Search the Community

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

On December 27th, 2016, Stefan reloaded a YouTube video that he uploaded several weeks prior, titled "Woman rejects feminism, triggers SJWs". There is something Stefan is missing in his argument, he says that late teens/early 20s is the best time to have children for health and fertility reasons, and encourages women to go with child-rearing first, career later, but at this point in a person's life, most people have very little money and can barely afford to live on their own. Picture it: Young couple, the woman stays at home to be a young mother, WHERE is the money coming from? The father's crummy job changing tires or stocking overnight at Walmart? You can't raise a family in 2016 with an income like that. More money has to come from somewhere. Living in Toronto, being older and well-to-do with his successful wife, Stef's position isn't in touch with the current economic situation for the age group he is encouraging to have children. Am I wrong? Did I misunderstand his statement?

I could use a good argument against the above. The only thing that comes to my mind is the argument against "social contract" which we never signed. I'd love to hear your take on this.

People say "I'm a social democrat" or "I'm a libertarian". This creates an unnecessary difference where both may be just mindless robots... But seriously, that says nothing about their quality of reasoning or method of getting to our position. For us, any mental position is secondary to reasoning things carefully and comparing them to evidence. Also, many of us have a long history of learning, refining or rejecting our previous beliefs, so that it has become almost a habit. Some of us even have a dose of healthy masochism that drives us to examine exactly opposite "beliefs" to what we "believe" in. That is what defines us, not our momentary position. Please note that this is very different to Stef's benevolent turn of mind towards Christians, the sources of social stability and not killing unbelievers. His newfound tolerance is based on similarity of conclusions and has its merits. But I wonder if there is also merit to identifying ourselves as seasoned, methodical developers of our worldviews. Because there sure seems little benefit to identifying ourselves by the labels of positions. But there are downsides to this as well. This kind of defining ourselves seems extremely boastful, over-intellectualized, and even though it's true, it may put people to shame unnecessarily. I don't know how people feel about this. It's true that I used to have resistance to certain ideas - I come from the leftist/transhumanist/ anarchist side after all. It took me a few years to understand what libertarianism is about. I've seen that Ayn Rand's philosophy is valid, obviously taken from Aristotle, but I didn't see how it jibes with her other ideas and I succumbed to many popular prejudices against her. But I've also reasoned my position on woo woo & metaphysics well enough to defend them in front of scientific skeptics & atheists. I've learned a lot and rejected what wasn't true (not everything, I've had some valid reasons for my position). Very few people would ever do that. So far, I've usually tried to say that I understand people's position, that I used to hold it as well, but it was long ago. I don't remember so well how it was like to be a democratic socialist and I'd like to remind myself what was it like. Knowing things as end conclusions isn't very useful. What is useful is being able to put ourselves into the old mindset and have empathy with misinformed and propagandized people, who truly believe that we really would occupy the stereotypical straw man anarchist/libertarian position of selfishness.

Hey all! So I've been having discussions about issues such as government and taxation. I often hear a claim that governments cannot steal and taxation is not a theft. However, when I apply the exactly same reasoning to a different scenario, for example a person or a different organisation doing exactly the same as the government (enforcing taxation through the initiation of use of force) suddenly the reasoning reverses and such a thing becomes theft in the eyes of the person I am debating. I attempt to reason through rules of non contradiction (something cannot be and not be at the same time) but I usually get the following responses: "government is different" - Therefore theft only applies to individuals or private organisations. "the extraction of money is voluntary" - You don't have to work if you don't want to. You actually want the government to spend the money on roads, education etc. "money are extracted at source and if you do not receive the money in the first place, then they cannot be taken away from you, therefore not theft" - (This is the case in the UK where you don't do your own taxes but rather the employer pays them from your salary before you get a chance to sniff them). So if you don't get the money in the first place it isn't theft. "There is no right and wrong" or "There is no truth, it depends" - Therefore taxation is morally good and not theft, whereas extraction of property without consent by something or someone else than a government is theft. Is there a way of combating such claims or have I entered a realm of sophistry from which there is no return? What is the best way to argue from here and point out the contradiction?

Hello, We often hear Stefan comparing examples to other examples in order to clarify and spot contradictions. For example: If somebody said "Government is moral" Stefan would probably reply similarly to this - "So if I come to you and take your money at gunpoint, that is not moral. This is exactly what governments do, therefore we cannot call governments moral if we have already established that they steal, which we know is immoral" Then the contradiction becomes clear since we all know that this is precisely what governments do. My question is, does this art of spotting and pointing out contradictions with the use of metaphors and different examples have a name? Is it Aristotle's First Principles? Sorry for a silly question but I wish to learn more about this art of....brilliancy.

Hello, Quite frequently we hear questions like "Is it fair that that women earn less than men?" as a response to valid arguments based on research and evidence. This is a clear attempt to dehumanise the person as well as to appeal to the emotions of the listeners. The way I see it we have two choices, either surrender and agree with the other person or stand our ground in which case we risk being called and labelled with all the nasty words. I understand that such emotional appeals should not be a part of any sort of reasonable debate, however, it is quite hard to avoid such questions especially when the debate takes place in a university. Let's face it, the moment we are being labelled as a racist or a misogynist, nobody will listen to us. Is there a way of avoiding agreeing and at the same time listeners not labelling you as a spawn of Satan?

The Introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=murvOaHB66A The Result: What the Hell IS This? There are two common trends within each video: a near-unintelligible speed of speech delivery, and a distinct absence in the presence of arguments. It's being called Policy Debate. And it’ll be impacting the American political landscape for years to come. From the Ivy League schools to rural high school classrooms, youths from around America of every color, class, creed, and religion are participating in a rational and coordinated debate feverishly incoherent mindslaughter of baseless assertions, indecipherable gibberish, and frantic hyperventilation in order to further the discussion with their original contributions towards important societal matters such as the impending fiscal cliff, prospects of nuclear war, and sociocultural / gender issues. I encourage you reader, to watch the first video through and through to become acquainted with the most benign and orthodox manifestation of debate strategy in the this strange paradigm of speed debating format. Professional organizations invoke the participation of thousands of teens in this hysterical conversation of political scope every year, with recognizable and reputable institutions such as Harvard University and the U.S. Military Academy sending their best and brightest to participate. You can watch another debate tactic in Oklahoma State University’s heated match against Harvard: RAPPING. If your time is short, I’ll do you a petty favor and transcribe one of the gentleman’s arguments: This debate was orchestrated by CEDA (Cross Examination Debate Association). I have ascertained through YouTube video evidence, that stretching AT LEAST as far back as 2004, national championship winners without exception has utilized “speed debate” tactics. It’s colloquially being referred to as “spreading”, or speed-reading. Contestants conduct research on their position for the topic assigned by the moderators with a healthy allotment of time ahead of the debate to prepare. Once called to the stand, a sentimental pre-speech of thank-you’s and praise to the organizers is given by the contender to warm the audience (and judges’) hearts. The debater then proceeds to place a stack of papers or laptop upon a table, physically braces his or herself for competition, often hunching low, as if instinctively, and the debate begins. An unrelenting and unintelligible spewing of related and unrelated facts, fiction, ad-hominem, logical fallacy, baseless assertions, unsubstantiated claims, references to undefined and ambiguous terms, fowl language, intermittent gasps for breath, and repetitive “UH-UH-UH” onomatopoeia all fired at a steady rapid pace ensue, with the occasional intervention of rap ethos now and then. At the opening team’s closure, a brief period of questioning follows from the opposition. Questioning includes: calling the other side racist, and asking them to defend it, making up things the other side didn’t say, and asking them to refute that, using the words “White Privilege”, and also rapping. The Problem: These are not debates. Debates are characterized by the use of logical arguments, based upon both reason and evidence to support their foundations. Contenders have their minds put to the test based upon how they can think on their feet, and at best are permitted notecards or single sheets from which they may record beforehand the general points which they wish to cover. Speed reading an infinite number of little factoids which lend credence to a particular position is not debating. The implications of this phenomenon propagating are unmeasurable: There is literally a massive and ever-growing cabal of politically-interested individuals around my age, +/- 5 years who genuinely believe that this practice is what ought to dictate government and social policy. They erroneously believe that the most effective strategy to win a debate is to spew ideology, weave a web of facts, and rap. I know not what to make of this. I will be conducting research into the organization responsible for this; I suspect a dark agenda is afoot behind the existence of “Policy Speed-Debating”, the chief aim of which is to eradicate rational discourse and supplant it with…. Idiocracy.

Overall Question: If I cannot make clear the immorality of sneaking a second movie, what likelihood do I have of convincing friends of the immorality of the state, parental, and religious violence with which they were raised? Situation: An older, retired friend brags that he was able to get past "The Rules" and "societal customs" and snuck into a second movie after his first movie was over, overcoming his wife's concern about "getting caught" so that they could "have fun". When they were caught (because few other patrons had bought tickets for the second movie) and asked to leave, his "worst case scenario" had not proved as bad as he had thought and thus reinforces his belief that he should have "more fun" and worry less about "The Rules". (At one point he nodded to me that he was acting "more libertarian". (Ouch!)) Problem: My attempts to suggest that he had crossed a line in morality have failed. My Question of You: Am I wrong about the morality of the situation? Am I missing an important point? How might you address a friend with a similar brag? My Initial Response: I denied that this had to do with "The Rules" or with "societal customs", but instead with personal integrity. I pointed out that he was out of integrity because he had agreed individually to a clear, implied contract that the ticket would be for one and only one movie. I argued that the destructiveness to himself of promising one thing, and then doing another, was something he needed to worry about, not whether the usher would catch him. Arguments: Friend: There was no implied contract. My Answer: You did not, nor would you have, told them your intention because you know that they would not have sold you the ticket. Thus, you knew of the implied contract. Friend: In the past... Movie theaters, when I grew up, used to permit multiple viewings per ticket. My Answer: And you know that not to be the agreement at this time. (See "No Implied Contract") Friend: I see myself as virtuous. I have no problem with integrity. My Answer: Integrity is oneness between word and deed. You acted contrary to your implied word. There are consequences that expand far beyond a movie ticket for being so quickly willing to break your word. Friend: Only explicit contracts are valid. I never explicitly gave my word. My Answer: So, the universal rule is that, as long as something is not spelled out in black and white, you may do it, even if you understand fully that your host expects you not to do that? Friend: No harm; no foul. As long as (I believe that) there is no detrimental impact on the service provider, I may do this, for the greater good (in this case, harmless "fun"). My Answer: 1) He actually returned a few days later and paid a ticket to see the movie that he had tried to steal. 2) His guess of the other person's mindset or value or benefit can not abrogate the contract. 3) This rationalization is the path down which Evil frequently travels. My Query: So, if it is okay to sneak in to a second movie, you could have also snuck into it for the first time by having someone open for you the fire door? His Answer: No, that would have been "wrong". "Interestingly, that is where I would draw a line." My Query: So, I'm trying to understand the universal rule here. Friend: There are no universal rules, only situational and (culturally) relative. My Answer: So, you believe that you may do anything for which you have a good story for? Other Threads Discussed: I talked to him separately about the difference of having rules imposed one-sidedly upon one, like by his parents, his religion, his schools, versus coming to a win-win agreement of a voluntarily-entered, mutually beneficial contract. He denied that he was confounding the two (despite his initial presentation of the issue as his being able to break "The Rules" and "Societal Customs".) His Bottom Line: As long as he "feels" that his action is justified, moral, and in integrity, it is. There can be no external measures of Right or Wrong, only internal. (I asked him about murder, and his contention is that he does not think murder is right, but the emphasis on him.) His Catch Phrase: "I just don't see the world as you do." "That is not true in my world." "[Other people with my world view] agree with me.", etc. My Fear 1: I don't think he will ever be able to understand universalizing morals, or absolute concepts of Evil. He is typical of people around me -- who use only their gut to judge morality and regularly justify anti-UPB actions. Are all my study and thought wasted, because there is little hope of ever changing him and his kind. My Fear 2: I believe that this type of subjective ethics is the slippery slope down which all Evil travels. Yet all my friends subscribe to something like this. I often feel alone and alien.

Matt Dillahunty has been doing some awesome work on rebutting theist arguments for the existence of deities on his youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/SansDeity/videos?view=0&sort=dd&shelf_id=0 If you're not already familiar with Matt, he is the regular host of the The Atheist Experience and the NonProphets, and recently made the decision to work as a full-time counter-apologist making videos, and traveling and debating theists. You can support his work here: http://www.patreon.com/AtheistDebates I would like discussion to center around debating techniques and tactics -- efficient use of arguments, common traps and dead ends, what to listen for from your opponent, etc. Check out his apologetics/counter-apologetics wiki at http://www.ironchariots.org

Hello all, I am gearing up to approach some family of mine that employs corporal punishment. So I am first trying to put together the very best case I can against spanking. I also told a friend of this impending situation who has not been convinced by me that spanking is wrong. Thankfully our conversation did enlighten me as to how poor I was at making the case and that there is far more research advocating corporal punishment than I expected. i have searched the forums and cannot find a thread providing the best case against spanking. So please if you can provide me with your best case against spanking and any pro or con research pertaining to it. i consider this one of the most important things I have ever done and want to fully plan and prepare. Thank you so very much, and If I get a decent amount and quality of FDR participation in the thread I'll donate extra for the month.

I wrote an article on online civility and how to handle debates/commenting. You can read it here. Tell me what you think.

The following post is one I wrote in response to a class-blog for the Introduction to Philosophy course I'm taking. I didn't believe then nor do I believe now that this class would actually teach me much next to anything about philosophy, besides some of the basics we don't mully over here like defining words like premise and conclusions. What this class has done for me those is help me practice reasoning out the arguments for my beliefs, because unlike this environment, at the college I attend in the deep south/bible belt of the United States stereotypically composed of conservative white Christians and liberal black Christians, I'm at odds with just about everybody which has made me a stronger philosopher for it. But back to my repost below. My class was recently discussing the ontological argument for the existence of god in class and had to write a couple of posts on our class forums about it. This is my most recent post and I just wanted to share it with you all here, so that I may actually hear some type of rhetorical feedback in my lines of reasoning and how I go about structuring my thoughts, something I surely won't receive from my classmates or professor. I hope you enjoy. And just before you begin, for those of you who are unfamiliar with the ontological argument it goes like this: 1. If god is a conceivable/possible being, than god exists. 2. God is a conceivable/possible being. 3. Therefore, god exists. _________________________ NOTE: This post isn't necessarily in response to anyone else's post specifically, but I hope all of you who come across this will take care and read what I have to say. In doing so I believe you would be doing yourself and the world a considerable favor. I come to odds with the first premise in the following way. In the ontological argument the gap between conceivability and confirmed, irrefutable existence is bridged only by the definition of god we work with. I find the attempt at coming up with a self contained logical proof for the existence of god annoying personally and frustrating for those of us philosophers who rely on actual evidence on which we can base our arguments on to come up with conclusions. Like the KnowNo argument we discussed in class, we can just come up with any random word, a Foo-bar for example, and say that a Foo-bar necessarily exists. I can also say that there is no means of testing the actual existence of a Foo-bar and that you should just have faith, because that sounds like a really sweet thing to do, and if you don't agree with me or succumb to my emotional manipulations to just accept Foo-bar into your life I'm going to tell you that I'll just physically communicate with Foo-bar to warm your bitter, cold heart, so that Foo-bar can fill you full of it's inconceivably benevolent glory. You see, this isn't a case for the existence or nonexistence of Foo-bar at all. The assigning of properties to something can by no means validate the existence of that thing in reality. I also am frustrated with people who accept the second premise because of the following reason. In class we in no manner addressed this point of what it means for something to actually be conceivable or possible. We did point out how contradictory objects cannot logically exist, nor can your possibly conceive of them. Take the round-square for example. No matter how hard you think or how much you want to believe that you can picture an object in your mind that is both round and square at the same time is impossible, because by definition, the properties of a round-square being an object that is "a plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles", but also "a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the center)" are at odd with each other in such an irrefutable and fundamental way. I make the claim that the same goes for god. God is defined as being both all-powerful and all-knowing. If you want to test the possible (in)conceivability of something you should try to think about what both of these things mean when applied together onto the same context, 'god'. If god is all-powerful that means that god can do/change anything past, present, or future to god's own liking. But if god is already all-knowing, knowing everything as it is in reality, past, present, or future, god would thereby be incapable of using god's powers to change anything, because in doing so god would be invaliding gods own omniscience. This is a fundamental contradiction in the definition of god and there is no avoiding it. People from this point in the argument often say that god exists in a realm that's outside of time and space lah-dee-dah-dee-dah, but this claim is equally invalid and contradictory, because that is if god is to have any knowledge of or power over what exists within ours or any other conceivable realm that exudes the properties of either time or space (good luck theorizing one with them though) god would have to have some interaction with (coming into to) that particular realm of time and space in order to influence in it with his magic powers that fly in the face of the distinct laws of a nature of that realm. You can have your emotional reactions all you want and say you still believe that god exists, because you have faith. I'm not going to tell you can't, and I won't take any measures what so ever if you do. But just know that in this instance, as you use the word "faith" you are rejecting reason and evidence as the criteria for what you believe. If that's something you're happy with doing then by all means have yourself a merry time, but I urge of you NOT to waste your time with the entertaining of scientific and philosophical theories, because you are rejecting the fundamental criteria of those practices when you use the worst F-word of all. Having intellectual integrity is a very difficult virtue to adopt, and I really do deeply sympathize with those people who are experiencing difficulty making the transition. I made it myself not along ago. It was grueling, frustrating, and exhausting, but it was also worth it. I learned that having emotional dependency to conclusions is not an effective way at all to live your life as a philosopher, because that will keep you from responding to new evidence that make go against as claim of yours you've made in the past, and now feel embarrassed to give up. If anything at all to have an emotional dependency on is the methodology by which you can judge claims and the arguments associated with them. If there was brand new irrefutable evidence for the existence of god tomorrow, you'd bet I'd be a theist in a second, because I'm not attached to the idea of being an atheist. But also note, that if there was to be such an occurrence, you can guarantee that this evidence would be empirical and measurable, and not anything else. Reason and evidence are the keystones to philosophy for certain, and I also believe that they are just as foundation to someone who wants to live a moral and virtuous life and leave a positive influence on this world by learning about and practicing real freedom, not the pseudo-freedom the systems of pseudo-moral instruction and obligation would prefer you believe, in your daily life.

Below are some arguments or claims made against spanking that seem potentially weak, and why they seem weak to me. I am posting them to argue, yes, but fundamentally so that the arguments can either be amended or clarified to make them better, or abandoned if they're invalid. 1. One argument that is made against spanking is that it is inconsistent with the way we treat other humans, but this argument seems to have some potential problems to me. First, suppose I walked up to someone on the street, hit them and grabbed their GameBoy. What would happen to me? I think I might be arrested, sued, or beaten up, etc. Would anti-spanking advocates say that a child that hits another child and takes their toy would be better off if they were arrested, sued, or beaten up than if they were spanked? If not, this argument seems weak when applied to spanking for activities that would invite punishment for adults too, because it seems adults are treating children better than they would treat another adult, even if it might still be a wrong way to handle it. Second, it seems to me that the reasons for not spanking adults is primarily cultural and pragmatic, not moral. On the cultural side, I would be angry at being spanked even if it didn't hurt at all. Why? Because of the symbolism of the act. Adults don't like being treated like children, even in positive ways. Maybe this is because we dehumanize children... or maybe it's just because adults aren't children. (I wouldn't like being treated like a woman... because I'm not a woman. Treating someone like something they're not is a form of mocking them.) Suppose I was visiting a remote tribe where I planned to stay for a few days and discovered that I had inadvertently greatly dishonored the chief's wife by sitting next to her, or something. If I learned that the culturally normal way for dealing with was for me to be publicly spanked on my bottom, I would probably go through with it, if I didn't have to take my pants down, and despite my (cultural?) distaste for the punishment. On the other hand, I would be very unlikely to accept such a punishment in the US where I know it wouldn't be culturally appropriate. My wife told me the story of how a 15-year-old in her high-school had told his friends that his parents had spanked him. The response all around was, "Why are your parents still spanking you, and why would you share such an embarrassing secret?" Showing that in that case the children perceived the spanking as culturally inappropriate and therefore embarrassing, more than bad or wrong, even though they themselves wouldn't be treated that way. On the pragmatic side, it seems that spanking wouldn't be a deterrent for adults against most crimes unless they spanked so hard as to cause lasting, if not permanent harm. If ancient cultures could have deterred theft, murder, adultery, etc., with just spanks, they probably would have. If you could forgo a fine by being spanked, how large would the fine have to be? I suspect it wouldn't be too large for myself. But I would probably just pay $15 instead if that were the option. On the other hand, if I could forgo a $15 fine by sticking a 9v battery to my tongue, I would be much more likely to do that, even though I would consider it more painful. Why? The cultural connotations of the two acts. I think this thought experiment shows the cultural and pragmatic reasons that we don't spank adults. Showing the existence of such cultural or pragmatic rules doesn't disprove that spanking adults is immoral, but if there is a cultural and/or pragmatic law against spanking adults, we don't need to invoke a moral law to explain the behavior. 2. Another argument made against spanking, especially spanking in response to violence, is that it's self-contradictory. But suppose there's an IT manager--we'll call him Stefan. If Stefan observed one of his employees reprimanding another employee for an issue that isn't his concern, would it be self-contradictory for Stefan to reprimand the first employee for reprimanding the second? Likewise, is it inconsistent for the police to confiscate stolen goods? Is the issue that the child is too young to understand the distinction? If so, is it fine to start spanking your kid for hitting when they turn 8? 3. Anti-spanking advocates sometimes say that spanking is just a euphemism for hitting. This doesn't seem correct to me. Spanking is a relevant subset of hitting, just like being paid is a relevant subset of receiving money. Saying, "Mr. So-and-so pays me," isn't just a euphemistic way of saying, "I receive money from Mr. So-and-so." It clarifies the reason that you receive money. Spanking someone, depending on context, usually means, among other things, that they did something wrong. Hitting does not. "Spanking" someone in the eye is not spanking. So when someone says they spanked someone, they mean, among other things, that they didn't hit them in the eye. You get the point. 4. I have heard anti-spanking advocates, even on Stefan's show, claim that young kids don't understand cause and effect yet and then suggest that you provide rewards for good behavior instead. This seems self-contradictory.