Tyler H

The concept of morality is concerned with what people should or shouldn't do. It is inherent in the definition of rape that the act being imposed upon the victim is unwanted and therefore the victim is saying, verbally or not, "you should not have sex with me against my will." It is impossible to be morally neutral because the act of rape is not the act of rape without the intrinsic declaration of a moral claim by the victim. This same argument can be applied to the use of force in all areas because if you use force against someone you are saying with your actions "you should/shouldn't do x", and if you defend yourself with force you are saying with your actions "you should't do x." Therefore the protested use of force will always carry a moral component. Thoughts?

Yeah, I've been surprised - he's killing it as POTUS

Sorry to hear that, it is unfortunately rather endemic. I came across this article today while searching for the source that claims an infant will later on as a child exhibit the same behavior as that of a child that was abandoned if they are away from their primary caregiver for 20 hours a week or more (I still haven't been able to find this if someone could provide it). I found the eighth paragraph particularly interesting, it explains somewhat the damage inflicted on an infant when the primary caregiver is absent for extended periods of time (which for a newborn are not all that long).

It's a good question, and I enjoy trying to formulate a response to this. So morally neutral is another way of saying not having anything to do with morality at all, right? It's basically a category which includes all the actions based on subjective preference that have no imposed effect on other people. Morality enters the equation when we are trying to determine what are acceptable interactions between two or more people. From time immemorial people have tried to create rules to govern these interactions, and this is what we recognize as morality. There is nothing that exists that tells us to be moral, but if we want to create moral rules, i.e. rules that regulate behavior, without gods or governments how do we do that? UPB defines morality in such a way that it is logically consistent, with the goal of using reason to restrain the negative behaviors that most moral systems have tried to proscribe through logically inconsistent means. Since morality doesn't exist in tangible reality but only as a concept, the definitions are therefore not explicated by objective reality (like the physical sciences). However that does not mean that the definitions set by people cannot be objective (i.e. in conformity with reality and logically consistent). Similarly, reality does not give us the scientific method; the concept is derived in the minds of people with the goal of conforming to objective reality. Therefore Stef has defined morality as UPB, and within UPB aesthetics (opinions) are defined as non-enforceable actions and ethics as enforceable actions. So since rape requires force to enact and to defend against, it falls into the category of morality, not neutrality. UPB is not for those who reject morality altogether. It's to provide a solution to those looking for morality in the absence of religion and statism, as well as a means to protect moral people from sophists who wish to use the desire people have to be good to dictate ethical values from which they exempt themselves in order to achieve wealth and power. I'm afraid I'm not articulating this as well as I would like, is it making sense?

Remember, UPB proscribes actions, it never prescribes. There are no unchosen positive obligations, only obligations to refrain from certain actions. My understanding is that anything that cannot be universalized (i.e. is logically contradictory) is immoral. In the case of subjective preferences (neutral), it is possible that everyone could like ice cream, even though it is likely that will not be the case. It is not logically possible for everyone to prefer rape by definition, so it can't be universally preferable nor is it morally neutral. It's helpful for me to discard the "moral" category and focus on what is immoral. In other words an action may fall into the category of immoral, the opposite of immoral, or neutral. Is this helpful? Do you think I have any misunderstandings?

I'm sorry to hear about the conflict you are having with your mother. I think this is very common for people who are able to accept the truth of our society. Like you said, we are so few; if it were mere discovery that enlightened us the horrors of coercion would have ended with the creation of the internet, perhaps sooner. It sounds like you really wish to enrich the relationship you have with your mother, if there was anything I could say to aid you in that pursuit I would be happy to help. From what you've said I don't think your mother is stupid, nor do I think she is being disingenuous or evil. I do think what contributes to her intransigence almost certainly stems from childhood and is reinforced and exacerbated by the overwhelming support of society. Another contributing factor is likely to be the answer to this question - in what ways does she have a relationship with the state? If you have not heard the podcast series on the state and the family, it may have some helpful insights as well - http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/89/the-state-and-the-family-part-1-babies But to circle back to maybe a more important part of your relationship with your mother, this comment jumped out at me - Do you find this is the case in areas other than politics? Have your read Real Time Relationships?

Are you saying the only two options available to us are either placing hope in Trump to "buck the trend" of an evolutionarily established human preference to acquire the most resources with the least amount of effort or to pompously antagonize people with dogmatic mantras while simultaneously avoiding any actual interaction with the world like misanthropic, supercilious elitists? I don't think you think this, however it is the way you decided to communicate your preference for voting over what would obviously be a terrible avenue to a free society. I noticed a theme of absolutism in your post; all, never, everybody, everyone. It could be that this mode of thinking leads to the obfuscation of viable alternatives you would otherwise be aware of - or maybe not. Just a thought that crossed my mind, take it or leave it if you find value in it or not.

Thanks. I don't know either, probably a similar reason as to why you got -1. Sorry I had trouble following this analogy, could you rephrase?

Nice article man. My one comment would be in regards to the section on pride in heritage. Philosophically, how can we take pride in someone else's achievements? I think if people reside in the delusion that they derive some sort of inherent virtue from the achievements of someone else who happens to look like them or shares the same gene pool they will rob themselves of the motivation to go out and and do something themselves. If they get a dopamine hit from thinking they are great because of their heritage, then they no longer need to make a difference in the world in their own way. Conversely, I suppose heritage could push people to say "look what my ancestors did, if they could do that then I can do this!" So it could have a positive effect, but when I think of all the people I've ever met who were proud of their heritage sadly it's been the former and not the latter. If your point was only to say, "hey if you guys are going to do it, don't knock whitey for it" then that's certainly a needed sentiment in the world, so thank you. You're taking some arrows for truth and justice and that makes you a hero dude.

What do you mean by "Western civilization" specifically, and how do you envision its preservation? The West is a broad term that encapsulates a significant segment of our brief history, but the image it brings to mind for me is a culture that, while including separation of church and state, innocent until proven guilty, freedom of speech, etc., also includes slavery, taxation, central banking, the draft, the welfare state, national debts, imperial military industrial complex, indoctrination of the young, and the potential turn-key tyranny of the most capable police state the world has ever known. I by no means intend to "throw out the baby with the bathwater" vis-à-vis the freedoms that have arisen concurrently with the development of western civilization, however considering the level to which we are still enslaved by western society as it stands I would have to push back against its perpetual preservation. If western civilization is the hold from which we are slipping as we ascend to the precipice of liberty, which I very well think it is, then yes, of course, we need to reposition and find our grip. But I don't think we are meant to stop here. We owe posterity to not only regain the ground we've lost, but to keep climbing. Perhaps what I think of when I hear "the West" is not what others mean, so I welcome education if I've misunderstood.

I imagine the purpose of being entirely offline is to avoid prying eyes. Is this the case?

You want one that just stays offline or one that was never online? The former seems fairly simple so I gather it's the latter.

Right, I agree, and I didn't mean to imply we should. Hijacked words like rights, anarchism, capitalism, etc., I think it's important to avoid these terms in any given conversation until they've been defined. I don't want to abandon the concepts to sophists, just remain cognizant that to others these terms have been completely perverted. In a war of ideas we absolutely need to fight back against this sort of newspeak. We can't let them rob us of the words required to fight for freedom.

To be clear, I think workers would oppose automation in their own interest, and there happen to be so many with that interest that it provides a source of power for the union leaders and politicians. So the workers just want to keep their jobs, and the unions and politicians exploit that need in order to satisfy their own lust for power. Altogether they make up the opposition to automation, but for desires of immediate needs or power, not ideology.

Yes eventually profits will return to equilibrium, but you're not taking into account the net savings enjoyed by all customers due to the lower costs. Being able to produce goods using fewer resources is a net positive to society.

I think this is pretty good advice. I'll add that when people call in with this question Stef will ask almost every time - what would you do if you won the lottery? It's a good thought experiment to figure out some things about yourself and you may even be able to find a way to make money doing that.

Anyone who is going to lose their job due to automation will unlikely be able to learn a new skill and will likely oppose automation. At present the pace of technology puts a large group of workers in the crosshairs, workers who vote, workers who belong to unions, unions that donate to politicians. While exhibiting communist tendencies, I don't think the current left are ideologues, I think they are just power mongers looking to benefit themselves at the expense of anyone and everyone else.

How?

Here's the dictionary definition; a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. I think that's fairly accurate, perhaps we could replace "moral or legal" with "agreed upon" or "can be universally agreed upon" to improve it. I think the main problem is that right now the legal and moral systems are so screwed up that people claim all sorts of ridiculous rights that can't be philosophically backed up because their premises are incorrect. In a UPB based society I think the word could be revived. Unfortunately the concept is yet another victim to colloquial hijacking.

I am curious, what is the motivation for developing this argument? In my view, any measure of success will only serve to arm the enemy with more sophistry. Is it an anticipatory maneuver in order to defeat the argument?

But the inability for the government to allocate resources as efficiently as the free market would inevitably lead to further economic damage. So the government giving people jobs will only make matters worse. I'm having trouble differentiating what you're talking about from communism, which we know is a massive failure. If the argument is that one coercive action justifies another, then where does it end? Correct me if I've misunderstood.

He mentions it quite a few times, but I can't remember which episodes. As far as I know it's not his theory, whenever he references it he refers to it as "there's this idea" so I'm not sure where it originated. The basic idea is that in general it'll take ten good experiences to dismiss a bad one, i.e. if you go to a restaurant and have a bad meal then whether you ever go back would be dependent upon how many good meals you had there.

I agree.

I don't think he expressed a desire to create empathy in others, only himself. To recognize the lack of empathy in the world I think is a wise thing. Focusing on empathy for yourself first and foremost is paramount to avoiding an excess of empathy towards those who do not deserve it. You want to empathize with an attacker so you understand his motives and the danger you are in, but not as much as you empathize with yourself so you can act in your own interest as much as possible to the best of your ability. What you don't want is to empathize with others more than you or they empathize with yourself, that will lead to exploitation at best and death at worst. So focusing on increasing empathy in others may be an act that will lead to despair and paralysis, but focusing on empathy within yourself for yourself and for others is the first step in being able to sustain the motivation needed to apply yourself in the other ways you mentioned; preparation and execution. You will never find the will to help the world if you don't have empathy for yourself or others.

In order to empathize with others you first need to be able to empathize with yourself. In other words, in order to understand how someone else feels, you need to be able to fully experience and accurately identify your own feelings. This is an area where self knowledge and therapy can really help. In regards to debating, after you've developed your empathic muscles, get people to define their terms. Clear up the misunderstandings at the very start. If something sounds ambiguous get them to clarify and hold them to that definition, or offer up a different one if you disagree, but make things as clear as possible so they can't move the goalposts later. If they do, then you can call them out on it much easier with the backup of their own prior agreement. As far as how to think - reason and evidence. Ask yourself how do I know this? Is it logically consistent? Does the empirical data match the sense data and does this data reinforce my logical analysis? This is where some books or classes on logic will help. Here's a website that explains some logical fallacies that I found useful. Wikipedia's list is a little more extensive. This will help improve your logic. If you haven't already, I would also recommend Stef's podcast series An Introduction to Philosophy. Do you mind if I ask which thousand podcasts you listened to? Was it a certain block of them or did you jump around?