most of my students eventually reject the sweets as incentives and negotiate for something else, like free time or a game. I don't want my students, or my children, to expend their efforts if there is no perceived tangible benefit from doing so. I want the neurological pathways formed that connect effort with possible tangible benefits. When an employee completes a project, considering the promise of a bonus, do we say that the employee is 'performing monkey tricks for rewards?' When a patron of a movie theater disposes of his own garbage, considering the societal shaming that may occur if he does not, do we say he is 'performing monkey tricks' to gain the reward of societal distinction? If you do not promise a tangible reward in advance, then you are asking for compliance based on emotional manipulation. An effective and successful human being will always ask, when considering a behavior, "what are the possible rewards for this behavior? What are the possible negative consequences for this behavior?" The more chances you can give a child to go through this decision-making process independently, the more successful they will be in deducing cause and effect in their lives. Where is your evidence for this? There is lots of evidence against it; it is the methodology utilized by most public schools in the U.S., and you can review their rate of success in teaching children how to read.

Most of the evidence is anecdotal. I work at a K-8 charter school, and the methodology utilizes many different reward systems, attempting to span the nature of rewards provided in the rest of a child's life. Part of the methodology allows the children to negotiate their own reward system. You can't train a child to perceive sweets as a reward; that is a physiologically intrinsic valuation. A monkey climbs a tree because there is fruit at the top-- not because of its 'innate love of climbing.' The eating disorder argument is rationally inconsistent, because eating disorders override a rational cost/benefit analysis of behavior, whereas the ambition for extrinsic incentives requires a rational cost/benefit analysis of behavior.

Age and maturity are crucial factors in deciding extrinsic incentives for education. In teaching a four-year-old how to read, there is nothing wrong with promising a sweet if they can successfully decipher a line of phonograms. The young child does not connect current hardships with the prospect of increased future opportunity, so creating the neural pathways connecting work and reward can begin by offering such immediate incentive as a piece of candy, or a shiny quarter. This inspires the child to seek out the possible rewards for their actions, rather than inhibiting their ability to determine what is valuable. It may be confusing to your pre-teen or teenager, however, as he/she develops their own educational values and priorities, to offer cash incentives for completing state-sponsored curriculum. If your stance is against the public school system, then simply share with your child your problems with it, along with the real-world incentives involved, and let them make their own decision as to whether they should pursue it. If you have nourished their critical thinking skills, and modeled negotiation, they will have no trouble deducing the optimum course of their education. They will probably be better at it than you are (since I assume you were not raised in this manner), and come up with solutions better than you can imagine. They may lose respect for you if you defer to the very system you criticize to decide the value of their work. I reject the notion that there is such a thing as "learning for the sake of learning." All learning is, and should be, pursued because of the incentive perceived by the learner (not limited to monetary incentives, of course). We don't tell employees that they should work for "their innate love of working;" the employer simply provides incentive (whether it is money, or a sense of accomplishment, or something else), and trusts the employee to do the calculation as to whether it is worthy of the effort involved. The trick is to introduce a student to a broader sense of incentives than is provided by academia. To answer your question; it is completely rational, but amoral, and the effectiveness is questionable, dependent upon your goals.

Google's first definition of consciousness is, "the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings." I accept this definition, but I would add that it includes the ability and desire to distinguish one's self from their surroundings. Basically, a tendency toward self-reference. We cannot prove that the universe has no consciousness, any more than we can prove that a rock has no consciousness; but if it does, it has yet to willfully provide us with evidence of such. Can anyone find a rational inconsistency with this definition? Is it incomplete or incorrect? I must admit, I have given the topic very little scrutiny. It seems to me, like the definition of god, irrelevant to the higher ambitions of my life.

Douglas Hofstadter's book "Gödel, Escher, Bach" may be an interesting read for anyone contemplating the process by which meaningless independent axioms can combine to produce self-reference. I struggled for an hour to summarize the book, but apparently need to read it again, because I resorted to Wikipedia for an overarching summary. Wiki says "Through illustration and analysis, the book discusses how self-reference and formal rules allow systems to acquire meaning despite being made of "meaningless" elements. It also discusses what it means to communicate, how knowledge can be represented and stored, the methods and limitations of symbolic representation, and even the fundamental notion of "meaning" itself. In response to confusion over the book's theme, Hofstadter has emphasized that GEB is not about mathematics, art, and music but rather about how cognition and thinking emerge from well-hidden neurological mechanisms. In the book, he presents an analogy about how the individual neurons of the brain coordinate to create a unified sense of a coherent mind by comparing it to the social organization displayed in colony of ants."

Non sequitur. A rejection of empiricism requires a philosophical analysis of empiricism, which inevitably applies the scientific method. The scientific method is apparent in this because the philosopher first asks a question, "what will follow if [x] is true?" Any proposition that follows is a hypothesis, and any action that follows is an experiment, with the conclusion being a theory measured against objective values and existing evidence. Questioning the role of truth is a prime example of this, not an exception. There are no "other ideas out there" in this regard. There may be insane self-contradictory proclamations floating around, but I can't submit that these are 'ideas.' A proposition is either logical or illogical. An idea must be logical, or it cannot be called an idea. A square circle cannot be considered an idea, because it cannot be rendered in the mind. A square circle (and any self-contradictory concept) consists of several independent ideas, but is not an idea. A proof is either valid or invalid, based on logic. The alternatives are, "a proof may be both valid and invalid simultaneously. A proposition may be both logical and illogical simultaneously. Ideas can be both rendered in the mind and impossible to render in the mind, simultaneously." These alternative propositions are not philosophical, they are simply insane. I do not suggest that Stefan has "solved all the old ethical questions." He has submitted proofs, and you or any philosopher (of which I am aware) have not been able to find flaw in these. It is not that UPB should be considered foundational; it merely is. Anyone who says "UPB should not be foundational to all further research," is demonstrating UPB. This is inevitable. You still have not told me your definition of philosophy. Neither have you acquiesced to my proof. Before you attempt further to criticize my proposition, submit your alternative proposition.

I would get a bust of Stef if he had a certain expression... I tried to post the picture of such an expression, but it won't work for some reason. Now I can't delete my post... So pretty much disregard this. Sorry to clutter things up.

I never said I would put Mary is a wood chipper. I said I would separate the abused from the abuser. I'm not "worried" about spelling, I simply can't afford the time to read posts if I have to reread it five times and guess at what is the meaning. These were the least of his indiscretions. Read his post history for more egregious errors. I have very little compassion for those who defend abusers, even in far-fetched imaginary scenarios.

The voluntary element of the decision-making process is crucial to the definition of "murderer." In the case of soldiers of the great wars, I assume (as was the case in the U.S.) many were drafted, and many more were volunteers who granted their services on the basis of false pretenses. In both cases they are themselves victims, either of force or propaganda, and cannot be held fully accountable for the charge of murder. In the case of the draft, there is little or no moral question as to whether the soldier is a murderer; a man with a gun to his head cannot be held morally accountable for obeying the one who wields the gun. In the case of volunteerism, the question of virtue becomes more ambiguous; but can still be deduced based on principles. If a man has good reason to believe that the death of an innocent child is imminent, preventable only by his own use of lethal force, the use of such force against the child's aggressor cannot be considered evil. If a man hears on the radio that there is going to be a mass slaughter of Germans, and he jumps out of his chair and signs up to join, elated by the idea of being able to kill some Aryans, he is evil. Today, in the absence of a draft, I believe most people that join the armed forces fit neatly into these two categories; sadistic sociopaths, or woefully deceived heroes. Is it disrespectful to ask the question? Of course not. Is it disrespectful to assert the ANZAC is a choice vehicle of murderers? Absolutely. But I happen to think that it's a damn good thing to disrespect people that are not deserving of respect. It's also helpful to ask the question, because it reveals who around you is not willing to consider it with curiosity.

I wonder if there are ways to counter propaganda such as this with like force. Is it possible to create a cartoon comedy series depicting virtue, that would become as popular?

I know I said I wouldn't respond to any more of these posts, but I feel compelled to express the pride and honor I feel in being specifically acknowledged. It tells me I'm doing something right. I wouldn't, of course, tell a blind man to stop tapping his cane. However, if he was counting out five-dollar bills as though they were twenty's, I would politely correct him. The latter analogy is more appropriate for our situation. If you don't even spell Stefan's name right on his own forum, I can't believe that the problem has anything to do with your disability. As spelling and grammar variations change the meaning of what you say, it is especially important in a conversation about reason to correct what you say. Criticisms of grammar and spelling are, after all, based on reason. Toodles! It will probably be good for everyone for you to have some time away from the forum. I hope you reevaluate your position and join again someday. Until then, I appreciate you stepping away from the discussion.

I watched my first episode of American Dad, and was greatly disturbed that such levels of sadism and anti-masculinity have become, not just prevalent in, but the crux of mainstream entertainment. In this episode, a vicious storm descended upon the family's home town. The title character claimed to have taken preventative measures against natural disasters (sealing the house against water, fire, chemical attacks, etc.), but all these fail. The failure of these measures, and the failure of the father figure to render viable solutions to subsequent problems become the prime point of ridicule for the duration of the episode. The man's wife is constantly skeptical of his methods and solutions, but the man overrides her protests with adamant refusal to negotiate, or engage in a rational discussion. The consequences of the man's actions are catastrophic, and the criticisms of the wife always prove to be well-founded. I was especially disturbed by the interaction of the family's alien character with a girl. The girl was in 'puppy-love' with the alien, but her advances were met with sociopathic indifference and sadism. At one point, the house capsizes and the girl is hanging from the floor, and the alien tells another character just to ignore her desperate cries. In the next moment, she falls from the floor and is impaled by a chandelier. The depiction was quite graphic, and the alien was initially distressed; but the punch line is that he was only distressed at the soiling of his sweater, which she was wearing. Later, we learn the girl clung to life, only to be murdered by the annoyed alien. Upon seeing this, my stomach turned. I was shocked and sad, and it took a minute to clear my head of the image of the girl impaled by the chandelier. After the sensation had passed, I was strangely happy and proud of the level of empathy that I have cultivated that would elicit the reaction that I experienced. I was then saddened by the question, "this is supposed to be funny?" It seems more and more entertainment depends upon an intellectually limited and empathetically numbed audience. Why is this funny to people? Can anyone explain it to me in a way that doesn't require suppressing empathy? Is this show a good barometer for social sadism? Any guidance on this would be appreciated. I would particularly love a reason not to be discouraged by this blatant glorification of sadism and anti-masculinity.

And how do those theorists reject the use of the scientific method? By applying it, and subsequently dismissing the results based on their implications. Therefore, they rely upon the scientific method in order to dismiss it (as is often the case with UPB). If reason and evidence are tools of truth, then the scientific method is inevitably the vehicle for distinguishing truth from falsehood. How is the scientific method a "philosophical construct in itself?" I don't understand what you mean by the word 'construct.' The scientific method by itself has nothing to do with virtue or happiness, and those are the ultimate aims of philosophy. I can't live my life by the tenets of the scientific method; I can only apply it. Whatever definition you choose for philosophy (so long as it is rational), the remainder of my proof is valid, as it is a question of set theory. What is your definition of "general" philosophy? If you care about the dialogue going on here, you should avoid phrase like, "this at least you should know," or "varying degrees of validity." The first because it implies that I should already know what you're attempting to prove (which is ridiculous and condescending) and the second because a proposition in philosophy is either valid or it is not. I down-voted two of your comments because you made inaccurate and defamatory generalizations about the community here in an attempt to cast yourself as the victim. Behavior like this is often called "poisoning the well," because it discourages others from engaging in the conversation at all.

You have ignored many valid criticisms. I will not be responding to any more posts from you until these are addressed, and I recommend others do the same to save themselves time. I shudder to think what behavior you are justifying with your moral relativism. Nonetheless, it's amusing to see attempts at debunking UPB inevitably relying upon UPB; I'm glad that you have brought examples of this to the forum. It may help people understand UPB. Also, you may be perceived in a better light if you gave everyone the courtesy of checking your spelling and grammar before you post.

Philosophy is the application of the scientific method as it pertains to human thought. If I refer to 'Nietzche's philosophy,' I am referencing Nietzsche's propositions, theories, and proofs within the system of philosophy. Nietzche does not have his own system of philosophy. For this reason, I avoid saying things like 'Nietzsche's philosophy' altogether. Instead, it is more accurate to say, 'Nietzsche's theorem,' or 'Nietzsche's proof,' or 'Nietzche's conclusion.' Within the system of philosophy, there are sets and subsets of ideas, but there are not different types, or systems, of philosophy. Similarly, in mathematics, there are different approaches to solutions, different applications, different scopes, and different assumed parameters; but there is only one system of mathematics. As you say, a philosopher may specialize in certain 'subsets [in the system] of philosophy,' as an engineer specializes in certain subsets [in the system] of mathematics. There are not, however, types and sub-types of philosophy any more than there are types and sub-types of mathematics. If you say that this site focuses on "Molyneuxism," you need to prove that the discourse is confined to theorems, proofs, or principles that are solely and directly attributable to Stefan. The moment the conversation exceeds this description, the site is no longer constrained to the descriptor "Molyneuxism." Such a proof would be impossible. Therefore, a philosophy forum such as this is a platform for philosophy in general. You unwittingly reveal your ignorance while attempting condescension. This is why you have been down-voted.

Just because something does not violate the NAP does not mean it is automatically 'okay.' There are other universal principles that can be applied to define the moral content of an action. To say 'the non-aggression principle doesn't apply to [this], so it's a load of crap!' is akin to saying, 'Newtonian physics cannot help us learn more about black holes, so it's a load of crap!' The NAP is useful for finding the moral content of some human interactions. Nobody is claiming that adherence to the NAP will solve all the world's problems; just lots of them. Universally preferable behavior still applies to animals and the environment, and most of the examples from your video would be considered a violation of UPB, though not a violation of the non-aggression principle. A sadist is someone who feels pleasure when they observe a pain response in another creature. To act sadistically is to cause another living thing to feel pain, for the sole purpose of observing the pain response that is enjoyed by the sadist. So the non-sadistic principle asserts that it is immoral to cause pain in another living thing for the sole purpose of enjoying the pain response that is observed.