Lykourgos

Saying "the NAP is objective" doesn't achieve anything. In your post, you don't even tell me what good and evil are, or show any of the steps you took to reach a conclusion regarding objective morality. I'm trying to get someone, anyone, to show how they validly reached the conclusion that the NAP is an objective rule of morality. That claim is the foundation for the idea that libertarianism can't solely be attacked from a practical standpoint. Why is it relevant if rape is "universally preferable behaviour"; that term has multiple definitions in the UPB, and I have never seen the concept used in a helpful or valid manner. It's a totally unhelpful statement at this point; you'd need to explain what you meant by it, relate it to the other essential terms, and then properly respond to the issue in question: why "aggression is evil" is an objective rule morality. So please, speak to the issue. Show me the working out, or walk away from the principle and admit that libertarianism is nothing more than a personal preference that is subject to all the criticism that goes along with that. Yet, you saw me put together this alleged strawman piece by piece, using the explanation of other posters. You obviously think I took a wrong step, so do the right thing and give us a helping hand. If we were building a car and you saw me putting the seats in backwards you'd have something to say, right? So adopt that approach and help construct your ideology. Libertarianism at this point is a broken down Datsun; is it destined for the scrapheap, or do I need further assistance following the instructions?

No worries, I totally understand. Personally, if libertarians only talked about the NAP as a personal preference or a practical rule, then I probably would never even mention it. When I heard libertarians say that it is an objective moral rule, though, and therefore the practical and subjective concerns are irrelevant to the underlying point of right and wrong, then I had to come looking for answers. Why are you saying "human morality" rather than morality; are you saying that morality only extends to humans and nothing else? What do you mean when you say an objective moral rule has to apply to all humans; you don't mean that as being by definition, do you? The rule, "if a man eats a rabbit it is good" looks objective to me, as it would be independent from human opinion. Yet, it doesn't apply to females; or would you say that it does apply to females, in the sense that it actually applies to all of reality but is only relevant to a sub-section? Let me know either way; I suppose a female could even change her genetic information and transform herself into a male if the technology was available. Anyway, let's examine the proof that you've offered in this post. In your own way, it looks like you only posited that there is no objective moral rule that "aggression is good". I agree that aggression lacks any inherent, objective good, although for different reasons. What I would really like to see, though, is the proof for the NAP, the proof that the initiation of aggression is evil. It's a bit of a tangent, but I'd still like to discuss some of the proof you gave regarding aggression here. You say you can't advocate and oppose aggression at the same time; why do you say that? It's not uncommon for people to want violence against another person and unwant it against themselves. Yet, more worryingly, the fact that something is wanted or unwanted sounds subjective. You aren't trying to build an objective moral system on a foundation of subjective wants and unwants, are you? Easy does it, tiger, nobody is being dishonest or trying to trick you. I know that philosophy can sting, but that's life. I came here to this forum because the host of this site is in the habit of saying that practical objections to NAP and libertarianism are insufficient. He claims that libertarianism is the necessary result of objective morality, and therefore we ought to follow it come what may. That is the claim that brought me here, the notion that the NAP is a rule of objective morality. I will gladly depart when I'm satisfied that the claim has received its due measure. If offering proof is beyond your ability, then so be it, but don't slam the door on the way out. Hi RoseCodex, thanks for the kind observation. I have noticed that a few people describe the UPB as a test or method, and I read the part where the author tries to conduct a few tests in the text. I have a strong opinion about the UPB, but at the end of the day it's the propositions, not the test, that interest me the most. I'm hoping to find the proof that the NAP is a rule of objective morality. If the person who comes to my rescue uses the UPB, that's fine. I would just read the proof and point out any questions or concerns I have along the way. If the concerns wind up showing that the UPB is flawed, well, I guess we'll be released from more than one notion that day. ----I'll take things in order, with sections marked off with hyphens. Let's start! It sounds like we have a similar definition for objective. I still don't see why you are using the term universal, though. It also looks like you have two separate definitions for the one term, one normal and one special. See as follows: 1. Applicable or present for everything in a category. (normal definition) Example: (a) gravity applies to all physical substances, so it is universal to physical substances. (b) all my guests today desire ice cream, so my guests today universally desire ice cream. 2. Objective (independent from opinion). (special definition) Example: 1+1=2 is true regardless of opinion, so 1+1=2 is universally true. When you say NAP is universal because its truth comes from logic rather than human opinion, it sounds like you're repeating yourself. NAP is objective and objective. Or, alternatively, NAP is a rule that applies to X, so it is a rule that applies to X. That gravity is not entirely universal, in the sense that it does not apply to logical formulas, is proof that the term is superfluous here. Let's go further, let's say that there is a physical rule that causes things to vibrate when they are in a certain physical location. That rule would still be universal, because by definition it applies only to that particular physical location. Even if you disagree (and please explain if you do), the rule about vibrations would still be objective because it is totally independent from opinion. You're going to vibrate there whether you like it or not, it exists independent of our desires. ----So much for universal; if you disagree I'd love to hear it, but at this point I think the term should be abandoned. Next, let me touch on your brief description of rape. Rape in these discussions isn't just "without consent", otherwise you could just have one person sexually penetrate another by accident without consent. Rape involves at least two parties with their respective wants, and a physical act. The lack of consent is a reference to the fact that one actor wants to sexually penetrate the other, and the other actor unwants to be sexually penetrated. From here on out, though, I'm going to change the offense from rape to battery. I've never understood the point of using rape, it just muddies the water because it's a more controversial topic. If you think the offense of rape is distinct from battery for purposes of proving the NAP, then please let me know why you think that, because I just don't see it. Rape is an offense within the category of battery. ----Moving on to the point about the meaning of good and evil Maybe it will help to take a step back. I am trying to understand why you believe that "aggression is evil". To do that, I need to know whether you believe the statement "aggression is evil" is, (A) A first principle (irreducible) or (B) A rule deduced by way of first principles. I understand it to be (B). I therefore want to know how the rule "aggression is evil" was deduced. I need to know, (A) What aggression is. and (B) What evil is. Then, I will either submit the building blocks to further examination, or be able to conclude whether "aggression is evil" is an objective rule. So, let us pick up where I understood "aggression is evil" to be a rule derived from principles: 1. Are "aggression" and "evil" synonymous? No. 1. (A) What is the definition of aggression? Aggression is an act that at least one human participant wants and one human participant unwants. 1. (B) What is the definition of evil? Evil is everything that a human unwants. Conclusion 1: "aggression" is "evil" because it consists of an action that a human participant unwants. 2. Does evil have an opposite? Yes 2. (A) What is the opposite? Good 2. (A) (i) What is the definition of good? Good is that which is wanted. Conclusion 2: "aggression" is "good" because it consists of an action that a human participant wants. 3. Are the two conclusions logically consistent? No. So then I stop, because if it is taken objectively it will violate the principle of non-contradiction. However, I can apply the test subjectively because then a single physical event is good to one person and evil to another. When libertarians define aggression, they improperly omit the term "at least one human participant wants". You cannot have aggression with an aggressor, who by definition wants the act, so I have elucidated the full definition. If you disagree, please explain your objection, because I don't see how one would have aggression without both want and unwant. Yet, this exact issue makes it a contradictory standard unless we admit that it is subjective. ----- Finally, the examination of the fistfight First, I just want to make sure we have the same facts here, because our language is different We agree that, objectively, the punch occured, and that Herakles wanted to punch Theseus. I said that Theseus "unwanted" to be punched, but you say that he "does not want" to be punched. Obviously, "unwant" is not a word that we use in common speech, but I'm saying it because it is the opposite of want; a repulsion, rather than an absence of any desire. So, objectively speaking, the physical movement occurred, Herakles formed the want, Theseus formed the unwant. With that established, I now notice several problems. You say, "there's no consent for this action", yet there clearly is consent from Herakles; you can't have a battery without at least one person consenting. You acknowledge this in your next post (which I read after writing this all out, doh!) when you say consent is "permission for something to happen or agreement to do something". You also say it's the consent of people to the action, plural. That definition is the one I have, it's the common definition for the term; an expression of willingness, whether by someone proactively doing something or passively experiencing something. Here, there is consent from Herakles, he agrees to this battery. If he didn't, there'd be no battery! Only Theseus shows dis-consent (opposite of consent, not negation). So, it is inaccurate to say there is no consent. You can never have aggression without want and unwant; consent to a physical event like battery is an issue on both sides. I think you realise this when you say, "whether the action is wanted by the person taking the action isn't relevant to the morality of the situation otherwise you'd have a world where any action is morally permissible providing the person doing it wanted to do it". Yet, that is exactly my point, it is a subjective standard. If you have reached this conclusion, then it is time to unshackle yourself from the NAP and probably libertarianism in general. The notion that NAP is an objective rule is rotten to the core; the attempts to prove it are a minefield of ill-combined definitions. To say that a battery took place "because Theseus did not consent" is actually false; if Theseus had just stared silently at the fire thinking "I don't consent to battery!" then there would be no battery, because Herakles would never have taken a swing. For the battery to occur, someone needs to consent to the physical action taking place, whereupon that person will then accordingly move his body. Battery involves 2 people with 2 different mental states. Doh, I wrote everything above before realising you wrote this. Maybe I could have saved time and just gone straight to this. Thank you for writing out your argument for the objective moral nature of the NAP. If you want to ditch the earlier discussion and take up this new thread, feel free to do so. Your 5 steps are invalid; fundamentally speaking, you fail to give full definitions and you fail to account for opposites. You have only shown a subjective moral rule. Allow me to demonstrate: 1) Actions can only be aggressive when they're unwanted by the subject(s) of the action. 1)A) Actions can only be aggressive when they're wanted by the subject(s) of the action. If you are trying to create an initiation/reaction division when you say "subjects", then take the following alternative: 1)A) Actions can only be aggressive when they're wanted by the initiator(s) of the action. 2) All initiation of aggression must logically be unwanted, therefore all initiation of aggression is bad (synonym: wrong) 2)(A) All initiation of aggression must logically be wanted, therefore all initiation of aggression is good. 3) The determination of consent is an objective truth because it doesn't depend on opinion or feelings of whoever determines it. This is just false. The determination of consent is wholly dependent on the opinion or feelings of the participants. I think you are trying to say that although the determination of consent is subjective, once a particular act occurs then whether consent was present is retrospectively an objective question. 4) Something that is wrong is immoral since morality deals with what is right and wrong. Why have we switched to right and wrong, rather than good and evil? Are these synonymous now, along with good and bad? I guess if they're all synonymous I don't really care. 5) Violation of the NAP must be objectively immoral. 5)A) Violation of the NAP must be objectively good. The principle is just that what is unwanted is evil. Therefore, what is wanted is good. Just look at point 2. You say that if something is "logically" unwanted, then something is bad. Why do you say "logically"? It's not like you deduced that aggression is always unwanted by someone; rather, it's true by definition. Aggression is a physical act that is unwanted by at least one participant and wanted by at least one participant. You then posit that what is unwanted is evil. So aggression is evil. The principle boils down to "unwant is evil", which is subjective and immediately results in contradiction. If the principle is something else, then please state it, because this account is not objective.

Huh, my posts seem delayed again, and sometimes they disappear, but at any rate I e-mailed a few days ago.

Who or what are you responding to here? You quoted my whole post, but the only time I mention opinion is in the definition of objective. I don't need someone to say that a definition is not an opinion, or even that 1 + 1 = 2 is not an opinion, or anything like that. I want someone to explain why the claim "NAP is an objective rule of morality" is true. As I said in response to your post, I'd like someone to start from first principles, and present a series of factual claims that logically progress to the point where the author concludes that the rule stated in the NAP (which you helpfully updated) is an objective rule of morality. I'm still waiting, but at this rate I'm not holding my breath. If you can't answer my questions, that's not the end of the world or source of great shame, but this bit about opinion lacks context. If you're trying to say that libertarians don't believe in objective morality, then so be it; I'll leave the discussion of the NAP to people who raise practical arguments. Why do you think an objective moral claim must be applied at all times to all people? Something is objective because it has independent existence or truth, right? If someone claims that a divine entity created reality and instated a moral rule that "foxes killing bunnies when the planets align is evil", that person is positing an objective moral rule. Yet, it doesn't apply at all times to all humans. It doesn't even apply to humans at all. You also keep using the term preferred. Why are you doing that? It sounds like you are positing something that is inherently subjective. Why does a moral rule need the possibility of being preferred by all humans? I'm really curious about the foundation here for a lot of your statements; you may well be right, but there's a lot of background information that's missing. Thanks for the answers. 1st & 2nd paragraphs: Okay, so it sounds like we're getting closer with the term objective. I take the "subjective" in "personal subjective experience" to be superfluous, right? Can I say that, strictly speaking, we agree that at least part of the definition of objective is, "existence or truth independent from opinion"? My problems begin anew when you go further and say, "hence it's true in all cases"; is this superfluous text, or is there a special meaning? In what sense do you think objective things have to be universal, and why do you think they have to apply to everything? You mention gravity, but then I notice that gravity doesn't apply to logical rules. Does that make gravity subjective, or are you just saying that something must be universally applicable in its own domain/category? Isn't that true by definition, as an account of gravity or any other rule or concept would carve out a specific domain of influence? Any objective rule, like the claim that there is a metaphysical law that "foxes shall not kill bunnies when planets align" would be universally applicable; this one would apply to all foxes, bunnies, and planetary alignments. 3rd & 6th paragraphs: So if you posit want and unwant as the source of good and evil, why do you think it's an objective standard? Is there a source of want and unwant that is distinct from opinion? Also, your definitions would make things both wanted and unwanted by definition, not just unwanted; after all, the activities require more than one participant and one opinion. I will show you where I am in my understanding via the following example. Imagine the scene: Herakles and Theseus are standing around a campfire. Theseus can't resist pointing out that he was a king in his own right, while Herakles was just Eurystheus' little errand boy. Herakles immediately puts his dukes up and turns to face Theseus. Herakles wants to punch Theseus, and Theseus "unwants" (the opposite, not negation) Herakles to punch him. Herakles swings and successfully cracks Theseus on the jaw, because Herakles is stronger, cooler, better looking, and more interesting than Theseus. It is worth mentioning that Theseus goes down like a sack of potatoes and soils himself. Objectively, we can say that the battery transpired. We can say that Herakles and Theseus formed their respective opinions. Yet, we cannot say that the battery was objectively good or evil using your model. If human wants and unwants are the objective fount of morality, then the battery itself is both good and evil in the same sense at the same time. This is a violation of the principle of non-contradiction. To avoid this contradiction, one might say that Herakles and Theseus are two different sources of the morality. The battery is good in light of Herakles, and the battery is evil in light of Theseus. This reduces the standard to individual opinions, and abandons objective morality. Hence, I think the NAP is a subjective moral rule. Please let me know if I have misunderstood the NAP, though, because I might well be missing some important point.

I have a lot of trouble understanding your meaning; please help me out a here. Part of the problem is that you don't start from first principles, so I'm not sure how you conceive of a human or what you think reality consists of. One has to start somewhere, though, so let's get going. I'll take things in order so it's simpler. In the first paragraph, you deal with what the objective moral rule is in the NAP. Am I correct in understanding that it is, "the initiation of force unwanted by at least one party to the action is evil"? Where "unwanted" is the opposite of "wanted", rather than the mere absence of desire? In the second paragraph, are you saying that evil is just a term that describes what a person doesn't want? Also, what does the term "universally unwanted behaviour" mean? Moving on to the string of statements: 1 - What is selfownership? Is that synonymous with control? Let's take a step back: how are you envisioning a human? As a soul and a body, with the soul kind of like a driver in a car? I'm also puzzled by the term "human behaviour" being used to describe ownership. Is ownership a property or an activity? Does "valid" mean "true" here, or something else? Should I be reading this point to say, "an incorporeal human soul controlling a physical human body is a true description how humans operate in this world"? 2 - I don't really understand this without the definitions requested above, but I'll avoid repeating myself. After reading "self ownership of your body and property" I'm curious why you have two categories. 3 - Behaviour here refers to a particular physical act, right? What do you mean by universally preferred; are you just saying that if a physical act is not consented to by everyone involved, it's not consented to by everyone involved? Consent means wanted? 4 - What do you mean by "universally preferable principle"? Are you saying that for a moral rule to be objective, humans must all want it? What do you think objective means, if not independent from opinion? 5 - In what sense are you saying that an objective moral rule needs to be universal? 6 - This is another case of me being unable to understand for the time being. I'm sure the definitions will clear stuff up! 7 - I'm still stuck in the pre-definition stage, so I'll have to wait to understand this one. 8 - This is an odd conclusion; I thought it might end with the claim that we have an objective moral rule. Instead I'm reading the phrase, "possible, logical, and universally preferable". I can guess what you mean by the first two, but I'd love to hear your description of the last one. 9 - I know you stopped at 9, but I'm hoping you can add a line that says the NAP is an objective moral rule. Failing that, then something else is an objective moral rule. Otherwise it doesn't seem like libertarians have an objective morality at hand to apply. There are plenty of other relativists out there, so it's not the end of the world, but I was hoping to find something more here. Some of these terms that you're using were mentioned in the UPB, I know, but I don't think the UPB succeeds in defining its terms. I'm hoping that a human can create the clarity and consistency that is missing from that text, so forgive me for asking all these questions.

I don't come off as that unreasonable, do I? I know my request for an explanation will annoy people, just like Socrates annoyed people who thought they knew more than they did, but I'm not doing this to be cruel. I'm just not able to blindly accept libertarian opinions, and I don't think libertarians want me to do that, either. I would like a proof that starts from first principles, and consists of a series of factual statements that logically follow. The proof should end at the point where the author concludes that there is an objective moral rule that reads, "the initiation of force is evil". Then, I'll review the proof, and I'll no doubt be overwhelmed by the truth of it all. If I run into difficulties, I'll ask follow-up questions so that the author can clarify. If I've misrepresented the NAP and people want to change that objective moral rule to something else, let me know. Hell, maybe I've totally misunderstood what people have said, and libertarians don't actually think their philosophy has roots in objective morality. Maybe libertarians are moral relativists who simply dislike the government, let me know! As I pointed out in this thread and others, I've read the UPB, and I reread the area around page 53 that mentions the NAP. I even responded to the author of the UPB and agreed to appear on his call-in show to ask some questions about a different part of that text. While I wait for his response to my email, I'm sure I'll learn about the NAP here from you guys. I wasn't able to find an attempt at proof around page 53, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong spot. If there's another page, or a particular section that you think responds to my concerns, then please let me know. I would certainly reread that section and report back, I don't pretend to have memorised the whole text.

It's a request for you to present the proof for the NAP. Are you saying that the quote, "The person committing theft, assault, rape, or murder is telling you their actions are evil" is the proof that "the initiation of force is evil" is an objective moral rule? If so, I misunderstood your intentions in writing that sentence. People can tell you many things, but that doesn't make something objective or moral. The mere act of a person committing a crime against you and then telling you "my actions are evil" isn't any more effective than them telling you "my actions are good". It certainly doesn't tell you why the action is wrong, either; maybe he's Christian and thinks god disapproves. I'm not sure what you mean by objective when it comes to objective morality, but clearly you have some knowledge about this subject. I hope you can take the time to present the proof for the NAP so that people like myself can give the theory proper consideration. As for reading a dictionary, hah, you'll forgive me if I laugh. Definitions are important in philosophy, and I can think of at least one text that falls flat on its face because it fails to properly account for definitions. Maybe you can point me in the direction of the standardised dictionary that all philosophers use on internet forums, though; I'm sure philosophers always reference it and indicate which definition they are using in each particular instance of a word.

Of the options in the thread title, Melbourne is the city with the largest Greek population, too. Sometimes people say that it's the largest Greek population outside of Greece, but whether or not that's true is another matter. At any rate, I'd definitely recommend Australia or New Zealand before Singapore. I like Singapore, and I speak Chinese, but it's definitely a different bag of crisps. Having been to Greece several times and having family there, I'd say the environment in suburban Melbourne will be a much easier and more comfortable adjustment than Singapore.

This does seem to be the case a lot of the time; whataboutery can be a way of highlighting the scope of the discussion. If the scope is wrong, important points can be lost by the wayside.

Well, true, you don't have to posit anything here. I'm not trying to force you against your will. At any rate, I'm not sure how you will present the proof of the NAP without positing the NAP. I guess you could just show all the proofs and then lop off the last sentence that runs, "and therefore, "the initiation of force is evil" is an objective moral rule". You'd still need to lay out everything to show that the NAP is an objective moral rule, though, otherwise you haven't made the case. If you can work through the definitions and proofs with me, I'd like to do so, but obviously there's no requirement that you do so. This place seems dedicated to people who already accept the principle, so I'm aware that outsiders like me can expect something of a cold shoulder. I'll continue with my disbelief. Not a bad idea to put it in the donor section so that it can be worked on by supportive philosophers. When it's had enough time in the oven, I hope you release it so that doubters and non-believers like myself can have a go at it.

Welcome to the site! Do you agree with the libertarian ideas that you've been reading?

I don't think I understand what you're saying. What do you mean by preferable human behaviour? Does the sentence mean the same as, "If I claim that human aggression is objectively good..."? At any rate, I don't think the definition will solve the issue. You never actually say that aggression or the initiation of force is objectively evil. I thought the NAP was that the initiation of force against others is evil. I'm hoping to find the arguments that assert and affirm this particular theory. Nice, I hope you'll post it when you're done! I did read the UPB, and I re-read the part around page 53, but I don't recall any objective proof being given. Initially, I thought this was because the NAP is accepted by all libertarians, so perhaps the author just left it out, but maybe it's elsewhere in the text and I just can't find it. Every little bit helps. I don't understand what you mean by "own", though. Are you using it as synonymous with "directly control"? I don't know how you view a human, too. Are you saying that there is a soul, and it owns/controls the physical body? I imagine that you are describing a driver and a car when you talk about something controlling something. Also, the part where you say "NAP is shorthand for "thou shalt not steal, assault, rape, or murder" makes me curious. Where are you drawing your definitions from? You didn't outlaw battery if you're using common law, or the statutory law of many US states. I have a lot of other questions about what you said, basically one for every sentence, but I think the definitions are an important start. Ultimately, though, I still don't see where you posit the objective rule that initiation of force against another is objectively evil. That is the NAP, right? I'm worried that I don't understand what you mean by objective. I just use the term to mean that something exists or is true independent from human opinion. When you use the terms "universal", "consistent", "non-contradictory", I'm concerned that we lack a common definition. The term aggression means "force or deceit unwanted by the subject" here, right? So yes, I agree that aggression is "unwanted" by someone (as in the opposite of want, not the negation); that's in the definition of the term. You then say that (1) what is unwanted is bad; (2) bad is a moral term; (3) everyone logically agrees that aggression is bad so it's objectively immoral. Is this a fair account? I feel I'm missing something, because I have a lot of problems/doubt with it. The first question I have regards the bit where you write, "So from unwanted we go to "bad"". You say that bad is a moral term, so I'm going to take it as synonymous here with evil, is that right? So now, I understand the definition of evil is "unwanted", and the definition of good would be the opposite, "wanted". Help me if I've read it wrong, because if that's the case then the system falls apart. I say it falls apart because things can be wanted and unwanted at the same time. It's also not objective, because it has no independence from human opinions. As for considering alternative principles, I just think about all the people who say that "the initiation of force or deceit unwanted by the subject" is not morally good or evil. They usually have moral principles elsewhere, and use this different standard to judge the morality of each instance of aggression. I haven't met many people who posit the "initiation of force or deceit unwanted by the subject" as objectively good. Also, I read the UPB, but I didn't find an objective proof for the NAP around page 53. If there's another area of the text I should re-read please point me in the right direction. Thanks for taking the time to present this theory, everyone

I don't know the etymology of the word crime, but you have a radical definition when it comes to statistics. At any rate, you understand that your definition and the definition in the studies are different. What's more important is that you will actually need to attempt to discover every moral wrong if you want to truly achieve your goal. If you only break down the government along racial lines, saying this department is x% white, x% asian, etc, then you are only part of the way to assigning "racial blame". You would still need to define your moral system and categorise all the sins, and then you'd need to collect and compile data on the number of sins committed and who committed them. You'd need to explain to the reader how the responsibility is broken down across the government hierarchy, and then discover who within each agency was responsible for each sin. Saying that an agency is x% black is not helpful, unless you draw out the position of those people and relate them individually to the sins so as to discover the % of each race that is responsible (which I take to be your fundamental goal). I think you can guess whether I think this project will succeed.

I've been reading about the non aggression principle, but a lot of sites present it as a practical guide rather than an objective moral rule. I think a lot of people hold the non aggression principle to be the latter, so I'm hoping someone can help explain it to me in that sense. Does anyone here believe in the existence of objective morality, and posit the non aggression principle in that moral system? I am curious to see someone start from first principles and reason out the existence of the NAP. Of course, I could be mistaken in my impressions, so please let me know if that's the case. Perhaps the NAP is universally seen as a practical way to create harmony, rather than an objective truth and moral rule.

You are offering a new definition for crime; the agencies that produce these statistics don't use that definition. If you want to tally up every moral wrong, then good luck to you. But it's not within the scope of those statistics, and it's not within the ability of the agencies that produce them. I am not aware of any institutions that publish statistics of all moral wrongs; government agencies in the US don't even have an official, all-encompassing, and objective moral system above the law that they could use to achieve such a goal.

Reminds me of this section from Plato: "You surely would not regard the skilled mathematician as a dialectician? Assuredly not, he said; I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning." Republic Book 7

Nice thread; I agree about jogging and exercise in general. When I go for a run, I always wind up thinking of new ideas and solutions. I used to jog with an audio book, but depending on the length of the run I think that the ability to wonder is a little more valuable. I have a small tip for critical thinking. Whenever you read a claim, rewrite it so that the speaker's name appears at the start, and the owner of each subject is listed. For example, if a Burger King advertisement says the following: "this burger tastes great!" I would add "Burger King says" at the beginning, and then add the owner (Burger King) to the subject (burger): "Burger King says that Burger King's burger tastes great!" Suddenly, I'm a lot less convinced. It's a practical and simple tool that works for a lot of different situations. It can also be used as an easy argument method, too.

What email address would you like me to use? I tried messaging you over the forum but that doesn't work. Edit: ah, and it seems I can post without a time delay/review!

So introducing oneself and providing context is trolling? Please don't be so sensitive; the mere fact that I disagree with something isn't a vicious attack on anyone. I do have arguments to present, as I'm sure you do, too. With any luck, this account will have the restrictions removed soon and I can post more freely. For now, this is the last post I'm allowed to make today.

That's fair, I myself indicated that the article is not a complete argument against the UPB. It's more a demonstration/discussion of why Molyneux's advice to take a trip around the world is not a good way of using the text. For something even approaching that, you'd need to rewrite the tests so they start from first principles and progress along the journey. As for what is and isn't an argument, I'm happy to put effort into discussing the UPB as a whole and show why it's flawed. Calling in would be great, too; I do enjoy your show at times and think you should be lauded for spending time producing philosophic and political content. Right now I have a post limit and post review delay, so it is a little difficult. I also won't have a computer to type on until early/mid january, as I'm on holiday. Definitely up for it, though.

I am just introducing myself in this thread. I'm actually on holidays now and won't be home until early/mid january; until then I'm stuck posting on my phone. I cannot freely post until I have made 8 approved posts, but hopefully that will be done with soon. I'm glad to see the board is so active. I tried making a thread about the UPB book in the user content forum, so I'm going to see if it's approved yet. I've tried reading it twice and it seems a bit of a mess to me; a "spectacular disaster" as Molyneux put it.

I'm a fan of some of Molyneux's youtube videos, so I decided to pop by and say hullo. I don't agree with his views on philosophy and morality, but who can resist smiling when he tears into the PC crowd? Anyway, g'day, etc.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/brief-trip-around-world-stefan-molyneux-adam-delderfield I've enjoyed a fair number of Molyneux's youtube videos, but I was sorely disappointed with the UPB. I read the whole pdf, and there was barely a page I agreed with. So, I gave it a second chance recently. I tried to follow his initial advice about applying the UPB without nitpicking each line and proof. I skipped to the rape test section, and read. Yet, philosophy isn't a physical journey, and the whole thing seemed a disaster. It doesn't start with first principles, and I disagree with almost every line. Does anyone support the UPB these days, and believe it to be an objective, true account of morality? I feel like it really is a spectacular disaster in every sense. I won't pretend my article is good; I think it's one of my worst. To really deal with the UPB, I think someone must ignore that advice about sailing around the world and instead respond to the whole text. Yet, if nobody wholly endorses the UPB these days I don't see the point in expending so many hours. At least I got to try making an audio file for the first time.