Nathan Metric

Am I allowed to marry people in another country? Say yes for free trade and no for protectionism.

1)Are you saying those three values are only good if God saids they are good or are you saying they have no moral significance at all? 2)But that is assuming that we ought to achieve eternal bliss. If eternal bliss is good then how can God be all-good for not giving us eternal bliss right from the get go? 3)Even if Christ's motivation was Love, it doesn't change the fact he has no right to die for our sins. Love is an emotion. Emotions have no automatic moral significance. There are no "good" or "bad" emotions without relation to the truth. The only good emotion is one that is based on the truth and the only bad emotion is one that is based on lies. 4)See this why I like Christians better than relativists. They actually understand what I'm saying. They understand the more sophisticated drives and emotions that man is capable of. Jesus does not have to die for other people's sin to prove that love (care) is a virtue. UPB does not assume to know the ultimate nature of reality. It is merely based on the inherent virtue of the truth. There will always be a debate about what the ultimate nature of reality is, but that has no bearing on the virtue of the truth.

Let's quote what you said earlier. "All archaic religions are about two things: prohibitions and sacrifice. Perhaps Jesus forgave his executors from the cross to show us, once and for all, that neither of these are effective for ordering society any longer." If Jesus wants to show that neither prohibitions or sacrifice are effective for ordering society anymore that is implying that prohibitions and sacrifice are sins. That which is not effective at ordering society = a sin. Am I wrong? Okay first of all, I never said God doesn't exist. I am not an atheist. My point is that the Christian conception of God is wrong. Second, you can either treat the stories of the Bible as absolute historical truth or you can treat them as myths that give us wisdom. The Book of Job is in my opinion a myth that has meaning even if it none of it actually happened. I am not one of those dogmatic atheists who thinks literally every single thing that comes from religion is wrong. I think there is plenty of wisdom in the Bible, but also plenty of bad in it. Third, the ethic of truth being preferable to falsehood does not mean truth is the only virtue. For example, if truth is a virtue that means pursuing the truth is a virtue. If pursuing the truth is a virtue then that means maximizing the pursuit of truth is a virtue. If maximizing the pursuit of truth is a virtue then finding a way for rational beings to peacefully live with each other is a virtue. Which means universal ethical rules are a virtue. ETC ETC, etc. Molyneux's UPB is an example of a treatise that deduces that there other virtues from the premise that truth is preferable to falsehood.

Yes it did. God and Satan decided to experiment on him because God bragged about him being the greatest human being on Earth. And even if we accept that none of this was Job's fault are you denying that people who pursue virtue find suffering on the way? Do the heroes in war not suffer? Do women in childbirth not suffer? Does a small businessman not suffer under his ambition? Does the person who speaks truth to power not suffer? I think it is common sense that virtious behavior tends to be behavior that causes us to suffer. That is why we go out of our way to respect heroism. If virtue always gave us happiness then there would be no point to morality. Morality (and God's commandments) might as well not exist if virtue always lead to happiness.

"“Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face” (Job 1:9-11). The point of God testing Job is to prove a point to Satan that man is capable of being good even despite goodness causing him suffering. Ah, but see if we should be good even if goodness causes us suffering then what the hell is the point of the afterlife? God has no good reason for promising us access to Heaven. And if it is "good" for God to create an imperfect universe then that is yet another reason why God has no business interfering with our lives. If eternal bliss is bad then the very idea of Heaven is bad. If the idea of Heaven is bad....then why should God intervene in our lives? If imperfection is Good then that means it is morally wrong for God to try to perfect our lives. God's existence is actually immoral. So there is no way around the Problem of Evil. This idea that the universe needs to be imperfect to be good rather than saving the Christian God from the problem of evil it actually just opens up a whole new can of worms. God is either indifferent; being equally responsible for both good and evil or he just plain doesn't exist. Both of which means you cannot derive morality from God. The truth is virtuous. That which is untrue or based on that which is not true is not virtuous. If we are able to reason that goodness is inherent to the character of God then there is no reason for God to give us these commandments. I agree there is nothing apriori wrong with self-interest. My point is that there is no moral significance to Christ dying on the cross; no reason to celebrate Christ's glory except out of fear if we were to accept that Divine Command Theory.

He is judging God by the standard of logical consistency. A moral being does not contradict itself.

When I mean by something being the "highest good" I meant to say "higher good". That was bad grammar. If ending undeserved suffering is good then ending all undeserved suffering would be the maximally good or higher good. Does that make sense? Sorry, but I am not exactly sure what you're saying here. My interpretation of what your saying is "I propose that doing what you should do is the highest good". Which I agree with of course. The purpose of our lives is to do what we should do. Not sure what your point is. Are you saying eternal bliss is bad or impossible? If yes, then what moral right does God have to offer you an eternal bliss? What right does God have to try to perfect the lives of mankind? If something is good (such as ending undeserved suffering) is good then maximally ending undeserved suffering must also be good otherwise there is no reason to believe the former is good. So if eternal goodness is bad then this benevolent God of yours has no moral right to offer you Heaven. (in fact, he wouldn't even be "benevolent" by your logic) Anyway, I don't think it is actually possible to achieve perfect virtue anyway. We will always be immoral and trying to pursue virtue. Ending all undeserved suffering is just a theory. Even if this Jesus character did "show us the way" so to speak it wouldn't change the fact that we have an innate proneness to sin. So no there is nothing absolutely meaningful about Christ's death. Man is just as prone to sin after Christ's death as he was before Christ's death. So Christ didn't actually accomplish anything other than give us bad selfish reasons for acting morally. Have you read the book of Job? Although the metaphysics behind that book are problematic, the message of it is really good. A truly moral man does not need the bribe of Heaven to act good. He acts good because his reason cannot allow himself to have a self-interest outside of what is moral. For that would be arbitrary. That story in the book of Job is probably the only thing about the Bible I like. It is sad that practically nobody understands the esoteric wisdom of that story. A person who acts good because the universe (God) is going to give him happiness does not deserve happiness.

Let's say ending death is good. That means ending ALL death is good right? It doesn't make sense to believe that ending death is good and then to believe that ending all death is bad. That is a contradiction. You can't have it both ways. We can say the same to other goals. if order is good then achieving perfect order must also be the highest good. That means if God does not create perfect order then he is not all-Good. If ending undeserved suffering is good then ending all undeserved suffering is the highest good. That means if God does not prevent all undeserved suffering he is not actually all-Good. He is to some extent evil. If giving people bliss is evil then the very idea of Heaven is evil. He might as well not give us Heaven since giving people eternal bliss is obviously bad. God might as well kill himself since there is no moral justification for him to exist since perfecting the lives of mankind is evil. We might as well lose and win in this purgatory called Earth forever since eternal bliss is immoral. My interpretation of this passage is this. A)that Christianity transcends archaic religions like Judaism. B)That Christ created some new paradigm (by his death and his forgiveness) where prohibitions and sacrifice were no longer the way to organize society. Please explain how my interpretation is wrong. Because my response is based on this interpretation of what you're saying. Just because I am not a Christian doesn't mean I cannot claim knowledge of what Christians typically believe. Jesus had to die, but not for the reason Christians think. Jesus died because he was a primitive man ignorant to the causes of death (as we all are) and because he committed the sin of commiting suicide for someone else's sins. Something he does not have a right to do. Not sure what victim your talking about, but whatever abstract victim you speak of you do not need to die to prove they are innocent.

You said Jesus stopped the sins of sacrifice and prohibition by forgiving his executors (which makes no sense. Christianity is all about the virtue of sacrifice and refraining from indulgence). In order for his executors to value his forgiveness they would of had to been shown somehow that what they were doing was a sin in the first place. Jesus did no such thing. Jesus was not a philosophy. He made no arguments for his ethics. Just a bunch of commands coupled with some magical sorcery which probably didn't happen. Jesus was a man. He was not omniscient and he committed the sin of dying for our sins (a right he does not have). So therefore he deserved to die. And even if Jesus did do all those magical things it would have no bearing on what is moral. An omniscient all-powerful being cannot be trusted. Would you trust an all-knowing all-powerful human? If not then why on earth would you would you put your faith in an all-seeing all-powerful God? An all-powerful being can choose to act evil or good. There is no reason to expect that he MUST act good. This God of yours could very well be a Great Demon luring you to the abyss. Perhaps Heaven is for those that DISOBEY God's word and hell is precisely for those that are lured by his lies. Wouldn't that be interesting? So no. Morality can never come from religious teaching. It must come from logic. From the inherent virtue of logic; from the inherent virtue of the truth must we derive morality.

What makes you think I didn't read it?

Jesus does not need to forgive a sin to show that something is a sin...... Christians say Jesus died on the cross for our sins, but Jesus has no right to die for our sins. We are to blame for our sins so therefore we should suffer for them. In fact, we all eventually do suffer for our sins. It's called death. We all get what we deserve in the end. All the people that acquire power eventually lose all their power. All the people that mindlessly pursue wealth will eventually lose all their wealth. Those who acquired fame in life will have their fame negated by time. And the best of all, those people who pursue a life full of hedonistic pleasure will surely get the fullest pain and terror of a meaningless death. There is nothing that evil grants you in this world that death will not take away. Only those that commit themselves to virtue get to keep anything at all (death does not take away virtue) Only those that suffer by choice will be able to smile in the face of death, but even they are sinners. We die because we are ignorant and sinful. If we were not ignorant of the causes of death and did not sin we would never die. This is why Stefan said "philosophers are the only REAL doctors". No no no, the argument isn't evil exists therefore God doesn't exist. The argument is that evil exists therefore a ALL-GOOD God doesn't exist. Oh by the way, not everyone who disagrees with Christianity is an atheist. Some of us have yet stranger ideas like pandeism.

Here are 2 more arguments against this claim that religion can give us objective morality. 1)A God gives us commandments. B He either he gives us commandments because a)his commandments are attuned to what is objectively good or b)God simply has to the power to give us commandments and wants to give us commandments for incomprehensible reasons. C)If the former is true then God has no moral reason for intervening in the lives of humans in such an esoteric manner because divine intervention via a prophet results in a relativism where other people can pretend to be prophets and invent their own contradictory set of divine commandments. How does that serve the goal getting humans to act morally? If morality is objective then man's reason alone can discover it. Man does not need God to discover morality for him. D)If the latter is true then God's commandments have no moral significance. God is evil and tyrannical. This next one applies to Christianity only. 1)Christ died on the cross. 2)Either there was an objective moral reason to die on the cross or there was no objective moral reason to die on the cross. 3)If the former is true that begs the question, what right does Christ have to die for our sins? If one commits a sin isn't it the duty of that sinner to suffer the consequences for that sin? If I commit an act of murder don't I deserve to be executed? What right does Christ have to die for my murder? 4)If the latter is true then there is no moral significance in Christ dying on the cross. His death on the cross is purely self-serving.

The problem is we can't even agree on what "Racism", "bigotry" or "prejudice" mean in the first place. Worklok's definition of racism "Racism: Belief that one race is inherently superior/inferior to another, yet not reliant on scientific fact of basic differences between various races/groups." EclectricIdealist's definition "Racism: Belief that one race is inherently superior/inferior to another, and consequently, individuals of such races should be treated differently." Those are two completely different concepts of what racism is. So which is correct? Well, racism is supposed to be used in a derogatory way. Which means it better damn well have a derogatory meaning lest it reduced to a manipulative curse word. Now is possessing beliefs about race based on evidence evil? No, so why should that be considered racism? Isn't the truth a virtue? Why would holding beliefs that are based on the truth be evil? That seems like an utter absurdity!!!! So clearly Worklok's definition is better because it adds the qualification that the beliefs have to not be based on evidence which is an obvious vice. Without that qualification there is no moral significance in calling someone a racist.

It is possible for a rational person to commit evil by accident, but evil in and of itself is irrational because evil does not serve the pursuit of truth nor is there a rational justification for evil.

This is my last response for real this time for I'm deleting my account after this one. Which of course answers nothing. What exactly is my "happiness" and "pleasure" other than the fulfillment of my self-interest? So simply saying my self-interest is what advances my own happiness and pleasure answers nothing. Answers nothing Oh so are you saying I SHOULD believe that there is no such thing as "should"? It was a hypothetical. I already know exactly what I want and what I want is to do what I should do. Why will there are 4 reasons why. The Number 1 reason is because nihilism is intellectual hypocrisy. There is no way to argue for nihilism in a logically consistent manner. The Number 2 reason is that only death is real. Death is inevitable, uncertain, and absolute. So life should be about finding meaning in death rather than accentuating the pleasure of life. Death negates all fleeting pleasures. The more meaningful life is to a person the more meaningless death becomes. All the pleasure, all the wealth, all the power, all the friends, and all the fame you acquired for your personal enjoyment are taken away from you in death. I see no fulfillment in a life centered around so called "personal fulfillment". The Number 3 reason is that the government and criminals rely on the fact that you a)value life and fear death and b)have no strong beliefs in order to control you. Nihilists then are part of the enemy. For one, they try to manipulate you into accentuating the pleasure of life and they get you doubt everything. Only men who don't fear of death and are uncorrupted by doubt can take on evil. "Freedom" is a state of mind. Period. And we are too damn egotistical, too damn happy, too damn calculating, too damn fat, and too damn comfortable to do what is necessary to be free. The Number 4 reason is probably the most subjective reason. My personal reason for living morally is because quite frankly I see no egotistical reason for living. My favorite pastime is sleeping or not being conscious at all. My work sucks, I hate the human race, women would not enjoy my company (wouldn't be able to sleep sharing a bed with someone), marriage is a drag, the music is terrible, the movies are unreal and I see no avenue for meaningful accomplishment in my hobbies.The only reason I live is duty. i would not want to cause my dad or my sister to suffer from me prematurely dying. Without them I would be a completely unhinged and dangerous individual. So basically there is NOTHING anyone can do to convince me to abandon morality. I used to be a nihilistic person in my youth i don't plan on returning to that state. Ever. With virtue there is power and with evil there is no power.

What is this mythical "self-interest" thing you keep referring to and why should we pursue it? In fact let me add a hypothetical. Right now, I am going through a stressful period in my life. I'm not sure what I want to do with it. I don't know what my "self-interest" is exactly. So what should my self-interest be? Should my self-interest be what it should be or what it shouldn't be?

In order for something to be true there has to be a logical way to argue for it. There is no way to argue "all values are subjective" in a logically consistent manner because it imposes no duty on the listener to accept it. Rather it destroys the foundation necessary for the claim to have any meaning at all.

You're wrong. All moral debates are debates about the truth. Any moral debate that isn't about the truth is just a bunch of subjective nonsense. The first presupposition of all true philosophers is that the truth matters. If you do not agree with this then you are not a philosopher. The very word philosopher means one who loves the truth. Since truth is the highest virtue then rationality is a virtue. Since rationality is a virtue then meaningful cooperation/competition between rational beings is a virtue. If meaningful cooperation/competition between rational beings is a virtue then universal morality is preferable to non-universal morality.

Morality is what you should do. What you should do is what is necessary to acquire virtue. Virtue is whatever transcends And what transcends everything is the truth. Truth = Virtue = The Goal of Morality Where is the circularity?

Oh, so you're saying it is not universally preferable to believe that all values are subjective? GREAT! So you're agreeing with us then. It is NOT universally preferable to believe that values are subjective so therefore there is no reason for anyone to adopt this nihilistic philosophy of yours.

Translation: There is such a thing as a universal preference: you ought to hold the correct belief that all preferences are subjective.

Page 30 "When I speak of a universal preference, I am really defining what is objectively required or necessary assuming a particular goal" In this case for the rest of the book the goal is being moral. Page 33-34 "Thus when I talk about universal preferences, I am talking about what people should prefer, not what they always do prefer. To use a scientific analogy, to truly understand the universe, people should use the scientific method – this does not mean that they always do so, since clearly billions of people consult ancient fairy tales rather than modern science for“answers.” He is talking about what is universally preferable to be moral. Now Stefan could add the clause "to be moral" at the end of every use of "universally preferable" but that would just make the book unnecessarily tedious. It's frankly obvious what goal Stefan had in mind. Wrong! Murder isn't wrong because not everyone can do it at the same time. It's wrong because the the moral theory "murder is universally preferable" will always force someone into the status of evil. A valid rule does not force anyone into the status of evil. A baby who is incapable of doing what an adult can do is not by any means in the status of evil so there is nothing wrong with an adult doing what a baby cannot do.

This is not true. You cannot cite property rights to interfere with the purpose of property rights which is to serve man's mind. There is no such thing as "necessity" in reality. There is what you should do, what you merely want to you and and what you shouldn't do. "There are no have to's in life". (Stefan's own words on a very early podcast) Is the person who breaks the window acting virtuously? Yes, but saying he is doing so "by necessity" is utter nonsense. That is just bad metaphysics. It's also not virtuous for the reason you're saying. The guy who breaks the window is not virtuous because he is preventing harm but because he is a rational being deserving of life. The reason rational beings deserve life is because having rational beings meaningfully cooperate and compete with each other is a virtue. This order between rational beings is a virtue because rationality is a virtue. Rationality is a virtue because the TRUTH is a virtue and there is no higher virtue than the truth. "Harm" and "utility" are subjective so you cannot base an objective moral rule on reducing harm or maximizing utility. Lying to a Nazi is virtuous but not for the reason you're saying. The reason you can lie to a Nazi in order to save the lives of Jews is because Jews are rational beings deserving of protection whereas the Nazi are anti-rational beings. if the truth is a virtue than that which maximizes the pursuit of truth is better than that which does not maximize the pursuit of truth. By allowing Nazi's to kill rational beings you are harming the pursuit of truth so a person who values the truth is by no means contradicting themselves when they lie to a Nazi.

There is no such thing as an honest evil. To act truly evil you have to lack self-knowledge. Clearly anyone who claims to want to act incorrectly MUST lack knowledge of their motivations. Proof Nihilist: Well I want to be incorrect. Moralist: Why? Nihilist: Because....I want to? Moralist: Why? Nihilist: Because it serves my self-interest. Moralist: What is your self-interest exactly? Nihilist: (Lists a bunch of preferences) Moralist: Okay you claimed you wanted to find love. Why is finding love your self-interest? Nihilist: Because love is pleasurable. Moralist: Why pursue pleasure? Nihilist: Because pleasure feels good. Moralist: Why pursue things that feel good? Nihilist: Because that's the point of life. Moralist: Why live? Nihilist: Because life is good? Moralist: Why? Nihilist: pff. I DON'T KNOW! Alternative Proof Nihilist: I want to be incorrect. Moralist: Why? Nihilist: Because that is my self-interest. Moralist: Why? Nihilist: The same reason by breathing fresh air is in my self-interest. Moralist: Why is breathing fresh air part of your self-interest? Nihilist: Because i want to live. Moralist: Why? Nihilist: Because life allows for the pursuit of pleasure. Moralist: Why pursue pleasure? Nihilist: Because it feels good. Moralist: Why pursue things that feel good? Nihilist: Because that is my self-interest. Moralist: Why is that in your self-interest? Nihilist (Struggling to come up with an answer) Pff. I don't know. Alternative Proof Nihilist: Why do you want to be correct? Moralist: Because being correct is better than being incorrect. Nihilist: Why? Moralist: Why are you asking "why?" Nihilist: Because you ought to have a good reason for believing being correct is better than being incorrect. Moralist: Why should I have a good reason for anything? Nihilist: Because I would be convinced to live the way you do if you had a good reason for believing what you believe. Moralist: Why? Nihilist: Because that's what I would find convincing. Moralist: Why? Nihilist: Pff, I don't know. Oh wait, I meant to say you ought to have an incorrect reason for believing being correct is better than being incorrect. Moralist: Why should I? I would be acting inconsistently if I had an incorrect reason for valuing being correct. Nihilist: Right. You would. You should be illogical Moralist: Wait so...you want me to be logical now? Nihilist: No, I want you to be illogical. Moralist: Okay, you so you want me to be logical. Nihilist: No no....ILLogical! Moralist: Logical? Nihilist: ILLOGICAL! Moralist: Okay so I ought to be logical. So then what are we disagreeing about then? Nihilist: (head assplodes)

1) Yes. Denying that Virtue is Virtue or what you should pursue is what you should pursue is denying the Law of Identity. 2)if I don't need to then why in the hell are you expecting me to do so? Either justifying my premises is a virtue or its not. If justifying premises is a virtue then you are presupposing that I ought to pursue virtue and you have no business criticizing the axiom "Thou shall pursue virtue" If justifying my premises is not virtuous then you must be expecting me to justify them for an arbitrary reason. If you are going to act the way you do for an arbitrary reason you have no business criticizing me for appearing to believe things for arbitrary reasons. That would be utter hypocrisy. So either way you lose. All debates presuppose a standard of a virtue and a duty to adhere to that standard. There is no way around this. 3)My definition of virtue is not circular. Explained this a million times. If you're just going to ignore what I said then I'm done.