Search the Community

I am a psychology major undergraduate and have a couple days to apply for a job/internship at the Centre for Cognitive Work and Safety Analysis which is a part of the Department of Defence Science and Technology, Australia. Australia is an ally of the United States of America and fought beside them in all the major wars. Australia is a Commonwealth so if Britain declares war, Australia must contribute to the war effort. Australia is actively involved in the war in Afghanistan and the war against ISIS. Australia is also part of the Korean war. My duty might involve improving the displays of fighter aircraft which would directly effect bombing missions in the middle east. Other duties I could be involved in is research, transcribing, conducting interviews and analysis. This internship would last for 4 months maximum. There are many benefits to getting this internship. There are not really any other jobs in the market for students that would challenge my research and cognitive skills. I'm thinking of becoming a neuropsychologist so it's really important, especially when I go for PhD (In Australia it is required). Also, the pay is good and I have no shame for taking taxpayer money while I am young. Also, the centre is literally in the same suburb that I live in, and halfway between my house and my university. Also, it could teach me something about the psychology of those in the military which is very unique knowledge for a libertarian to have. If it were not for the initiation of force, there wouldn't be many better jobs that I could be doing at the moment. While what I'm doing might be directly working for the military, but morally speaking, it's not necessarily different to other work I could be doing because my taxes would go towards the military anyway. Violation of the NAP is wrong, but what I could be doing could help me prevent violations of the NAP more than actually violating the NAP. Also, if I were at any time uncomfortable, I could quit. Still, it bothers me that what I would be doing would be directly contributing to the murder of innocent people. How could I find a balance in this scenario? (did you forget it's valentines day?)

The importance of rational ethics We are born into the world not simply to learn facts about the world but also to make choices. These choices are conscious and deliberate, therefore when we make them we are trying to base them off something we have consciously learned. Some kind of knowledge that allows for this decision making must exist, even if this knowledge is simply that we should follow our instincts. The knowledge for choices that are within our rational self-interest is called ethics. Naturally, we must find what ethics is if we are to be rational. What is essential to ethics is that it is rational, and any alternative is irrational or non-rational. If we are arguing for ethics, we are arguing that it is within peoples' rational self-interest to follow ethics. If our ethical system cannot be proven to be rational, it is not an ethical system. Indeed, people have criticised UPB for supposedly failing to prove ethics is rational (1, 2, 3). This is why when I read Universally Preferable Behaviour (UPB; 4) it was my intention to focus on why UPB is rational. It is imperative to prove that it is rational to follow ethics, as this is the only defence against nihilism. My understanding of rational ethics after reading UPB (UPeB) After reading UPB four times, I came to a specific understanding of ethics which I think makes a slightly different argument to UPB, but nevertheless works from the similar axioms. I mistakenly took 'universally preferable' to be synonymous with 'universally permissible'. A universally permissible behaviour (UPeB) is a behaviour that I can prefer and it doesn't necessarily conflict with any other person's preferences. In that sense, they are permitting my behaviour. E.g., I prefer jazz and everyone else could permit that I prefer jazz, therefore jazz is UPeB. I prefer murder but my victim necessarily does not permit the murder, therefore murder is not UPeB. My argument is laid out here in syllogistic form: 1. Preferred behaviours are deliberate. (Conscious, voluntary, etc.) 2. Deliberation requires beliefs. (Propositions, truth statements, etc.) 3. Preferred behaviours are based on beliefs. (E.g. I should listen to jazz, I should murder) 1. Preferred behaviours are based on beliefs. 2. Beliefs must be universally permissible to be true. (Reality is objective. Therefore, beliefs cannot be true for some people and false for others. Therefore, true beliefs are permissible as being true by everyone.) 3. Preferred behaviours that are not universally permissible must be based on false beliefs. 1. Preferred behaviours that are not universally permissible are based on false beliefs. 2. Falsehood is irrational. (I cannot think or deliberate without knowledge. That would be like trying to sail without a compass.) 3. Preferred behaviours that are not universally permissible are irrational. (Murder, rape, theft, fraud, lying, etc are irrational.) Stefan's understanding of ethics (UPB) When I skimmed the book recently, I realised I made a mistake. Stefan makes clear on page 51 that 'preferable' means preferences that are required for some individual to attain an end, and 'universally preferable' means required for any individual (objectively required) to attain an end. E.g., if you want to lose weight (end) it is objectively required (universally preferable) that the output of calories is greater than the input of calories. This meaning of 'universally preferable' seems to differ to my original understanding. UPB proper seems to deal with essential means to an end. My UPeB seems to deal with the objectivity of true beliefs. Is UPB rational ethics? The big question is, can UPB be proven to be rational? I.e., is someone who doesn't follow UPB being irrational? Stefan argues for why UPB exists in syllogistic form (page 55), but doesn't seem to argue for why UPB is rational in syllogistic form. However, he does mention that moral theories must be rational to be true (page 63), thus he implies that if UPB exists, it must be rational. I suspect that the proof of the rationality of UPB is similar to my argument for the rationality of UPeB. The proof of the rationality of UPB in syllogistic form would look something like this: 1. All rational beliefs have an argumentative form. (If I believe something, I should be able to argue for it.) 2. Rational preferred behaviours are based on rational beliefs. 3. All rational preferred behaviours have an argumentative form. 1. All rational preferred behaviours have an argumentative form. 2. The act of argumentation asserts UPB. (UPB are the preference for truth over falsehood, that we exist, that the best way to solve conflicts is peacefully, etc. This is similar to Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics; 5.) 3. Any preferred behaviour that conflicts with UPB is irrational. Looking at page 211 'UPB in a Nutshell', Stefan seems to be making the argument that UPB is asserted in any argument (premise 2 of syllogism 2 above). Further on page 65, moral theories are kind of theories about UPB. People who propose moral rules are proposing they are UPB, presumably because in the act of arguing for a moral rule, they are asserting UPB. This is the same as assuming the moral rule is UPB(!?). Stefan doesn't seem to make this explicit, which is why I have to do some guesswork to come up with this syllogism. I am not quite sure if Stefan would argue that ethics can be proven to be rational, ethics cannot be proven to be rational but only that ethics exists, or something else altogether. I would not be surprised by the second outcome as he says he fully accepts Hume's is-ought distinction (as do I; page 12). The differences and similarities between UPB and UPeB Argumentation asserts universally permissible beliefs. In this way, premise 2 of the second syllogism is similar premise 2 of the third syllogism in my original argument. The conclusions of my argument might be different to Stefan's. He might only mean that preferred behaviours that are in conflict with those UPB such as 'truth is better than falsehood' and 'we exist' are irrational while mine is perhaps broader but also perhaps more problematic. A problem with UPeB UPeB might be problematic because any preferred behaviour that is not universally permissible could be deemed to be so. E.g., I am not murdering you because you ought to permit me killing you, in fact you are the irrational one and not me. It begs the question, what ought a person permit? Perhaps UPB solves this by saying the preferred behaviour could not be deemed to be universally permissible because the action itself conflicts with the requisites of argumentation? UPB and consequences I believe that an ethical framework people ought to follow must be able to at least theoretically explain different consequences of unethical behaviour. UPB the book lacks in this regard. He does make some consequential arguments for UPB (page 66), but he doesn't make an explicit argument of explaining how they are causally linked. According to UPeB, irrational beliefs cannot be within one's rational self-interest. UPeB and consequences An explanation about why UPeB will lead to positive personal consequences goes like this: Having irrational beliefs (including irrational preferred behaviours) means you seize conscious control over those beliefs. These beliefs must stem from some unconscious part of your psyche which seems to be particularly resistant to rationality. That which is resistant to your conscious awareness is painful and destructive to your conscious awareness. I'd like to know if I've made a correct evaluation of UPB with the syllogism I used and my understanding of preferability and what people think about UPeB and how morality can be proven to be rational. References 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viZYL3ceh9U 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGYendXNjGg 3. https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46332-why-be-moral-answered/ 4. Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics by Stefan Molyneux Paperback 5: https://mises.org/wire/primer-hoppes-argumentation-ethics

Hello FDR!, Today I came across a series of convoluted reports on a court case in Oklahoma, USA concerning a young woman's marriage to her biological mother. The mother, allegedly, had previously been married to her son. https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.bet.com/news/national/2017/11/09/woman-pleads-guilty-to-incest-for-marrying-her-biological-mother.amp.html http://www.kswo.com/story/33054070/brother-claims-siblings-were-manipulated-by-mother Of course I'm thinking 'Isn't incest illegal because of the biological risks correlated with incestual reproduction?' Upon further reading I learned that there are two states in the USA that do not legally enforce ant-incest laws to impede people from participating in incest. In Canada, Incest is punishable by up to 14 years in prison. It's curious that we treat incest with such severe opposition because of the health risk involved in incestual breeding but we do not consider other forms of dangerous breeding to be as serious an offence. In many cases, dangerous breeding that may result in serious health problems or environmental deficiencies are facilitated by the incentives government subsidies provide through the use of force against citizens who generate economic growth. I'm opposed to the idea of incest between two consenting adults but I'm not sure it justifies caging the weirdos for a decade. If that choice does justify being caged for a decade, should we not hold other forms of dangerous breeding to an equal standard of legal judgement? *There is an important distinction made between incestual pedophilia or molestation and a voluntary incestual relationship between two consenting adults.

Socialization is defined by a psychologist as the praxis of conditioning children to conform to the rules and norms of society. A person is verbally expressed to be well socialized if he believes in and complies with the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem preposterous to verbalize that many leftists are over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a revolter. Nevertheless, the position can be bulwarked. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem. In fact they are so over-socialized that they “continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions” to verbatim the Unabomber. When I was an atheist, I use to equate the SJW with the Religious Right who went on a Pedo-Satanist witch hunt during the 1980s and attempted to ban rock/metal music(I am a connoisseur of music, metal, hard rock, and punk in particular. This change when I became a Christian, this year. Albeit, I often ask myself that if I am being sanctimonious when I find myself sounding like Rick “Butt-Juice” Santorum”(I am against marijuana and yet it seems immoral to poke your nose into others business especially when it does not harm) In a way the Oversocialized Christian fundamentalist produced a mirror image of themselves(the Cultural Marxist). Anyway, enough my unintelligible rambling. My question is how to create a cultural economic policy(I wonder if the *Amish capitalism led to Crony, consumerist, and degenerate capitalism but I do oppose any if not all state intervention. In fact I think the expansion of the State’s entanglement with economic matters help capitalism to become bloated and degenerate) that will not led to a class of over socialized opposition and/or we become oversocialized ourselves? Or consider the opposite, if we try to avoid the issue, will we become nihilist, such as the fate of the Libertarian Party and their spiritual counterpart The *Church of Satan/ LaVeyan Satanism who was founded by an ex-carnie whose “dream-girl” is no other than (((Ayn Rand)))? *The Amish are know for piety and their work ethic which I admire despite me being an Orthodox Christian. *Oddly enough it is states on the Church of Satan’s website that a Marxist could join if he or she wishes. Egregious right, considering Ayn Rand is the complete opposite of Jewish Faggot and full-time Santa,(((Karl Marx)))? Albeit, both were materialism.

Hello Guys This will be a very long post... I want to share with you my journey with FDR so far: I discovered Stefs podcasts on youtube about three or four years ago (I am now 27). I was watching a lot of political and atheist debates at the time. I think it could have been the video “19 tough questions for Libertarians”. Anyways I started to watch more and more of his videos and just loved the stuff. The NAP videos, the property rights, it all fit together and that was great, since in what I have heard before, there was always somewhere a hidden contradiction. The next big milestone I think was the argument from morality and the UPB book. My interest started to shift towards ethics. (It had come from atheism over politics, society / economics, libertarianism / freedom). So I started really digging into the idea of rational scientific ethics, which I still find extremely fascinating and important. I am also currently working on a book of my own trying to improve UPB. I want to share it with you some day, but so far it is still not ready. Also the RTR book was a real eyeopener for me. I think around 2 years ago I read it and also introduced it into my relationship with Rahel, my girlfriend. It had a truly wonderful effect on our relationship and allowed us to come closer and closer to each other ever since. Then in November 2015 I saw the truth about circumcision video. It hit me like a hammer blow to the head! I have seen the video in the recommended videos on youtube for probably 2 months before I finally watched it. I think I was afraid of it. But I also wanted to see what Stef had to say about it, since it also pertains to me. I grew up Jewish, so I was circumcised just after birth. I was very shocked and confused and I went to Rahel and asked her to watch the video with me. She also was shocked and said that she had never thought about it, (Circumcision is not common in Europe), but that for sure we would never do this to our future kids. The following month I was very shocked and disoriented, and I could barely think of anything else. I just could not grasp it that I was the victim of a human rights violation and that my parents were the perpetrators. In January 2016 I wrote them a letter that I handed to my mom when she came to visit the town where I now lived. I was stomach-turningly nervous and so was Rahel, when we went to meet her. (She came with me to assist me in this difficult task.) In the letter I told my parents that I have come to realize that circumcision was wrong, that I want to talk about it with them and that I expect an apology from them. I also put the link to the video in there. They have been very uncooperative in finding dates to talk about it. In the past 1.5 years we have maybe had 5 conversations about it, always initiated by me calling multiple times and insisting on it. It is now also just one year that I started going to therapy. It was very hard for me to start going to therapy. I talked a lot about trying it to Rahel, but I never actually went and did it. In fact she started to go to therapy before I did because of exam anxiety. I supported her going to therapy very much, but I myself kept merely talking about it. At some point she kind of kicked my ass to just go and do it, which was a very good thing. She finished therapy after roughly a year, I am still in therapy and probably will be for some time to come. I think I am now at the point where my emotions start to come back to life. I am still often dissociated, but sometimes I feel a lot of sadness or anger. It has happened twice in the past 4 weeks that I really broke down crying and sobbing. Also just two weeks ago I felt for the first time real anger towards my parents for an extended period of time. It was not just like a flair up that I immediately suppressed back to zero, but it lasted for around two days. The reason for this was that my mom has written me to invite me to a dinner at my grandparents birthday. I called her and said that I dont want to go there and act all happy as if everything was fine, but that I first want to sort out the things that we still have not sorted out. I also said that Rahel has offered to act as an arbitrator between us, since she felt (correctly) that we were not getting anywhere. So my mom said that she would talk it over with my dad and that we could maybe meet the following weekend (14 days ago). Then the next day she sent me a text that we could not meet on the weekend, because my dad was planning to go on a skiing trip the week after and these conversations make him feel unstable. (That btw was their reason why we could not continue the conversation for the past 7 weeks). So I felt that I got really angry. And the anger stayed with me. I called her the next evening and wanted to say that I was angry, but I could not bring myself to say the words. But I was so loaded, that she perfectly heard it out of my voice anyways. She then tried to calm me by making one concession after the other, until she offered that we could meet just the two of us on the up coming weekend (14 days ago). So we met to talk together. She had asked again that she still does not understand exactly what I want from them. So I said again (probably for the third time) that I want to be able to have a real relationship with them. I want to be able to share thoughts and feelings that are important to me and I would also like that they would share more important memories, thoughts and feelings with me. And that being able to have a real relationship requires that they respect me as a fully fledged human being, which means for one, that they do not have the right to cut of an important body part of mine. And then it started again with the evading and fogging and so on and I felt that I got angry again. I said that this is a prime example of what I am talking about, since I am explicitly stating a feeling and a desire of mine and now I am again in a position that I have to justify myself instead of being heard and understood. She said that she and my dad would be willing to come to a psychologist of my choosing with me, of which I was positively surprised. But at the end of our conversation I felt very strongly that there is no point to it. I felt that we would just go through the motions but nothing would come out of it. It was a weird feeling, it felt like a cold kind of certainty. I am not sure what will come next but this feeling has not changed since then. I feel like the guy that has always tried to find the hidden door in the wall of a castle, and has suddenly realized that there is no door, just a wall. So now I am standing in front of the wall kind of dumbstruck and sort of starting to look around and trying to regain my orientation. It is a really weird but also kind of a good feeling. I also feel like I have a ton of sadness inside me which I sometimes feel, but mostly I am dissociated from it. Even though I often feel a lot of sadness and sometimes anger, I generally feel much better and happier than I ever did in the past 15 years. I am happy that I start to have feelings, even though it is kind of unfamiliar and a bit curious. I am happy that I feel my confidence rise and that I can start to stand in for myself. I am happy that I have such a wonderful relationship and a wonderful vision for my future family (unschooling, peaceful parenting, attachment parenting). I am happy that I have a good compass (ethics) to navigate by through the difficulties of life. Philosophy is a stony road and I sure have many stones still before me, but I feel that I am on the right road and that makes me feel positive and happy.

If the definition of love is my involuntary response to virtue if I am virtuous, then what is the definition of virtue? I think we all know instinctively what actions are virtuous as compared to not, in general, but how do we know? How do we fact check? Is charity virtuous? What if charity results in enabling an existing problem rather than fixing it? Does that context make that example of charity immoral? If so then charity in general can't be virtuous. Or that example isn't charity. Someone asked how to love; someone else stated what love is; someone further state what virtue is. However while I can accept the premise that "Love is an involuntary response to virtue if I am myself virtuous" I do not know for sure what is virtue. And that's the key part that ends the pondering and allows action in pursuing love and evolution.

Stephan alluded to the demise of christian morals and values, and the consequential rise of rampant left atheistic socialism. However, we should pursue a remise to the left based on normative ethics rather than reinstating religious mysticism. Atheism should not be made the scapegoat (to use a biblical analogy!).

If you accept the premises, the conclusions follow necessarily. That is the basis of all rational argument. In all UPB debates, the defense side invokes the premises of debate and declares that from the assumptions, the plaintiff must have already accepted the outcome. However, the problem of applicability of the initial assumptions isn't solved. Why would we apply the rules of debate to life at large? Debate is debate, chess is chess, tennis is tennis. If someone wanted to skip ahead in line over the chess rule that whites go before blacks, we'd think he's a little mental. If someone wanted to justify abolishing the state because the rules of debate say so, we'd think he's a philosopher instead. I fully acknowledge that right now I am using the assumptions of UPB for the sake of debate and argument. What I also realize is that I can also live without most of them and do just as well. And you might say "so what, so is the scientific method, but that doesn't mean that it isn't true" - but no one is saying that you are immoral if you're not scientific. Scienstists don't go into churches to condemn the priests for talking about miracles. I also know that debate is a practice, not a reality. You go into the tennis court, you sit at the chess table, you talk at the debate square. But all those events are on/off bubbles that people turn in order to achieve a goal. If morality is for something, it's not to win a game, but for life. And life is not about truth, nor about winning, or being right, or being objective. The universe couldn't care less about those things. Life has existed without knowing any of those things, and will continue long after humans become extinct. This sounds fatalistic or nihilistic, perhaps, but this isn't an attempt to justify moral nihilism. Nor am I am a moral nihilist, just someone who questions why a moral system must insist on asserting that their rules must be universal when they are particular like the ones for chess or tennis are. If you wanted to live in this world with any sense of rationality, the assumptions: "We both exist" and "The senses have capacity for accuracy" are enough for all living forms. Language has a capacity for meaning is enough to initiate discourse and communication - good for human life. "Correction requires universal preferences" is a bit complicated. I would say it requires mutually agreed preference, as in to say that if you have agreed to debate, you also have agreed to be corrected. Yet in life people most certainly hate being corrected, nor do they want to change their opinions, so here we start seeing the deviation from the assumptions required for living and the ones taken for debating. No one needs corrections in their life, and the history of the world and religions show that sometimes the most succesful lives resist correction against all odds. "An objective methodology exists for separating truth from falsehood" - I think this forces the conclusion since truth and falsehood are already objective claims to begin with. They include objectivity in their essence, so to speak. Maybe it's just meant to be redundant on purpose. Might as well be called "truth and falsehood exist" - but the following assumption "Truth is better than falsehood" doesn't really follow necessarily from any logical conclussion. It is only something agreed for a debate, yet life doesn't need it. I know you don't go around Christmas telling children that Santa doesn't exist because you're not a jerk - but you will insist that I have agreed that Truth Is Better Than Falsehood in this debate and in all the world for all past and future - so I hope next Christmas you start a worldwide campaign against Santa since you also agree that it is False, so you must fight against it. But no, it is just a debate rule in order to declare somebody the winner of it. I wouldn't really hold you accountable for your debate assumption in life because I know life is not a debate. Do you, though? Peaceful debating is the best way to resolve disputes - or the debate is good assumption, since we're debating we must agree that it is good, otherwise we wouldn't do it. But so what? Why must I, in life, choose the best way at all? Maybe I prefer the least complicated one. Would that be wrong? Why? Maybe the best way isn't available and force is. Life is messy like that. "Individuals are responsible for their actions" - isn't that an entire separate moral debate? This is assuming the conclusion of the most important challenge in all of moral philosophy, and here it's just a given assumption because we are debating. The crux is proving that someone is responsible, not assuming it. And for the sake of the debate, sure, I can totally assume you are a responsible being in sentience of your mind - but I don't need to assume that outside of it. There are many degrees of determinism and kinds of determinism that are scientifically valid considerations that the premise of UPB being a scientific approach to ethics looks thin next to them. Even in a perfectly healthy looking person, how do you know his brain isn't hardwired for the decisions and preferences he takes? Or that he or she lacks a neurological structure for self control that others have? Or that even when it looks like self control, they lack a function to begin agressions? Someone would look very righteous and moral, but then they can't even think mordbidly. Would that be a good person if he's incapable of wrong? I don't like bringing even physical determinism since that would involve quantum mechanics and parallel universes, and I know those ideas are kind of unpopular in these debates. But for such a big assumption to make for the sake of debate, the justification of taking that into life at large is missing big time. The only thing done is saying that assuming the rules of debate must somehow imply that they are also rules you must follow at all times everywhere under all circumstances. Why? -Epilogue If you agree with me, then you probably realized that UPB isn't really derived from the observed and experienced requirements for life, but a position wholely assumed through initial preferences that are taken for the sake of forcing the conclusions they demand. In this sense, I would admit that the moral rules of UPB apply only during a debate, but not outside of it since UPB doesn't justify keeping those assumptions in life at large. The night is a jungle, and the assumptions you make about it shape the lenses you use to see the world. In one lense, something is moral. In another, it's immoral. But now what? If you still agree with me, you would say "but which moral system is the right one?" and I have my own thoughts about it, but that's not the point, and it would be for another thread. But if you were driving on a mountain, and I told you that the road you took leads to a precipice - would you stop, or would you tell me that you wouldn't turn back unless I told you what the right way to go is? I don't know for sure, but that's not as important as not falling off the mountain. Like any good scientific/rational proposition, I also include falsifiability. For me to be wrong, I would only need evidence that the assumptions of debate, and UPB, must be taken for life. That they are not optional assumptions, but that they have to be taken at all. If you say that they have to be taken in order to be moral, you are begging the question since you are defining morality through the conclusions of the assumptions, and that's just cheating. That which is moral or immoral changes sides when you switch to other systems, so why is this system necessary to assume in contrast to others?

Because it's correct.

Currently I am enrolled in a Business Ethics course while pursuing my Bachelors Of Business Administration. I must say, Stefan and Michael's podcasts have been invaluable references for me to call on while completing the course work. I just finished the chapter on Normative Theory of Ethics which featured a critique of Adam Smith that I had not initially considered and also had Immanuel Kant with the concepts that he coined such as "categorical imperative" and "universal acceptability" which reminded me an awful lot of Stefan's "Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof Of Secular ethics. I love Western philosophy so much. #TheWestIsTheBest No if you will excuse me I am going to go pull an all nighter reading Atlas Shrugged.

I'm sorry if I've glanced over it. There are so many podcasts. It can get messy and confusing. I'd like a concise definition and explanation. Thank you.

Scenario: Boy meets girl They date briefly and then don't speak for a year They reconnect and date for 6 weeks. They break up and boy says increasingly threatening and disrespectful things to girl for 2 weeks until girl threatens to contact boys family and police. Girl 'blocks' boy Boy shows up 3 months later wanting to date again Girl declines and says that she is willing to be friends Boy is visably frusterated with girl but requests girl message him sometime Girl says she will do so in the distant future. Boy gives girl tight hug that doesn't end until she pulls back Boy leaves at 5pm Boy returns at 10pm and walks into girls house It happens that girl was walking toward door and boy is stunned when he opens door Boy steps back and girl slams/locks door Boy refuses to leave and demands girl comes outside Girl requests that he leave but does not call police as suggested by friend Boy stays outside girls house for 3 hours Boy returns two days later at 8am Knocks on door Girl asks who is at the door Boy gives fake name Girl recognizes boys voice and calls police Police tell boy to leave girl alone and not to return to her property Boy returns the next morning knocking on door demanding girl come outside Girl calls police and police have boy agree to a restriction of contact order requiring boy not to attempt to contact girl directly or indirectly One week later boy contacts girls friend requesting girl to contact him Friend reports boy to girl Girl reports boy to police Police decide to charge boy with harassment 5 months go by Girl receives email from defence lawyer and calls 3 times over the course of a week with one response at the end of the week in the form of a voicemail informing girl that lawyer is going on holiday 2 weeks later police officer knocks on girls door at 8am unannounced and tells girl that if she doesn't get in touch with lawyer the case will be dropped Girl leaves additional voicemail for lawyer informing lawyer of police officers warning Girl is contacted by lawyer a week later who claims that police have not given her the entire case file as justification for not having any idea about the timeline of events and evidence of harassment Lawyer asks girl if girls actions leading up to breakup justified boys harassment and refusal of girls request to not be contacted by boy Girl is shocked and appalled that lawyer would ask this question when girl requested boy leave her alone on numerous occasions and his disregard for girls freedom is the reason for concern Not to mention the harassment started months after the relationship ended Girl feels that lawyer does not understand why she feels vulnerable about having to confront boy directly if the justice system fails to protect her right to her property and self One week passes Boy is meant to go to court in 2 weeks Boy adds girl on Instagram Girl takes screen shot of notification Reports incident (though inclined out of initiative to protect her freedom she was also instructed by police to report any attempted contact) Girl has to wait 5 hours for police to come to her home to update file Considering that the boy is going to court and has been told multiple times by girl and others that he does not have the right to demand contact with her, his persistence indicates that the justice system is not solving the issue of the girl being harassed and having her freedom limited by living in varying degrees of fear What should the girl do?

First of all, I apologize for not being well informed on the legal requirements for consent when it comes to circumcision. It is my understanding that only one parent is required to consent to the procedure, typically the mother. That being said, a friend of mine was recently persuaded by her husband to consent to circumcision for their newborn son. After several months of arguing and debating the morality and ethics of the barbaric procedure, she caved into his request. I'm not certain why he was so persistent, however I know that it resulted in a bargaining situation- in exchange for her consent he agreed to quit smoking. In other words, she traded an ounce of her son's flesh for a lifestyle change agreement that would potentially benefit the entire family. She continues to regret the decision, now with the weight of her choice pressing down on her conscious. I believe that she's comforting herself by shoveling the blame of her decision towards her husband, and the "at least" factor of their abhorrent deal making. However, the bottom line is that she is responsible for her decision. She is a well educated woman, who knew both in her gut and in her brain that it was a terrible idea. A couple of the questions this incident has made me consider: What are the consequences of sacrificing one's sense of integrity for another's pleasure? Why would someone do that? Should both parent's be required to consent to circumcision? Should the mother have the ultimate authority over circumcision? What advice can I give her to help her gain something out of this awful experience?

Hey everyone I just had the pleasure of reading the wonderful book and watching the film adaptation for Me Before You. It's about a man in a wheelchair and his plan to commit suicide in 6 months to escape his painful existence. His parents hire on a personal companion for him who would hopefully lift his spirits and prevent him from going through with his plan. This caregiver eventually starts to fall in love with him and devote her life to making him happy, and yes I can see how unhealthy that sounds...as much as I could have touched upon that in my review, I focus more on the idea of assisted suicide in a real place in Switzerland called Dignitas. Live and die with dignity is their tagline. Is it truly a dignified thing to legally allow? Let me know what you guys think of my review as well as the ethics surrounding planned and assisted suicide. I personally think it's a valid exercise of self ownership, but it is a grave choice that should not be taken lightly. Enjoy.

I've been thinking about this question for a while, and I would be interested to hear your thoughts. The question is: Why Be Moral? Why be ethical? Why adhere to UPB? Why be a 'good' person? The only reason that really makes sense to me is: because doing so, in this specific case, would make me happier than an alternate course of action. But if this is the answer, than the concepts of ethics, morals, UPB, etc... seem to lose their utility, being replaced by a series of personal, egoistic, utilitarian calculations. What are your reasons? Is there something I'm missing?

Is anyone familiar with Aldo Leopold's land ethic? Thoughts, opinions? In the shortest sense, the purpose of a land ethic is to extend ethical considerations within the human community to include soils, waters, plants, animals (i.e. the land). http://home.btconnect.com/tipiglen/landethic.html

An attempt to capture the philosophy of one of the greatest thinkers of all time using pen, paper, and a video cam.

Hey guys, I've been studying UPB recently and am now finally beginning to really understand it. It makes a lot of sense although I still do have some minor reservations. Although the logic is sound I will still do more research to make sure there are no obvious holes in it. Any ethical theory of course has to overcome the mental gymnastics of ethical relativists and subjectivists. I have been a libertarian for a long time but have recently been looking for strong ethical frameworks to explain it. My question is are there other philosophers that have picked up on UPB and subscribe to it? I understand that it is a relatively approach to libertarian ethics but I was wondering if anyone else has come to adopt it.

Joy (2015). Jennifer Lawrence, Robert De Niro, Bradley Cooper. I saw this movie recently. It is good. There are fantastic philosophical topics raised but not addressed. If you have someone in your life with whom you discuss (or would like to introduce to) RTR, peaceful parenting, ethics, feminism, or capitalism watch it together. Joy provides a firm context for conversation, but because it is a fictional setting it provides a safe context for talking about principles. The editing is a great melange of styles with the story context the only guide. The person I saw the film with didn't notice this, you might not either. For me it doesn't detract it adds greatly. I won't go into it more. The story is about Joy and her family. Joy is inventive and brilliant, brave, and highly productive woman in her mid thirties. She is surrounded by what initially appear to be eccentric extended family members all living under one roof in the late 1980's Pennsylvania. The film focus is on the invention, manufacture, marketing, and security of a labor saving device invented by Joy. It is very loosely based on the life of Joy Mangano. Despite a few misplaced and confused metaphors the movie is quite good and well worth your time and money. Beyond this paragraph I will be writing about a few specifics of the movie. Spoilers. The opening is all about establishing Joy and the extended family she permits around her. It opens with a scene from a fictional soap opera, a thematic element that will be used throughout Act 1 and 2. Danica says to Clarinda, "When someone sees a weakness in me I turn that weakness into a strength." This one minute scene is a summary of the entire movie. Clarinda is an analogue for Joy, Danica for Jackie, Ridge as her ex-husband Tony, Bartholomew for the yet unrevealed villain, yet who resembles Joy's father (more on that later). Throughout this movie the gun is used as a blunt obviation for assertiveness and determination. I really wish they'd deleted all the firearm scenes due to superfluity. Also not needed is the young Joy stating "this is my special power, that I don't need a prince" while the camera stays on an origami bird. This, despite clearly stating seconds before that her value was based on "the things that she make". Since this theme only returns in the final minutes of the movie and only by inference (the origami bird is again shown in context) it is a forgivable nod to Feminists. That Joy's family is dysfunctional is clear. What isn't is for how long. Joy is the candle, whose light is concealed by the bushel of her family oppressive needs. Or as put forth in the exposition of the gift of the cicada book by Jackie to Joy's daughter: a cicada nymph who has been living underground for 17 years and is about to emerge in noisy cacophony. Joy becomes irrationally upset and angry because of the book. Again unstated is for how long Jackie had been trying to rekindle the spark of Joy's drive. How many conversations met by equivocations, gifts not understood. It is possible Jackie had almost given up on Joy and was working to enrich the daughter instead. Jackie is a philosophical preparer, an assistant. She isn't a primary. She lacks the ability, but recognizes, appreciates, and craves the ability of others. Unlike the members of Joy's family she desperately wants Joy to succeed. It is unknown why Joy and Tony divorced after perhaps a decade of marriage. Likely the reason is Joy not consciously understanding the stressors she accepted by not living a lifestyle consistent with her philosophy. And Tony is rather one dimensional, but that dimension is virtue. Joy's mother and father are... evil. Her mother hobbles Joy with psychological powerlessness and projection of her fantasy and non-acknowledgement of reality. Her father is a serial monogamist who secretly hates Joy. Triggered by the cicada book Joy emerges. Her noise is to inconvenience her family by asserting her values and needs. She makes prototype drawings of her invention. Her family can't or claim not to understand. The invention doesn't exist in the crude drawings it exists in the mind - and they haven't any. Instead of being able to procure investment from her family on the basis of the virtue of the idea she has to resort to a distasteful guilt trip. That being the language understood should say a lot. Her family doesn't understand virtue but does understand manipulation. From this moment she is in a fight to produce her product. At first it seems that her family is nominally helping her. In reality they are using it as a leash. Her fathers girlfriend, and her mostly nonsense four questions. But in the practical things all they do is hinder her and isolate her from those who are share her philosophical values. In the guise of helping her they just continue doing what they have been doing for the last two decades of her life. But now, she is indebted to them in money not just by way of an unjust morality of family loyalty. They want her to try - and fail. Her failure indicating the death of her virtue and her productiveness forever bridled to the reins of familial control. Her efforts and persistence alarm them and when she is devastated by the death of her beloved grandmother they pounce. In immediate and purposeful countermanding her they treat with Joy's business enemies and try to forge a deal that would both kill the business but also Joy's spirit. In the end, Joy wins. But does she? She never pays her treacherous family in the coin they deserve, instead letting them maintain as dead weight, hangers on, jealous of her productiveness and acuity, seeking ever her downfall. Thematically the movie treats them as the tempering required to forge the strength in Joy. But this is actually never the case. Their actions in fact annealed her consistently, making obvious things obscure. This ultimately is what saves them: she is weakened just enough that they may parasitically feed off her, secure that she will never cast them off. Thanks for reading.

The Selfish Gene - By Richard Dawkins http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Anniversary----Introduction/dp/0199291152/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453844947&sr=8-1&keywords=selfish+gene The central idea is around evolutionary stable strategy, which lends alot of insight in to r/K selection theory Thought never stated explicitly, what I gathered from it is a genetic based behavior/ethics that is, things wants to perpetuate their existence, there are no evil or righteous in the emotional sense. There are certain gene set that will take advantage of the characteristics of another gene set and increase it's own "existences" at the expense of the existence of that other gene set. However if "righteous" genes begins to dwindle then then entire gene pool suffers and evil genes begins to dwindle. Then "righteous" genes begins to flourish which causes "evil" genes to flourish as well. However this is not a spring back and forth action, but it reaches a equilibrium, with "evil" genes take the smaller percentage and "righteous gene being the majority, until the next evolutionary event occurs which breaks up the entire dynamic. To me this just opened up a whole new way of looking at "evil" of society. Taking emotion out, people are not evil, they are only acting out their genetic instinct to perpetuate their existence. Just like how things falls toward gravity, if there is a way for an individual to live without expending his/her own effort, he/she will walk that way.

Hi everyone! Recently, Stef mentioned Washington Post cartoonist Ann Telnaes in <i>The Truth About Ted Cruz</i> saying that she'd portrayed "Organ Grinder" Cruz's young daughters as little monkey stage props in his campaign. <i>“There is an unspoken rule in editorial cartooning that a politician’s children are off-limits,” Telnaes admits. “People don’t get to choose their family members so obviously it’s unfair to ridicule kids for their parent’s behavior while in office or on the campaign trail- besides, they’re children. There are plenty of adults in the political world who act childish, so there is no need for an editorial cartoonist to target actual children.”</i> http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/12/22/ted-cruz-strikes-back-at-washington-post-cartoonist-for-mocking-his-daughters-theyre-out-of-your-league/ I'm an amateur political cartoonist, I'm wanting to create a Twitter feed for my work, and I'm wondering about any ethical limits lambasting the criminal political class and other public figures in the Internet Age. Is there such a thing as slander/libel under UPB? So, for example, there is a little known story about Marco Rubio’s 1990 arrest for underage drinking Miami Park (after hours) well-known to be a place for older gay men to cruise for gay prostitutes (Rubio would have been 18 at the time). https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rubios-summer-of-90-an-arrest-then-newfound-purpose/2016/01/21/3582a72e-c04d-11e5-bcda-62a36b394160_story.html It turns out, one of the two friends Rubio was arrested with was allegedly sued by the City of Miami in 2007 for running a gay porn studio out of a rental property he owned. Rubio and this friend (Angel Barrios) were cash-strapped roommates in 1990. This doesn’t prove anything, of course, and the police report doesn’t mention any illegal activity. http://www.miamigov.com/cityattorney/docs/litigation/Litigation-Report-Dec-2011.pdf (page 16, bottom) Now then, political cartoons of the past appearing in newspapers had to conform to the editor/publishers standards. But in the Internet Age, information can be exchanged without editorial filters (setting aside for a moment Twitter’s [and other social media’s] community standards for a moment). Would it violate UPB to post a cartoon caricaturing Rubio as a gay prostitute based on these rumors? I’m just wondering about the ethics. What if the portrayal in a state of nudity or state of undress, possibly performing sex-acts? How about portrayal of pornography, drug use, sexuality/sex acts, racism, etc. where there is little or no factual basis…(None of these things violate UPB insofar as I’m aware, but if used to trash a public figure’s reputation — would there be an ethical conflict?). I’m not really concerned with aesthetics here, either, just the ethical dimension. Is there such a thing as slander/libel under UPB?

Ethics is described in UPB as the subset that deals with enforceable behavior. The kind of behavior that it enforces is negative behavior, as in not-murder. However, propositions of negative behavior carry no information regarding the actual behavior of the agent. This is confusing in the sense that our minds are conditioned to expect judgments based on positive actions, not negative 'not-actions'. This is why UPB deals only with the examination of moral principles, not of particular actions. In order to acquire information regarding positive behavior we would have to inverse the theory to find the positive side. But before doing that, let's examine the behavioral aspect of the theory. For the purposes of this conversation I will separate behavior into actions and interactions. A simple action is motion that does not escape the body that it produced it. If I swing my arm forward into the air I am performing an action. However, if I swing my arm forward and it knocks out an unsuspecting and random person I have created an interaction. Interactions are the transference of energy from one body to another. It is clear that the ethics of simple actions are understood to be amoral, while interactions are morally judgeable. It is often the case that people try to ban or make rules against simple actions like "killing", but that can never be valid. This in turn confuses people into thinking that secular ethics are impossible, or forever relegated to relativism or egoism - but the mistake is to ignore the reality of interactions. So I'd say that ethics is the subset of universally preferable behavior that deals with universally permissible interactions. With this information, the question of "was this interaction moral or immoral?" can be examined directly instead of indirectly. UPB would only argue that a moral theory that says that an aggressive interaction was good is logically invalid. Whereas it could be asked "was this interaction universally permissible?" and it could have a clear cut yes or no answer without having to jump into meta-levels of examination. By permissible I mean interactions that can have consent removed from them. For example, I wouldn't say that the gravitational effect of the Earth on my body is a permissible interaction because it is universally forced on me and I cannot escape physics. The earth doesn't care if I consent or not because it makes no difference. It is inescapable. But escapable interactions can be permissible since the escape is the removal of the consent and sufficient action against it. This doesn't mean that if I put you in a cage that you can't escape from I've created an inescapable interaction because I could have chosen not to put you in a cage. The Earth can't choose to not pull me in. If I were to remove my clothes and throw my body unto you while saying "I do not consent to your face touching my xxx" you would understand that there is a contradiction between my interactions and my words by which I would be judged by the interactions I caused versus the consent I claimed I didn't give. Therefore the factor of permission is relevant to the agent receiving the energy, not the one giving it as it is logical that if the energy was given it had the consent of the giver (barring mental health and other exceptions). Going back to our Rando that I punched earlier, he has now gotten up and is very upset at me for knocking him down. Nonetheless, I explained to him that I was just making a theoretical example, and that it wasn't personal. This convincing argument satisfied him and told me he was a also a Buddhist monk. He forgave me in the name of his god, and went on his way. So he gave me permission retroactively to assault him, and it went well. I had the luck of punching a very humble person, but if I had punched a more feisty person I don't think he would have forgiven me. This means that there are interactions that, while initially not-permitted by the receiver, can be retroactively permitted. These are retro-permissible interactions, or RPI's. This doesn't mean that RPI's are universally preferable, but that they contain the potential to be forgiven. For the sake of being brief I would summarize that theft, assault, and sexual assault are RPI's: Not universally preferable, but not universally unforgivable either. This doesn't mean that you should forgive them either, but that the probability can never reach zero either. I am leaving murder for last because it is the only aggressive interaction that can't be forgiven by empirical demonstration. If you murder me I would become incapable of giving you permission after the fact because I would be dead. Maybe other people could make nothing of it, but it can't be retroactively permitted by the victim either. It will forever remain in a state of non permission. Since it is impossible for third parties to grant permission over my life or property, no one else can retro-permit it either. The concept of retroactive consent or permission sounds a little offsetting and almost an admission of subjectivity since the weight of the moral category of the interaction falls on the victim's choices. Nonetheless, the ethics of interactions require this level of open ended consensus since interactions are owned by the parties involved, not by third party judges. We as moralists or philosophers cannot interfere with the judgments of the owners of the interaction because doing so would be a violation of their property rights, rather ironically. We can only observe and influence through dialogue whether a victim condemns or forgives his assailants, but to determine the ultimate judgment by ourselves would be an act of arrogance. So, UPB has four interactions as evil: Murder, theft, rape, and assault. But UPI has only one as evil: Murder - and three as wrong but locally and retroactively permissible: Theft, sexual assault, and assault. Just because something can be locally permissible it doesn't mean it will be permitted. Depending on the circumstances the probability of forgiveness is almost zero, but the catch is that it can never actually reach zero as in the case of murder. Only murder has a zero chance of ever being permissible by which the label of true evil is guaranteed. Everything else is wrong, but not absolutely. But there is one more thing. RPI's can't be considered permissible if the interaction happened under the threat of murder. Since murder is the only evil, any permissible wrongdoing committed under the threat of murder becomes evil by association. I could steal something from you when you weren't looking, and it would be wrong, but it's a RPI nonetheless. Maybe I just took a cookie from your lunch as a joke. But I could steal the same cookie while threatening you with a loaded gun and it would not only be wrong, it would be evil. And that's the difference between something being wrong, and something being evil according to the theory of universally permissible interactions. To trespass property rights is always wrong as UPB demonstrates that it can't be right, but to trespass them with the weapon of murder is evil. This also sounds very similar to the NAP, if you were paying attention. However, the NAP would say that all incursions of property rights are abhorred and should be treated with equal moral condemnation. This leads to many arguments about flagpoles, or lifeboats, or any ridiculous objection to it. I get it. I've done the same thing myself in thought experiments, and I don't like it either. This way of thinking, on the other hand, bypasses the extremists by literally saying "Bro, interacting with the property of others without permission isn't evil per se, it's just necessary during emergencies. I'm sure they would give you permission after the fact when you explain it to them, but you're not evil for doing it". This isn't something that Stefan hasn't said before, but it isn't something explicitly described in UPB either. I think that making it part of the theory is necessary to further facilitate its understanding. To synthesize: UPI's are mutually agreed interactions, voluntary negotiations, self defense scenarios. It is 'right' to do these. RPI's are interactions without permission that hold a probability of future permission. Theft, assault, etc. It is 'wrong' to do these. Evil interactions are those which are impossible to permit after the fact, and only murder fits this category. It is evil to murder. RPI's done under the threat of murder are evil by association. It is coercion to do so. Violations of property rights are RPI's as long as they are not done under the threat of murder. At the introduction I said that UPI would examine interactions and not just principles. To do that we need to ask a series of questions and then determine the outcome like a flowchart of events. 1- Was it a mutually voluntary interaction? Yes) It's moral No) See 2 2- Were the property rights of the victim trespassed? Yes) It's wrong No) It's mean 3- Was the victim's life threatened through force? Yes) It's evil No) It's still wrong 4- Was it an accident? Yeah, what if it was an accident? Accidents: By the very nature of reality, accidents are impossible to eliminate from the world. It is a feature of the chaotic relativity we experience that unintended interactions will occur. To distinguish an accident from negligence we would have to prove that there was no intention from the part of the perpetrator, no intention from the receiver to receive, and no known measure to avoid it or intention to avoid it. If we know that good brakes are necessary for safe driving, a failure to have good brakes and the resulting crash wouldn't be an accident, but negligence. If we are driving and a wild goat suddenly lunges into the car, we know there wasn't any way to prevent that from our part, nor from the goat's part since it's just an animal, it is safe to call it an accident. Maybe we steer away from it and hit another car in the process. It's a series of unfortunate and chaotic events. A lethal accident is categorically different from murder because it had no intention from either party, and no reasonable preventability. So you cannot escape the chaotic nature of reality that creates accidental interactions, therefore these do not fall under a category of wrongdoings. You cannot also forgive, or retro-permit, an accident because there is no voluntarily inflicted trespass of property rights. You can't turn it into a voluntary association since the person causing the accident had no intention in the first place to do it. It would be like trying to ascribe volition from me to you, and that's mind control, which doesn't work. So accidents fall in the category of universally permissible interactions because to not-permit accidents goes against the very nature of reality, that chaos is inevitable. However, you cannot encourage an accident to happen because to do it would no longer create an accident, but a moral interaction. If you were to say that you could cause "accidental murder" it would be a logical contradiction. You could ask for reparations of an accident, but you cannot ascribe immorality to the causing person since it was outside his volition. I said that murder is unforgivable by the victim since the victim is literally unable to do so, but what if they were accidentally killed? Wouldn't that be unforgivable too? Well, not from a certain perspective. When we agree to interact with reality we are consenting to its chaotic nature. We realize that a lightning could strike us, a falling piano could smash us, an earthquake could kill us. Accidents are already part of the consent we partake in when we interact with our chaotic reality. 4) Was it an accident? There's nothing to forgive nor to condemn. The Question: Why should I be moral? Under the framework of UPI this question has some interesting repercussions. Let's remember that ethics concerns itself with interactions, not simple actions. That is, not all behaviors are considered in ethics, only those actions that exchange energy between at least two agents. A simple action is owned by the actor, but an interaction is owned by at least two agents - a giver and a receiver. If you as a giver ask the question "why should my caused interactions be moral or universally permissible?" you would be asking "why can't I judge my interactions by myself?". This is because if you could judge your given interactions then victims could be blamed for the perpetrator's actions. The two agents involved own the interaction, not just the giver or perpetrator. It falls on the receiver's end to permit or retro-permit interactions with perpetrators. In other words, you have to behave in universally permissible ways because you cannot be your own judge. If you want to declare immunity from moral judgments you would have to deny the agency of the other person, ascribe it to yourself, and absolve yourself of any violation. So, from the giver's side there is a negative answer: Because you cannot give yourself permission to interact with another person's property by yourself. This would imply that there is a positive answer from the receiver's end instead if we follow the symmetry of the equation. The question of "Why should I behave morally" looks different from the side of the receiver. What the receiver would ask is "Why should other people respect my property rights and my agency?". Another way of putting it is "Why shouldn't you murder me?". This reveals a contradiction in the logic of attempting to question morality. If you allow people to murder you, then it wouldn't be a murder. And the same from any other question of property rights. If you allow the trespassing of your property then it is not a trespassing. This is explained in UPB repeatedly already. The only way of escaping this logical trap would be to state that you have no self awareness, by which you would have no agency, by which you would have no causality, by which you would have no property rights. Well, if I were to believe your argument against your self awareness, I would have no choice but to consider you mentally incapable, and call a professional to assist you. It is then that if the receiver asks "Why should other people initiate universally permissible interactions with me?" the positive answer is: Because I have self awareness, and that grants me the agency to give or take permissions over my property as I wish. To deny this would be to plead insanity to the judge. The catch-22 is that declaring yourself insane proves that you have the reason to realize it, and thus you are sane. The question of why should we be moral cannot be answered without the context of a moral theory, and in this case UPI. If you tried to answer it without context, you would just say "because!" and you'd have fallen into the trap of the nihilist. That is because it is impossible for a person to be alone in the world, and be good or evil at the same time. To be good is to be good to others. To be evil is to be evil to others. And when you ask "Why should I be good?" it can only be answered in two ways, from the giver and from the receiver - not from a third and uninvolved party trying to troll a philosopher. In UPB, however, a person alone in the universe would be considered good because it is not-stealing, or not-murdering. In this sense UPI does deviate from UPB, but I wouldn't mourn this difference at all. I think it is a better interpretation of what being moral means at all, if you ask me, but I'm biased anyway. The final word: UPB & UPI & NAP When you use UPB to prove the NAP you find that there is a gap in the process. UPB is a meta-ethical theory of all behaviors, and the NAP is a moral rule against aggressive behaviors, but the moral theory in the middle of the equation seems to be missing. UPB is the grandfather and the NAP is the grandson, but where's the father? UPB only deals with moral theories, not moral actions. In that way, UPI is a theory of moral interactions that fills the gap between both the larger theory of behaviors, and the lower ground of rules to moderate behaviors between moral agents. The argument when there is only UPB and NAP looks like this: -Why should people follow the NAP? Because it's the only principle that passes the test of UPB -Why should I believe in UPB? Because denying it confirms UPB -Why should I be moral then? Because UPB is true -That doesn't answer my question I don't care. If it's true, you should follow it -Just because something is true doesn't mean that I have to follow it Right, but that doesn't invalidate the theory -I know, I'm just asking why I should change my behavior to follow it I don't know, it's up to you to choose to be virtuous, and have justice, and it will save the world... Suffice to say that the moral doubter is left unsatisfied and devolved into nihilism or egoism, and has no answer as to why he shouldn't be a jerk to other people. But let's try it with UPI and see what comes out. And if I rigged the conversation, well, I came up with it so I'm biased. We can try it for real later. -Why should people follow the NAP? Because you, as a receiver of moral interactions, cannot avoid having the capacity to deny people access to your property, or give them permission. -But what if I want them to trespass my property? That would be a voluntary, or universally permissible interaction instead. -Yeah, but what if they violate my property, but I don't complain about it? Then that's just a forgiveness, or retro-permission. It's part of the UPI theory. -Ok, but what about what I personally should do? Why should I follow the NAP? Why shouldn't I steal? Whether you follow or not the NAP isn't for you to judge. Other people, the receivers of your interaction, are the ones who judge whether you are violating them or not. -That's a bit confusing, can you explain it to me a little simpler? Sure, what I mean is that even if you were to violate the NAP in the absolute, wait, do you follow me there? -On the absolute? Yeah. - You mean, if I were to break the NAP in theory over any little thing? Right, so every single tiny violation of property rights that you do is technically wrong. -Ok, and then? That's what I'm saying! Even if I touch you, or do something you don't like, or take your shoes, or step on your lawn, you could shoot me for trespassing your property! How crazy is that? I know, I know, that's what I am trying to explain. It doesn't have to be like that. There's leniency. -What do you mean by leniency? I mean that not all incursions into property are evil. All interactions between agents occur when their private property comes into contact with each other, right? -Right. So my body would be my property, and your lawn yours. Yes, ok. That is not an evil interaction. To trespass into my lawn is technically wrong, I didn't let you in, but it's not unforgivable either. There's reasonable ways of letting things pass. -So you're not going to shoot me if I overstep, or if I take something, or if I (etc)? No, it's not like that. If you were to initiate lethal force against me I would have no choice but to defend myself. Don't you agree? -Yeah, I don't want to argue against self defense, that as much I understand. Sure, I'm glad we understand each other at least on that. -What if I stole money from you? Would you shoot me then? Steal money how? -Like, if I were to take your wallet when you weren't looking. I'd like to have my wallet back. -Yeah, but I took it, and then I ran away. Ok, so if I were to find you, and ask for my wallet back, would you give it to me, with all the money intact? -I guess I would... Right, so you were just pulling a practical joke on me. It's a prank. Nobody has to get shot for that. -On second thought, I won't give it back What are you going to do with it? -I'm not giving it back I'm assuming then that you would use force to protect the wallet from me taking it back -Yes In that case you have initiated the use of force against me, and I can use force to get it back -No! Yes I can! You agreed on self defense. -Darn, you win this time. All in a day's work. So from that highly biased towards me conversation you can see that if you argue against UPI you don't have to immediately jump in the argument of performative contradictions because arguing against UPI doesn't confirm UPI in the way it happens with UPB. Yes, technically a debate is a universally permissible interaction, but the fact that you chose a UPI to argue doesn't mean that RPI and evil interactions exist either. It could be that evil doesn't exist and all interactions are universally permissible, but as we've seen in the theory, that can't be validated (I hope) - but the act of debating it doesn't prove it either. However, as the debate above showed, there is an unavoidable annoyance that I like to call The Asshole Zone. The ASZ is the zone of interactions were it is just too much work to restitute property and assholes can take advantage of people's patience or leniency. This is why trolling exists, and 4chan exists, but I don't know how to get rid of it in any sensible way other than "don't be an asshole". Epilogue: If you're already someone who is convinced of the validity of UPB you might be wondering why you should care about another theory on top of it. UPB was never intended to be a theory of ethics, but a method, like the scientific method, to validate or invalidate moral hypothesis. In science you would propose a scientific hypothesis, run it through the scientific method, and then either validate it is a scientific theory or discard it. UPB is only the method, not the theory. What I propose with UPI is the ethical theory itself. Not the method to validate it. It is not my intention to discredit or reject UPB, on the contrary. It is an effort to build something that actually guides behavior and provides answers to people hell bent on erasing any and all moral idea from planet Earth. And that includes my own nihilistic tendencies as well. This essay is the direct result of trying to cope with UPB and understand it. In that process I also caught up on its criticisms that could almost be called arguments, but ultimately end up being nothing more than whining. It is totally unproductive to try to discredit or disavow any theory without trying to find the answers to the gap it would leave by its absence. In science it would be a waste of time to go into a lecture only to complain that maybe Einstein was wrong about General Relativity without any reason why and just yell like a monkey that science is based on assumptions. In that sense, this is the result of my personal struggle with secular ethics, and I hope it can either be improved or discarded. But please, if you want to say it's wrong, also tell me what is right instead.

To borrow a principle of quantum mechanics called the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle which says that position and momentum are mutually uncertain. Knowing the position will leave momentum in uncertainty, while knowing the momentum will leave the location uncertain. This strikes me as eerily similar to what happens in moral philosophy in regards to ethics and justice. I call it the MUP. The Morality Uncertainty Principle says that as the certainty of morality increases, the certainty of punishment decreases. The more you know about morality, the more objective it becomes- the exercise of justice and punishment becomes less known and more subjective. The certainty of morality is the uncertainty of justice, and viceversa. People expect specifically determined punishments and judicial action out of a specifically determined system of universal ethics. However, universal ethics contain no information about the actions to follow after immoral behavior has occurred - and this upsets people. So they codify their laws, try to write down specific criminal justice codes for each and every imaginable situation, and in the process of doing that they create uncertainty of morality. As a psychological note, the preference for certainty of justice over certainty of morality seems to be as a way of managing the anxiety that uncertainty generates in people. Not knowing what to do bothers people, and they don't want to think about it. By having an instruction manual they get to relax their upset sensibilities at the expense of a rational and universal set of ethics. In other words, if it feels good, it is good. But a minority of people reject this paradigm and are perfectly comfortable with the certainty of ethics versus the uncertainty of punitive action. The anarchists, philosophers, libertarians, and so on. It is the inverse way of thinking and even feeling. Back to the topic of certainty, this ambiguity of the right side of the equation is often used as an attack on universal principles. They think that if a violation of property rights, a violation of the NAP, or any other likewise principle is broken then it must be that justice and punishment must follow and this must also be objectively determined. No, it's not like that. Tolerance, forgiveness, mercy, pity. These are all possible outcomes of a violation of ethical principles. Total and utter justice and restitution is also possible for the same crime. It is this 100% to 0% uncertainty of follow-up behavior that bothers people deeply. Some philosophers like Daniel Denett go as far as saying that they simply don't want to live in a world without punishments. It is unthinkable to them because of their feelings, which is rather anti intellectual. The approach I have to the uncertainty of justice in the certainty of morality is one of intensity. The intensity approach is as such: The intensity of a moral problem is inversely proportional to the intensity of justice. Meaning that situations of intense moral duress like life or death scenarios lower the intensity of the desire to proceed with punitive actions. In the classic flagpole example, it is certainly determined that breaking the window to save your life is a violation of property rights - but the intensity of the moral choice was so high that proceeding to prosecute a man for it would be unthinkable since it follows inversely proportional intensities. But what if its the opposite? What if someone who is in no duress whatsoever, no poverty or hunger, someone simply breaks in your window and takes your stuff just because. The moral intensity is so low, so minimal, that the resulting justice intensity increases almost to the max. There is no good reason to break property rights in such low intensity, thus restitution and actions against him are perfectly understandable - but always with the low probability of mercy and forgiveness. Maybe you just don't want to go through the trouble and let it go. In the end, it is the shift from certainty of justice to certainty of morality that can effectively change society, and it begins with individuals capable of standing up saying "I don't know what should be done about this crime, nor do I want to".

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2015/11/05/religion-morality/ The article also provides direct source to the paper here: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2815%2901167-7 Although this isn't something unheard of for most here, it is interesting to see research like this going out to the public, and is useful to have in case you want to share it with people who make claims to the contrary.

Ok so, I'll ask where does property come from and I'm under the impression that the answer is "from the exercise of self-ownership." So external property rights come from the exercise of internal self-ownership. Ok, I say, where does self-ownership come from? I'll get responses mirroring these ideas on page 76 of UPB. "Now the first “property” that must be dealt with is the body. “Ownership” must first and foremost consist of control over one’s own body, because if that control does not exist, or is not considered valid, then the whole question of morality – let alone property – goes out the window" This denotes the nature of all other property rights stemming from self-ownership. "Thus the very act of controlling my body to produce speech demands the acceptance of my ability to control my speech – an implicit affirmation of my ownership over my own body." This reflects the factual ability to control, and the exercise of that control somehow implying self-ownership. <that implication is the part that needs explanation. Stefan seeks to do this in surrounding statements: "Clearly, the body cannot entirely control itself, but rather must be to some degree under the direction of the conscious mind.. What this means is that a man is responsible for the actions of his body, and therefore he is responsible for the effects of those actions" "responsible" is used here not in the way that we say that the drought was responsible for the lower yield of crops this year. That's fine, but notice by doing this, Stefan smuggles the morality into the conversation. Before that we have a-moral facts: conscious minds exist, bodies exist, and consciousness sends electric impulses to extremities resulting in motor control. No problem. Which of those is a "moral" fact? Once you use "responsibility" in the way that Stefan does here...: "If I say to you: “Men are not responsible for the actions of their bodies,” it would be eminently fair for you to ask me who is working my vocal chords and mouth. If I say that I have no control over my speech – which is an effect of the body – then I have “sustained” my thesis at the cost of invalidating it completely" ...the argument has been concluded before being made. Stefan then moves the argument to say that if you deny the action or the causal link, you are denying the as of yet unexplained underlying moral premise. Since the former part of that sentence is contradictory, so would the second part. The problem is the unexplained underlying morality of the situation. One day we may be able to relinquish motor and speech control. These events at the level of the brain are being better understood every day. How then, is absolute slavery not possible? Even if, after a while, you were screaming in your head "no! no!! no!!!" What would that mean for your self-ownership? What is free-will worth if it affects nothing? This might seem really simple for all of you, but for some reason it's like Greek to me. ( .) (. )