Podcast 1422 Our Achievements

[FireShield]

I just listened to the podcast I mentioned in the title and I have a bit of a problem with it...

 

Stef says that FDR has "beaten" certain philosophical positions such as nihilism, agnosticism, determinism, etc.  He mentioned how every now and then nihilists would come and debate on the forum, but would eventually give up and leave it alone.  However, I'm also aware that people who continue to have the views that are in opposition to Stef's tend to get banned if they continue to argue for their position and are viewed as just being trolls, or having an emotional block, or are just irrational.

 

So here's my problem with it: what Stef is essentially saying is that if someone ends the debate on their own by leaving, then they're wrong, and if they continue debating until they get banned, then they're wrong.  But who's to say that their reason for leaving the debate is not for the same reason why they get banned: that they view Stef or others on the forum as having an emotional block or being irrational?  And then if they continue arguing until they get banned, would they not view it as Stef giving up?  (You especially can't say that you've won on the issue of determinism if you don't even allow it to be debated on the forum.)

 

If you successfully change the opposition's mind, then you can say that you've "beaten" those topics, but if not, I don't think you can rationally say you've won.  To do so would be to assume that you are inherently more rational than the other person.  It's like when Stef said a few times that before debating with people he would sometimes tell them the following condition: of you don't convince me that you're right, then you have to change your mind.  I found that to be extraordinarily arrogant, assuming that he is more rational than they are.  If that is not what he is implying by saying that, then logically he would have to agree to change his mind if he is unsuccessful in changing the other person's mind.  Not being convinced by the other person's argument does not mean that your argument is correct - maybe it is, maybe the other person is right, or maybe neither one is right.  But you shouldn't assume that the other person is wrong, irrational, or emotionally blocked just because they haven't convinced you of their position.

 

Now, I'm not saying that you should believe that they're right, or be neutral on the issue - of course you should continue to believe what you actually think is correct, but again, to say all the things that Stef says about people who have opposing views is to assume that you are inherently more rational than them.  As for me, I'm a nihilist and a determinist/compatabilist (I will not debate these at the moment - since Stef says that they're caused by a lack of self knowledge, I plan on making a new thread to help me gain more self knowledge, even though I've been told by many people that I seem to be very introspective, which I would agree with - and then re-examine these topics), and from all the arguments that Stef has made, I have not been convinced, and think that Stef has a misunderstanding of these positions, or deliberately misrepresents them because he dislikes them (he has said that he emotionally dislikes determinism; I have nothing emotionally against free will, I simply don't find any of the arguments for it to be rationally convincing - in fact, before listening to FDR, I was neutral on this, but then became a determinist when listening to the debates about it because I found those arguments to be more rational).  That doesn't mean that I think those who disagree with me are irrational or are emotionally blocked - I'm perfectly willing to accept that I might be wrong, but I need to be convinced otherwise in order to have my mind changed.

 

All I'm saying is, consider what I said earlier about seeing what you're doing from the other position's side, and you'll see that it's irrational and arrogant to say that you've "beaten" these topics simply because you haven't been convinced by their arguments.  Your mind is not that standard for what is true and what is false.

[dsayers]

who's to say that their reason for leaving the debate is not for the same reason why they get banned: that they view Stef or others on the forum as having an emotional block or being irrational?

 

This was the first point I wanted to talk about and what I wanted to say about it, the rest of your post continued to make the same mistake. Who is to say? The real world. Logic and rationality come from the consistency of matter.

 

If you successfully change the opposition's mind, then you can say that you've "beaten" those topics, but if not, I don't think you can rationally say you've won.  To do so would be to assume that you are inherently more rational than the other person.

 

There is no winning. If I say gravity causes objects to be repelled and you say that gravity causes objects to be attracted, you've more accurately described the real world. I don't need to accept this for it to be true.

 

Now, I'm not saying that you should believe that they're right, or be neutral on the issue - of course you should continue to believe what you actually think is correct

 

This sort of brings it all home. Truth is not a belief. If you believe something, then it is incumbent upon you to seek its proof or disproof. Once you do, it is no longer a belief. In other words, "believe" is the brief beginning of a very incomplete story. As such, even before I began to study philosophy, I understood the word believe to indicate that which is NOT true. We don't say, "I believe that 2+2=4" because it does.

 

I'm not a big label guy since I think generalities and over-simplifications are imprecise. That said, if you were a determinist, then you wouldn't be trying to influence the positions of others since you believe their courses are uninfluenceable. This one, very simple contradiction is all that is needed to be able to say that philosophy "beats" determinism. A more precise way to phrase it would be to say disprove. Accuracy is the only component that could be described as competing. Just as you wouldn't say that in the context of 2+2, 4 beats 5.

[Kevin Beal]

deleted

Edited February 4, 2014 by Kevin Beal

[FireShield]

This was the first point I wanted to talk about and what I wanted to say about it, the rest of your post continued to make the same mistake. Who is to say? The real world. Logic and rationality come from the consistency of matter.There is no winning. If I say gravity causes objects to be repelled and you say that gravity causes objects to be attracted, you've more accurately described the real world. I don't need to accept this for it to be true.This sort of brings it all home. Truth is not a belief. If you believe something, then it is incumbent upon you to seek its proof or disproof. Once you do, it is no longer a belief. In other words, "believe" is the brief beginning of a very incomplete story. As such, even before I began to study philosophy, I understood the word believe to indicate that which is NOT true. We don't say, "I believe that 2+2=4" because it does.I'm not a big label guy since I think generalities and over-simplifications are imprecise. That said, if you were a determinist, then you wouldn't be trying to influence the positions of others since you believe their courses are uninfluenceable. This one, very simple contradiction is all that is needed to be able to say that philosophy "beats" determinism. A more precise way to phrase it would be to say disprove. Accuracy is the only component that could be described as competing. Just as you wouldn't say that in the context of 2+2, 4 beats 5.

I agree, but you're making the assumption that you have a better grasp on reality or are able to think more logically than they are. Perhaps you are being less rational or have an emotional block. If there is no evidence either way, as is the case with topics such as determinism and nihilism, and the truth is to be determined purely by logic, then if you have a flaw in your logic, you are wrong. If you see a flaw in their logic that they do not see, and they see a flaw in your logic that you do not see, then both sides will believe they are right. It would take an objective, impartial third party to see which side is correct, but since both sides believe they are being completely rational and objective, they see their position as being correct.I agree, but we're not talking about describing the real world in ways that can be proven true or false by testing it - we're talking about abstract philosophical theories that need to be solved by logic.I don't quite agree there. I accept that 2 + 2 = 4. I also believe that 2 + 2 = 4 because it does. There is a difference between "believing in" something and "having faith in" something. For example, the theory of evolution is not a fact. I believe that it is true, because there is evidence and logic to support it. That is different than having faith in it.As I said, that conclusion comes from a misunderstanding of determinism. But, as I said, I will not debate that at this time. Also, I was just using the language (or similar language) to what Stef was using in the podcast.

[Kevin Beal]

I'm just curious. Why didn't you ask Stef to clarify his statements? Why assume that the least favorable interpretation is the correct one, not address Stef personally and instead accuse him publicly of arrogance and wanton irrationality?

[dsayers]

you're making the assumption that you have a better grasp on reality or are able to think more logically than they are. Perhaps you are being less rational or have an emotional block.

 

I do understand that you don't mean me specifically, so please do not allow my first person response make you think otherwise.

 

This is where self-knowledge comes in. I understand what an emotional block is and how it can influence acceptance. Just as in the example I gave if you said that gravity caused objects to be attracted, you'd be more accurately describing the real world whether I accept it or not. It wouldn't matter if we both believed we were describing the real world if what we were arguing was incompatible with one another. The real world is that objective 3rd party you spoke of.

 

If there is no evidence either way, as is the case with topics such as determinism

 

If I made a claim that something was shaped like a sphere and a pyramid simultaneously, you wouldn't need evidence as the claim is self-contradictory. This was the point I was making: Determinism (and nihilism) self-detonates in that you reject it the moment you claim to accept it.

 

the theory of evolution is not a fact. I believe that it is true, because there is evidence and logic to support it. That is different than having faith in it.

 

The problem is that the word believe suggests that it is up to us. I accept darwinism because amid competing claims, it most accurately describes the real world. Compare that sentence to the one you offered. The sentence I used is more precise. It tells you I accept that:

 

1) The real world is objective.

2) The real world is consistent.

3) As such, I do not have the power to create truth.

4) My interpretation of my senses could conflict with the real world.

5) In the event that they do, my interpretation must give way.

6) "Most accurately describes the real world" is the measurement of truth.

 

In other words, the sentence I provided was more precise and provided a lot more information than use of the word believe could.

[FireShield]

I'm just curious. Why didn't you ask Stef to clarify his statements? Why assume that the least favorable interpretation is the correct one, not address Stef personally and instead accuse him publicly of arrogance and wanton irrationality?

That is a good point, and I probably should have done that, but I just didn't consider it.I might ask though, just for consideration: why does Stef publicly talk about how wrong other beliefs are, and accuse others of being corrupt, assuming the worst, etc. rather than address them personally and ask them to clarify their positions?

I do understand that you don't mean me specifically, so please do not allow my first person response make you think otherwise.This is where self-knowledge comes in. I understand what an emotional block is and how it can influence acceptance. Just as in the example I gave if you said that gravity caused objects to be attracted, you'd be more accurately describing the real world whether I accept it or not. It wouldn't matter if we both believed we were describing the real world if what we were arguing was incompatible with one another. The real world is that objective 3rd party you spoke of.If I made a claim that something was shaped like a sphere and a pyramid simultaneously, you wouldn't need evidence as the claim is self-contradictory. This was the point I was making: Determinism (and nihilism) self-detonates in that you reject it the moment you claim to accept it.The problem is that the word believe suggests that it is up to us. I accept darwinism because amid competing claims, it most accurately describes the real world. Compare that sentence to the one you offered. The sentence I used is more precise. It tells you I accept that:1) The real world is objective.2) The real world is consistent.3) As such, I do not have the power to create truth.4) My interpretation of my senses could conflict with the real world.5) In the event that they do, my interpretation must give way.6) "Most accurately describes the real world" is the measurement of truth.In other words, the sentence I provided was more precise and provided a lot more information than use of the word believe could.

Yes, but you can't test for these things in the real worldOnce again, those conclusions come from misunderstandings of determinism and nihilism.Okay, then forgive me for my use of the word "believe" and substitute it with "think" or "convinced".

[dsayers]

why does Stef publicly talk about how wrong other beliefs are, and accuse others of being corrupt, assuming the worst, etc. rather than address them personally and ask them to clarify their positions?

 

Stefan Molyneux perpetually invites every person in the world to call him and publicly discuss anything they want.

[Kevin Beal]

He's very often on Skype. You don't even have to call into the show. You could just say "Hey man, I think you are being inconsistent here and here. Maybe I've misunderstood you, but I think it's an important thing to address, if only to clear up any confusion" or something like that.

 

Also, please do not post about determinism. It is the only topic that is against the forum guidelines. If you'd like, we can chat about it you and I, but debate in general is not great in the message board format, especially a topic like free will / determinism. There is an emotional investment on both sides that is usually never addressed and so it tends to be like two TV's talking past each other, leading inevitably to much frustration.

 

Searching the boards for "determinism" shows many threads that demonstrate this.

[LuckyNumber23]

Have a look at what remained of this thread: http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/28481-moral-opposites-upb/There is a simple explanation why there seem to be logical incosistencies. More than half of the thread disappeared (evil people say it was deleted). Also, listen to the Sunday shows when Noesis called in. In the first show she talked with Stef about UPB, on the second it was about her childhood/ her current relationship. Stef asked to write her an e-mail concerning her questions. When she did, he said he would "mull over it". This took some time, and when Noesis asked he asked her to wait. Iirc, she was banned before the long waited for discussion could take place.

[FireShield]

Stefan Molyneux perpetually invites every person in the world to call him and publicly discuss anything they want.

 

And by posting here publicly, so am I.  But anyway, I will make a thread to help me gain self knowledge since I know I need clarity on at least one issue in my life.

 

He's very often on Skype. You don't even have to call into the show. You could just say "Hey man, I think you are being inconsistent here and here. Maybe I've misunderstood you, but I think it's an important thing to address, if only to clear up any confusion" or something like that.

 

Also, please do not post about determinism. It is the only topic that is against the forum guidelines. If you'd like, we can chat about it you and I, but debate in general is not great in the message board format, especially a topic like free will / determinism. There is an emotional investment on both sides that is usually never addressed and so it tends to be like two TV's talking past each other, leading inevitably to much frustration.

 

Searching the boards for "determinism" shows many threads that demonstrate this.

 

Yes, I know, I mentioned this, if you read my first post.  I mentioned that I was a determinist, and dsayers started the discussion about it.

Have a look at what remained of this thread: http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/28481-moral-opposites-upb/There is a simple explanation why there seem to be logical incosistencies. More than half of the thread disappeared (evil people say it was deleted). Also, listen to the Sunday shows when Noesis called in. In the first show she talked with Stef about UPB, on the second it was about her childhood/ her current relationship. Stef asked to write her an e-mail concerning her questions. When she did, he said he would "mull over it". This took some time, and when Noesis asked he asked her to wait. Iirc, she was banned before the long waited for discussion could take place.

 

I don't see how this is relevant at all.

[dsayers]

And by posting here publicly, so am I.

 

Eek! You just glossed over the fact that you accused Stef of something that is not true. You're also making a claim that contradicts your initial response to the idea:

 

That is a good point, and I probably should have done that, but I just didn't consider it.

[FireShield]

Eek! You just glossed over the fact that you accused Stef of something that is not true. You're also making a claim that contradicts your initial response to the idea:

What did I accuse him of doing that is not true?

 

That doesn't contradict it at all.  He said I should have contacted Stef privately rather than publicly accuse him like I did, and I agreed that that would have probably been a better idea.

 

I then asked him to consider this: why is it bad for me to publicly accuse Stef of being arrogant, irrational, etc. instead of privately contacting him and asking him to clarify his positions, when Stef, in many of his podcasts, publicly talks about how irrational certain claims that people make are, and accusing other people of being corrupt, rather than privately asking those people to clarify their positions?  Why is it okay for Stef to do this to others but not okay for others to do this to Stef?

 

You then said that he invites - oh wait, I see, I misread your post.  I read it as him inviting people to publicly call him out on things, then I said that by posting here publicly, I am too.  But even if I misread it, how did that contradict me saying that privately contacting him would have been a better idea?

[LuckyNumber23]

I don't see how this is relevant at all.

 

There is discussion on UPB, up to a point. Has been the case since the forum was started. And yes, there are double standards.

[Kevin Beal]

There is discussion on UPB, up to a point. Has been the case since the forum was started. And yes, there are double standards.

What about that thread that went on for literally 3 years that (prolly) holds the record for the longest thread with Noesis representing the nihilist side?

 

http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/26465-debate-about-upb-moral-nihilism/

 

No one is suppressing dissent regarding UPB. A quick google search reveals this in seconds.

 

Also, don't just say there are double standards, point them out.

 

Also, UPB wasn't developed until some time after the boards were up. Why don't you just ask someone who's been on the boards a while what the deal is instead of jumping to these conclusions?

Edited February 5, 2014 by Kevin Beal

[PatrickC]

Stef asked to write her an e-mail concerning her questions. When she did, he said he would "mull over it". This took some time, and when Noesis asked he asked her to wait. Iirc, she was banned before the long waited for discussion could take place.

 

Just to be clear Noesis was banned temporarily by an admin.. She was later re-instated with a public apology from Stefan himself.

[FireShield]

What about that thread that went on for literally 3 years that (prolly) holds the record for the longest thread with Noesis representing the nihilist side?

 

http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/26465-debate-about-upb-moral-nihilism/

 

No one is suppressing dissent regarding UPB. A quick google search reveals this in seconds.

 

Also, don't just say there are double standards, point them out.

 

I would just like to say, for the sake of clarity, that when I say I'm a nihilist, I mean that there is no morality inherent to the universe.  I view ethics as a useful tool for getting along well with other people (especially if everyone adheres to the same ethical standards) and UPB as a useful tool for creating universal, consistent, rational ethical rules (and, where it has more power, showing people's hypocrisy when they make ethical claims that they don't follow, or to show problems that would arise from certain ethical theories).

 

I would also explain what I mean when I say I'm a determinist, but as has been noted in this thread, that topic is off limits.

[Kevin Beal]

I would just like to say, for the sake of clarity, that when I say I'm a nihilist, I mean that there is no morality inherent to the universe.

Well, then that makes me a nihilist as well, then.

 

There are certain ontological propositions that are observer dependent, that would not be the case if no humans existed to think them, such as the value of money, or the fact that a field goal is worth 6 points. John Searle calls this ontological subjectivity. It's still true and describes real things, but it is not in the actual inks and fibers of a dollar bill that makes it worth a candy bar. In the same way that dreams are real, but subjective.

 

It may be the case that we are in complete agreement

[FireShield]

Well, then that makes me a nihilist as well, then.

 

There are certain ontological propositions that are observer dependent, that would not be the case if no humans existed to think them, such as the value of money, or the fact that a field goal is worth 6 points. John Searle calls this ontological subjectivity. It's still true and describes real things, but it is not in the actual inks and fibers of a dollar bill that makes it worth a candy bar. In the same way that dreams are real, but subjective.

 

It may be the case that we are in complete agreement

 

This is why I have never understood why Stef has had such a strong dislike of nihilism.  From what he said in one series of podcasts, I think about the meaning of life, he said that there was no inherent morality in the universe, but then later goes on to say that nihilism is some evil, destructive position.  But moral nihilism is simply that: there is no morality inherent to the universe.  It's true that there are people who then think this means that anything is permissible, and act on that belief, or try to tear down ethical theories because of it, which could give a bad reputation to nihilism, but by its strict definition, I'd say almost everyone here (including Stef) is a moral nihilist, as should anyone who has no spiritual beliefs.

 

I think it's important to distinguish between morality, ethics, and values.  I view morality as spiritual/religious in nature, and does not always involve multiple people (for example, in Christianity it is immoral to masturbate).  Ethics deals with interactions between people (morality can overlap with it: for example, I'm sure you agree that it's unethical to murder, and in Christianity it is also immoral to murder).  Values are subjective to individuals, and can also include personality morality (I can't think of any examples of personal morality at the moment - most if not all of my values are objective ethics).

[dsayers]

@FireShield: Public/private wasn't the distinction made. The distinction made was seeking clarification vs assuming what the perceived ambiguity translated into.

 

What does inherent to the universe mean? Are people inherent to the universe? Because morality IS inherent in a universe that has people. People meaning moral agents capable of identifying an ideal, evaluating consequences of action, and choosing actions based on their conformance with an ideal.

[Kevin Beal]

This is why I have never understood why Stef has had such a strong dislike of nihilism.  From what he said in one series of podcasts, I think about the meaning of life, he said that there was no inherent morality in the universe, but then later goes on to say that nihilism is some evil, destructive position.  But moral nihilism is simply that: there is no morality inherent to the universe.  It's true that there are people who then think this means that anything is permissible, and act on that belief, or try to tear down ethical theories because of it, which could give a bad reputation to nihilism, but by its strict definition, I'd say almost everyone here (including Stef) is a moral nihilist, as should anyone who has no spiritual beliefs.

 

I think it's important to distinguish between morality, ethics, and values.  I view morality as spiritual/religious in nature, and does not always involve multiple people (for example, in Christianity it is immoral to masturbate).  Ethics deals with interactions between people (morality can overlap with it: for example, I'm sure you agree that it's unethical to murder, and in Christianity it is also immoral to murder).  Values are subjective to individuals, and can also include personality morality (I can't think of any examples of personal morality at the moment - most if not all of my values are objective ethics).

Morality and ethics are used synonymously in UPB. I'm not too familiar with the history of philosophy on ethics, but I believe they are treated synonymously by most philosophers.

 

As far as moral nihilism goes, it's not taken that way by most nihilists that I've talked to. You, my friend, are a rare breed.

 

Moral nihilists (in my experience) say that objectivity in the realm of ethics is impossible. They take from the fact that ethics doesn't exist in nature inside of entities, that therefore moral propositions are all erroneous. Most especially they take issue with the part of ethics that makes it binding on people. They compare the binding of rational ethics to be exactly equivalent to an imposition of will.

 

The reason that Stef takes issue with nihilism, from what I remember, is primarily with nihilism in the regarding reality and truth claims, and only as a consequence moral nihilism. I'm sure you're aware that there is essentially 3 types of nihilism: nihilism regarding morality, regarding reality and regarding truth itself.

 

In the theory of mental health that Stef argues for, he looks at how people hold contradictions in the mind to be true simultaneously (among other things). A nihilist concerning truth and reality must necessarily be contradicting themselves, often in very aggressive ways, which is consistent with unconscious behavior, acting out past traumas and the like. A moral nihilist of the variety I described above also fits this category.

 

Also, I think your description of "personal morality" is something like aesthetics in ethical theories, which describes things like showing up late to a meeting, cheating on a test and that sort of thing.

 

Would you say that you identify with the description of moral nihilism that I gave?

[FireShield]

Morality and ethics are used synonymously in UPB. I'm not too familiar with the history of philosophy on ethics, but I believe they are treated synonymously by most philosophers.

 

As far as moral nihilism goes, it's not taken that way by most nihilists that I've talked to. You, my friend, are a rare breed.

 

Moral nihilists (in my experience) say that objectivity in the realm of ethics is impossible. They take from the fact that ethics doesn't exist in nature inside of entities, that therefore moral propositions are all erroneous. Most especially they take issue with the part of ethics that makes it binding on people. They compare the binding of rational ethics to be exactly equivalent to an imposition of will.

 

The reason that Stef takes issue with nihilism, from what I remember, is primarily with nihilism in the regarding reality and truth claims, and only as a consequence moral nihilism. I'm sure you're aware that there is essentially 3 types of nihilism: nihilism regarding morality, regarding reality and regarding truth itself.

 

In the theory of mental health that Stef argues for, he looks at how people hold contradictions in the mind to be true simultaneously (among other things). A nihilist concerning truth and reality must necessarily be contradicting themselves, often in very aggressive ways, which is consistent with unconscious behavior, acting out past traumas and the like. A moral nihilist of the variety I described above also fits this category.

 

Also, I think your description of "personal morality" is something like aesthetics in ethical theories, which describes things like showing up late to a meeting, cheating on a test and that sort of thing.

 

Would you say that you identify with the description of moral nihilism that I gave?

 

Thanks for the clarification

 

Can you explain what you mean when you say "the part of ethics that makes it binding on people"?  I don't identify with the rest of the description, but I might agree with that part, if my interpretation of it is correct.  My interpretation is that that would mean that people should behave ethically, or that they're objectively bad if they behave unethically.  I disagree with that, thinking that they will simply be perceived as bad by others (and would likely feel bad by their conscience, which, I agree with Stef, operates on UPB), but ultimately aren't doing anything other than creating a disadvantageous situation for another person and, in doing so, are permitting others to do the same to them.

 

Yes, I'm aware of that (the multiple types of nihilism), I should have said moral nihilism from the beginning (for me, I always assume moral/existential nihilism is what is being referred to when people say nihilism).

 

Yes, that would fit (the aesthetics part), though those could potentially be considered ethics too (perhaps less important ethics).

 

I think then, for a rational, non-religious type of morality, it should consist of ethical rules (which are rational in nature), as well as empathy (which is not as objective or rational, but still important to the survival of humans and most other animals).

[Kevin Beal]

Can you explain what you mean when you say "the part of ethics that makes it binding on people"?  I don't identify with the rest of the description, but I might agree with that part, if my interpretation of it is correct.  My interpretation is that that would mean that people should behave ethically, or that they're objectively bad if they behave unethically.  I disagree with that, thinking that they will simply be perceived as bad by others (and would likely feel bad by their conscience, which, I agree with Stef, operates on UPB), but ultimately aren't doing anything other than creating a disadvantageous situation for another person and, in doing so, are permitting others to do the same to them.

Okay, it sounds like this is where you and I disagree then.

 

Your interpretation is correct, at least in the sense that I'm using it. But just cuz I like to nitpick, I would rephrase it to say that the propositions themselves are immoral or are vices, but I think it's true enough to say that a person who acts consistently on evil propositions, is themselves evil,... as a shorthand. (I'm not totally satisfied with that description though, so I may change it).

 

There aren't immoral atoms that compose their bodies, rather it's still observer dependent, describing subjective things (in an objective way), like how I described above. But I will try to show how it does objectively mean that people ought behave ethically below, or at least what is meant by "binding". (I hope it's okay that the topic has changed and the thread title no longer describes where we've ended up).

 

The part about UPB that is binding (as I understand it) is that a moral proposition is true, not because of my personal preferences, because I'm me, because you are you or because some other arbitrary reason. That someone ought act a certain way because the proposition is true. Dems just the facts!

 

It's binding like how the laws of logic are binding:

 

- If you say something that requires a contradiction to be true, then what you said is simply illogical

- If you say something that is not logically consistent, or does not meet the standards of universality, then your moral proposition is simply false

 

But if a moral proposition does in fact meet these standards, then it's not just true for me, but for you as well because that's how logic works. The sky is blue is true for you and me and everyone else, because it's just plain true.

 

The way that I imagine people hear it is that punishments for violating ethical rules are to be imposed on every violator. If that's how you took it, then I can see how it might be confusing.

 

Does that help clarify it?

[FireShield]

Okay, it sounds like this is where you and I disagree then.

 

Your interpretation is correct, at least in the sense that I'm using it. But just cuz I like to nitpick, I would rephrase it to say that the propositions themselves are immoral or are vices, but I think it's true enough to say that a person who acts consistently on evil propositions, is themselves evil,... as a shorthand. (I'm not totally satisfied with that description though, so I may change it).

 

There aren't immoral atoms that compose their bodies, rather it's still observer dependent, describing subjective things (in an objective way), like how I described above. But I will try to show how it does objectively mean that people ought behave ethically below, or at least what is meant by "binding". (I hope it's okay that the topic has changed and the thread title no longer describes where we've ended up).

 

The part about UPB that is binding (as I understand it) is that a moral proposition is true, not because of my personal preferences, because I'm me, because you are you or because some other arbitrary reason. That someone ought act a certain way because the proposition is true. Dems just the facts!

 

It's binding like how the laws of logic are binding:

 

- If you say something that requires a contradiction to be true, then what you said is simply illogical

- If you say something that is not logically consistent, or does not meet the standards of universality, then your moral proposition is simply false

 

But if a moral proposition does in fact meet these standards, then it's not just true for me, but for you as well because that's how logic works. The sky is blue is true for you and me and everyone else, because it's just plain true.

 

The way that I imagine people hear it is that punishments for violating ethical rules are to be imposed on every violator. If that's how you took it, then I can see how it might be confusing.

 

Does that help clarify it?

 

Very much so, and I agree with it too so... yeah, that's pretty good I'd say.  Different uses of terms caused this confusion then, so it's good that I actually agree.

[FireShield]

I just listened to a podcast in which Stefan gives his definition of free will as the ability to compare our actions to a higher ideal, so by that definition (I'm not debating, I am merely explaining my position, as I think I have the right to do) I would consider myself a compatabilist.  My view is that doing that (comparing our actions to a higher ideal) is simply part of the natural, deterministic process of our brains, and as a result, determinism would still be true.  Just thought I'd say that for clarification.

[dsayers]

Apples and oranges there. You're speaking is if "higher ideal" means something like 3 apples will be of more use than 2. When in fact a higher ideal would be more akin to I want that guy's oranges, but to take them would be to accept my self-ownership while denying his, so it is more sustainable to trade with him for some of his oranges.

 

Value varies, even within the same individual based on any number of relevant factors. Factors one would have to disregard to suggest that the brain is just a machine running code that assigns values to everything and simply goes in the direction of the highest value.

 

If you're representing Stef's def correctly, I would say there was mixed concepts. The ability to compare actions to a higher ideal is part of the definition for reason, not free will.

[Kevin Beal]

If you're representing Stef's def correctly, I would say their was mixed concepts. The ability to compare actions to a higher ideal is part of the definition for reason, not free will.

I confirm that he is indeed portraying Stef's position correctly. He states this as his definition in this debate.

 

The definition of free will is actually surprisingly simple. It doesn't account for a bottom up description, but it is what he is referring to when he uses the term.

 

The reason that this definition runs counter to determinism is that (as Stef argues) determinism precludes preferred states. That puts the debate where it is more apt instead of arguing over mechanics. There is a phenomenological issue that needs to be addressed long before the mechanics can even be relevant.

[Mike Fleming]

My impression of Free Will with Stef is that he has entirely his own definitions of it which don't match what is commonly understand.  Joe Rogan pointed this out when he started to talk about it in the recent interview.

 

My view with the Free Will/Determinism debate (I am a determinist) is that the truth will become commonly known eventually to everyone, just as the truth of the Earth revolving around the Sun came to everyone eventually.  Before it gets to that stage, it needs to be properly communicated what the consequences of determinism, if anything, are to the masses.  No, it doesn't mean you can't be held responsible for your actions.

 

Trying to redefine free will and say determinism is untrue will be an argument that discredits anyone who puts it forward if we get to the point where it is regarded as common knowledge.  Especially someone who claims to be a philosopher who follows the scientific method.

[dsayers]

My impression of Free Will with Stef is that he has entirely his own definitions ... No, it doesn't mean you can't be held responsible for your actions.

 

That seems like a redefinition right there. There is no responsibility without choice and there is no choice without free will. To say somebody doesn't have free will is to say that they in fact cannot be held responsible for their actions.

 

For that matter, what value would "I am a determinist" have in a world where that is not a product of choice? You reject the premise in the act of claiming to accept it.

[Kevin Beal]

My impression of Free Will with Stef is that he has entirely his own definitions of it which don't match what is commonly understand.  Joe Rogan pointed this out when he started to talk about it in the recent interview.

No, he's not the only philosopher to define it that way. John Searle is another. Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden too. Other philosophers imply this definition when they say that consciousness is itself an illusion (i.e. the subjective experience of making decisions).

 

Stef's arguments actually share some aspects with Rand's, who also borrowed from other philosophers.

 

The history of the free will / determinist debate is actually a very rich and interesting one with very strong arguments on both sides. Anyone who pretends that the debate is obviously won on this side or that would benefit from a little reading. May I suggest John Searle's The Rediscovery of the Mind?

Edited February 6, 2014 by Kevin Beal