RichardY

From Pg 100 UPB Quote Soldiers, of course, wear costumes that are different from the average citizen. The average citizen is forbidden to murder; soldiers, however, are not only allowed to murder, but are morally praised for murdering. End Quote Does that include British Soldiers hung for crimes in India? By wearing a uniform and displaying a firearm isn't the person engaging in an acknowledgement for combat aka the Movie Predator? Can conscripts or feudal levies be considered soldiers? If conscripts/feudal levies are not considered soldiers is it reasonable to execute the leaders, like after the battle of Culloden 1746? From Pg 44 UPB Quote If Politician A can order a soldier to murder an Iraqi, then the Iraqi must also be able to order the soldier to murder Politician A, and the soldier can also order Politician A to murder the Iraqi. The application of this theory results in a general and amoral paralysis, and thus is proven invalid. End Quote Why can't the soldier kill both? Providing they the Iraqi and Politician both express a preference to commit murder, Like Leo Van Cleef from the The Good, Bad and Ugly. In that way he would fulfil both contracts and people's stated preference to commit murder would eventually cancel each other out. Wouldn't his conduct as a soldier also depend on his interpretation of an Oath, usually to a country or a Mafia Don/Head of State? I'm not sure if all Soldiers can be considered murderers, in receipt of stolen goods perhaps. But as long as conflict is focused on pitched battles and the soldiers don't engage in collective punishment and scorched earth, they're not murderers. If push comes to shove comes to bayonets again in Europe again I'm not sure pissing off the military is a good idea especially if they maybe sympathetic to some of the old positive Europeans Ideals, if only purely from a cultural ancestry point of view.

Lying can be way worse than assault, its poison, much more persistent in the minds of those affected, though sometimes "beneficial" if it allows you to re-evaluate and make better decisions. Anything from tampering with scientific research data that people depend on, to lying about cement mixtures in Apartment blocks or lying about baby formula in China. Lying is especially devastating when combined with situations of duress such as torture or even positive reinforcement bribery(Judas) or false friendship , especially when the situations involve moral "confessions" about people and/or yourself. A prominent example I can think of is some of the resistant fighters during WW2 and some of the moral questions, that raised in the minds of those effected. Other things that come to mind of are people being tortured in Medieval Europe for confessions or someone fabricating one anyway, bit like the movie Braveheart at the end. The lie might even seem inconsequential to the person lying, thinking of the film The Deer Hunter. Where Robert de Niro says that he won't leave anyone behind in Vietnam but goes home anyway leaving his best friend there. Assault can be bad enough especially the physical and emotional scars it can inflicts, but to really crush the life out of someone, destroy their will to live, nothing can be more devastating than a lie or lies. Granted some people are more effected by lies than others but as Stefan said "We are social animals." like it or not. I think there are two immoral aspects to lying one is contract violation, the other is social. Social, because people have incomplete knowledge and rely on information from others to make decisions on how to act towards each other and with physical reality.

An Excellent podcast, should be in Stef's Top 10 if he had one, Thank you. The parent's actions would be immoral, asserting the existence of something without evidence, like the reference to the "Emperor's new cloak" contained in the podcast. Lots of useful Information, very clarifying.

Seemed like a very poor article in IMO. The concept of fair to me means the agreed upon, whether by implicit or explicit consent. The most Just, the agreed upon by at least two individuals (providing their agreement does not violate the NAP to 3rd Party's), failing that some form of previously agreed upon Arbitration insurance or failing that some form of social ostracism.

Do the following Violate Universally Preferable Behaviour? Being a modern day Roman Style Gladiator. A Formula One Driver. A Jihadist Fighter. I'm thinking in terms of competing Gene-sets. From Pg 42 UPB <quote> Since man is the most successful species, and man’s most distinctive organ is his mind, it must be man’s mind that has aided him the most in making successful choices. The mind itself, then, has been selected as successful by its very ability to make successful choices. Since the human mind only exists as a result of choosing universally preferable behaviour, universally preferable behaviour must be a valid concept. 1. Organisms succeed by acting upon universally preferable behaviour. 2. Man is the most successful organism. <end quote> The Gladiator If the participant willingly signs a contract to take part in lethal or potentially lethal combat against other willing participants could this be considered to not violate UPB? From the points of view that 1)The participants Agreed 2)Participants with inadequate combat ability and Intelligence would be removed from the gene-pool, potentially Universally Preferable Behaviour for the Gene-set 3) The participants that survived could be recognised as possessing at the very least superior physical fitness and an ability to manage severe psychological pressure, or not be effected compared to the general population and therefore potentially desirable breeding stock. 4) The participants could be rewarded with a chest of blood money, minus Stadium fees. 5) The high turnover rate could allow more people to compete if they want to. A Formula One Driver Still potentially deadly, not so much now. Maybe more people watched the sport when the occasional car went up in a fireball, kind of boring now unless you like the technical aspects. Might be more interesting if they had a little less emphasis on health and safety and regulations. Point being that “everyone” loves a racing driver, unless your an Astronaut, like the lynx/Ax deodorant advert. A Jihadist Fighter Could a Jihadist Fighter be said to be engaging in UPB for his one “True” Religion” if it benefits his or her ability to reproduce? If he accepts the Religion is BS, if no one opposes his march of terror or Religion/Insanity/Ideology when he says behead those who insult the prophet, oh and by the way here is a video link.... He could reasonably conclude that those who do not oppose him are insane and therefore not subject to UPB. If he finds that most people do not follow UPB to any great extent, might he conclude that his way of thinking is clearly superior, maybe even that he himself is superior. Makes me think of the second original Planet of the Apes film, with one group the mutants worshipping “The Bomb” and the other group the Apes following their “Prophet” Cemos. In the end is what survives Universally Preferable even if it is partially insane and has vestigial habits passed down from mysticism. Could having and believing in a religion be UPB in someway "Every sperm is sacred, Monty Python". What are the implications in UPB if UPB can not be understood or communicated? Ayn Rand, Man's life as a standard of value. (I think she specified somewhere providing he was sane) Other than “possibly” sanity is there any standard of value or success in UPB? Is UPB Sanity + Will to Power? Also, “1. Organisms succeed by acting upon universally preferable behaviour.” What if one organism eats another or poisons the ground for other organisms? How far can universality be applied within the same species? If an Alligator (A) eats the young of another Alligator (B) is that Universally Preferable Behaviour for the geneset of Alligator (A), due to less future competition.

Forbearance involves tolerance, which could involve refraining from a right to something, "turn the other cheek". Temperance is more about moderation and managing more basic impulses to act perhaps irrationally such as panic. It can involve trying to refrain or avoid drinking alcohol. A Temperate climate is neither Tropical or Arctic but in between. To be chaste means to refrain completely from things or be "Pure".

I think there are only 3 Main Character Virtues. Humility, Temperance and Diligence? Humility being the Self-Reflection/Observing Ego required in Self-Knowledge. Temperance the ability to moderate or restrict more primitive impulses in the presence of society. Making decisions more consciously and less on feeling. Diligence the willingness and good sense to Act and avoid a "Sh*t Happens Scenario". Thinking of other virtues such as Kindness and Charity I find that they fit more in as a sub-category of Diligence. Courage, Patience and Chastity into Temperance. Truthfulness(a process) into Humility and Temperance. Integrity as an effect of the 3 main virtues.

Except that you're not at convincing yourself, because you're asking the question. One way of looking at things is the people you follow or work for have no purpose either. What they have and everyone has, is a Will and probably Worth and Value to varying extents. I don't think there is a way to have purpose, because then you would not have freewill. What you can have is Worth and the only way you can have Worth is to know other people through friendship. You can have Value to Evil people or people with no ethics, but you can't have Worth to them. I don't think everyone needs to have Worth to other people, but being social animals means that for no-one to have worth to you and visa versa leaves only a will to consume and an empty/lonely feeling, unless of course someone is a sociopath and just doesn't care less. What was it like working abroad?

You could try travelling or backpacking, if nothing else it gives you a better perspective on things. I did some through a site called Workaway. What country do you live in?

Just that if people claim to abide by the Non-Aggression Principle they are able to follow it consistently and so is everybody else without infringing on anybody's freedom to live peacefully, an expression of Kant's Moral Imperative. To claim to support taxation or "social" democracies would be a hypocritical exemption to the NAP as they involve coercion. Basically yes, societies that do not follow the NAP, allow for individuals that also do not follow the NAP a first strike capacity to inflict damage, physical or financial on whoever they can, to gain advantages such as wealth or some unknown emotional gratification. Yes I can see your point. How valid the statement is depends on what you would class Truth as? I would class Truth as deterministic (Unified Field Theory, maybe?) though I do not know exactly what Truth is. "Truth" in Mathematics or History I would class as pattern matching, with "Truth" being a potential range of possibilities depending on the question asked.

No, I'm saying an idea depends on the condition of experience of an individual (Immanuel Kant) and is a form of pattern matching by the person. "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."- Albert Einstein. Which is exactly my point, a Shark is not subject to the NAP, it does not express mutual acceptance of the NAP.

Such as? If Truth is deterministic (a future result in reality) then, the NAP if it contains Truth is deterministic. So is it not ok to kill a fish to eat?

I planned to use the potential perceived shock value of the title to get the discussion going and then counter-punch or agree with any arguments of why he is Evil.

NAP, Non Aggression Principle, The mutual acceptance of the Non initiation of force. Is Truth not Deterministic then? Which I agree with.

A + A = F5

Makes me think of the 1980 film Flash Gordon(Queen Song, only good part). With Trump playing the role of Flash, but instead of Flash as an American Football star, he's a businessman instead.

That would depend on the individual's personal association of symbols being used and I would have to state that to another person, hence not hypocrisy.

So would you say the NAP is Deterministic? No, Hypocrisy is to state one thing to an individual and do something else.

A result.

To ask what is best in life is to make a conscious emotional value judgement. The only way I might be able to convey that is through allegory, images or words that people can relate to in their own lives'. If however they have never had the feeling of love, joy, pain, sight and happiness then I can't do that. Whether you value the potential(through NAP) of someone or yourself will determine if you can love or not.

No, preference is an emotional value judgement.

I think a better definition of truth would be any result, which conforms to both reason and evidence. No I do not. Only the avoidance from hypocrisy and quite probably of M.A.D.

The the guy who's brain he eats at the end of Hannibal(movie) is Paul Krendler the Assistant Attorney General. Who was supposed to be working to bring Hannibal to "Justice". Instead Krendler was taking bribes from Mason Verger(Disfigured Child Molester) who wants to kill or torture Hannibal, fabricating evidence, removing FBI agents from catching Evil people and using his power to benefit from real estate deals. The security guards were keeping him prisoner, they were either unaware of his innocence or were aware and chose to keep him prisoner. The graphic imagery of the guard flayed out in the position of Christ or an Angel was part of his distraction tactics during the escape. In the ambulance he gets a Hypodermic Needle presumably with some sort of drug in it, so he can incapacitate the EMT and avoid more attention. The man who says "I can smell your cunt", know as Miggs a sex offender, throws semen in Starling's face when she leaves.Hannibal doesn't kill Miggs he is in a separate cell, instead he says something later that influences Miggs to swallow his own tongue somehow and die. I'm not sure the extent he could be perceived as violent.

There is no Truth in the NAP. Only the avoidance of hypocrisy and mutually assured destruction. Valid Statement?

The Politics of Fair do not make us Strong, they make us weak! Anyone know who said that recently?