Other philosophers that subscribe to UPB?

[RCali]

 

 

Yes, a 3 page thread of hand wringing and people refusing to define terms and address logical inconsistencies.

 

As for your questions of what's more likely, that's a very funny account of reality. If you want to talk about the text, you could just as easily write "having been written by a relatively obscure thinker, and roundly rejected by every recognised philosopher and academic institution". 

 

I don't fault the guy who wrote the UPB for trying to write a book. In my brief review of his book, I said it was good that he's interested in morality and hosts a call-in show. That doesn't erase the fact that the text is deeply flawed, and that people here either cannot, or will not, present and defend an account of it.

 

I've read some of that thread. Not all of it, because it was painful and useless, since it wasn't a conversation. People spoke to you, and you refused everything, and spouted back nothing but deeply flawed logic and falacy, and it's common you appeal to emotions and character.

 

Now... This obscure thinker has millions upon millions of views on his shows, youtube videos, whatever more. He has hundreds of thousands of youtube subscribers. He has a very active board here. He has a team working for him in philosophy and bringing news out to the world and his take on it. He has how many books now? https://freedomainradio.com/free/

He very often interviews great minds who are successful themselves. He has participated in countless lectures. He has studied pretty much everything in philosophy, and has deep knowledge of history, and who knows what more. 

 

What about you? From what I know, your most impressive skill is talking to people and not actually have a conversation with them, even though it may seen you're actually considering what they say. Impressive not in a good sense, of course, for it is a waste of time for both parties, since no one gains anything out of it. 

[Lykourgos]

I've read some of that thread. Not all of it, because it was painful and useless, since it wasn't a conversation. People spoke to you, and you refused everything, and spouted back nothing but deeply flawed logic and falacy, and it's common you appeal to emotions and character.

 

Let's revisit how that thread ended.

 

A poster wrote that the NAP asserts that aggression is wrong, and then gave 3 steps explaining how an act constitutes aggression:

 

1) An act isn't aggression if there is consent to the action (i.e sex isn't rape if there's consent)

2) Consent is required by ALL parties affected by the actions, an action cannot be considered consensual if one of the parties doesn't consent.

3) Lack of consent of the victim means the act isn't consensual and therefore it can be considered aggression.

 

I pointed out that step 1 and 2 are inconsistent. Step 1 says that an act isn't aggression if there is consent, but Step 2 says an action can still constitute aggression if there is consent.

 

I asked for the poster to fix the inconsistency, or otherwise make a new attempt. The poster decided to spit the dummy and left the thread. I was left with an incoherent account of aggression, and therefore an incoherent account of the NAP and morality.

 

 

 

Now... This obscure thinker has millions upon millions of views on his shows, youtube videos, whatever more. He has hundreds of thousands of youtube subscribers. He has a very active board here. He has a team working for him in philosophy and bringing news out to the world and his take on it. He has how many books now? https://freedomainradio.com/free/

He very often interviews great minds who are successful themselves. He has participated in countless lectures. He has studied pretty much everything in philosophy, and has deep knowledge of history, and who knows what more. 

 

What about you? From what I know, your most impressive skill is talking to people and not actually have a conversation with them, even though it may seen you're actually considering what they say. Impressive not in a good sense, of course, for it is a waste of time for both parties, since no one gains anything out of it.

 

Like I said, you're writing your own little hagiography of the author. I can write something damning him, too. This is a pointless approach to the discussion.

 

If you think that insulting me and complimenting your chosen hero is going to provide a true account of morality, then you're wrong.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Lykourgos, you have a criticism of UPB? Why don't you call in to the show? Otherwise you're kind of a concern troll.

 

So are you going to call in about UPB, and if not why won't you?

[Guest Gee]

It's a hundred hour plus subject mate.

[Lykourgos]

It's a hundred hour plus subject mate.

 

Now who's having a laugh

 

"We can't present a true account of morality, because it's too lengthy to type out for you!"

[DCLugi]

I don't need to do (A) or (B). In actual fact, though, I did spend some time doing (A).

 

 

I'm not disrespecting the theory; instead, I gave it my attention, and then learnt that it was unworthy of respect or approval.

 

 

I do have a better theory, and I did give an account of some of its errors.

 

That's besides the point, though, because I came here for one simple reason. To see if its adherents could offer and defend their account of morality. They couldn't, the end. That conclusion is wholly independent of my beliefs, and my account of the errors in the text.

 

 

You could explain it, but you're unwilling. All this tells me is that not only is the text rejected everywhere outside of this forum, but even in this forum people are unwilling to provide an explanation and defense of it.

Let's say that we agree that kissing people at least once a day is moral. In this claim we acknowledge that it must apply to everyone. If you try to kiss someone and they reject your claim and run away are they acting immorally in this scenario?

[Lykourgos]

Let's say that we agree that kissing people at least once a day is moral. In this claim we acknowledge that it must apply to everyone. If you try to kiss someone and they reject your claim and run away are they acting immorally in this scenario?

 

Not necessarily

[Guest Gee]

Now who's having a laugh

 

"We can't present a true account of morality, because it's too lengthy to type out for you!"

Nah, but to understand it is about 100 hours of work just like any complex subject in physics takes 100 hours of work.

If only someone had recorded an expert talking on the subject for posterity, like a lecture series on UPB where common objections were expounded upon at great length. Where examples are given and problems worked through.

You know someone should really do that hey?

[RCali]

Let's revisit how that thread ended.

 

A poster wrote that the NAP asserts that aggression is wrong, and then gave 3 steps explaining how an act constitutes aggression:

 

1) An act isn't aggression if there is consent to the action (i.e sex isn't rape if there's consent)

2) Consent is required by ALL parties affected by the actions, an action cannot be considered consensual if one of the parties doesn't consent.

3) Lack of consent of the victim means the act isn't consensual and therefore it can be considered aggression.

 

I pointed out that step 1 and 2 are inconsistent. Step 1 says that an act isn't aggression if there is consent, but Step 2 says an action can still constitute aggression if there is consent.

 

I asked for the poster to fix the inconsistency, or otherwise make a new attempt. The poster decided to spit the dummy and left the thread. I was left with an incoherent account of aggression, and therefore an incoherent account of the NAP and morality.

 

 

Like I said, you're writing your own little hagiography of the author. I can write something damning him, too. This is a pointless approach to the discussion.

 

If you think that insulting me and complimenting your chosen hero is going to provide a true account of morality, then you're wrong.

 

No inconsistency there that I can see. Only in everything you say. For example, insulting you. Never insulted you. If pointing out a flaw in someone is an insult, sure. But as far as I see it, if it's true, it's not an insult. Again. What have you done, that makes your word worth anything? I've seen nothing yet. You're going against, what many consider, a leviathan in philosophy, and you're not even small, in this analogy. You're non existant, since you're providing no arguments. 

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Lykourgos is the type of troll who expects all the work to be done for him, and if it doesn't meet his satisfaction, he takes that as proof the theory is wrong. He expends no effort to rationally comprehend any arguments put forth, as can be seen from his first OP here which linked to an article which criticized UPB without making a single argument, yet at the same time claimed UPB "fell short," "was a disaster," etc. He has hereto shown he has no credibility and why I will not waste any more time responding to him. He is a concern troll who feasts on the attention you give to him because he evidently gets satisfaction from wasting people's time and confusing onlookers.

[Lykourgos]

No inconsistency there that I can see. Only in everything you say. For example, insulting you. Never insulted you. If pointing out a flaw in someone is an insult, sure. But as far as I see it, if it's true, it's not an insult. Again. What have you done, that makes your word worth anything? I've seen nothing yet. You're going against, what many consider, a leviathan in philosophy, and you're not even small, in this analogy. You're non existant, since you're providing no arguments. 

 

Here is the inconsistency:

 

In step 1, if there is consent then something cannot be aggression.

In step 2, if there is consent then something can still be aggression.

 

This is because consent is given on an individual basis; it is certain that we both understand this, because it is explicitly stated in the language of step 2:

"Consent is required by ALL parties affected by the actions"

 

Under the rules of step 1, an act like rape would not be aggression because at least one party is consenting.

Under the rules of step 2, all parties need to consent, therefore rape would be an aggression.

 

So someone needs to (A) rewrite the steps, (B) abandon the steps and present a new account, or © somehow explain how step 1 and 2 are not inconsistent.

 

 

Also, "a leviathan in philosophy"? Are you trying to make me laugh myself to death? Please, stop it with the hagiography, it doesn't do anything to prove your point. Even in this forum, which as far as I can tell is the only place where people agree with his moral writings, people admit the text is roundly rejected. Short of visiting this forum and his youtube channel, there's hardly a soul that gives a shit about the UPB and Molyneux, much less agrees with his moral arguments.

 

Let's pretend, though, that you're too dense to understand that being "great" doesn't make you infallible. Choose a person like Plato, and then just rewrite your hagiography appropriately; in that comparison, we may as well pile Molyneux's books onto a bonfire and be done with it. Molyneux is an utter nobody in the grand scheme of things.

 

As for providing arguments, I'm not the one asserting that the NAP is an objective rule of morality. I'm not the one who claims to have elucidated the true nature of morality. I'm the one asking for people to present proof.

[RCali]

Here is the inconsistency:

 

In step 1, if there is consent then something cannot be aggression.

In step 2, if there is consent then something can still be aggression.

 

This is because consent is given on an individual basis; it is certain that we both understand this, because it is explicitly stated in the language of step 2:

"Consent is required by ALL parties affected by the actions"

 

Under the rules of step 1, an act like rape would not be aggression because at least one party is consenting.

Under the rules of step 2, all parties need to consent, therefore rape would be an aggression.

 

So someone needs to (A) rewrite the steps, (B) abandon the steps and present a new account, or © somehow explain how step 1 and 2 are not inconsistent.

 

 

Also, "a leviathan in philosophy"? Are you trying to make me laugh myself to death? Please, stop it with the hagiography, it doesn't do anything to prove your point. Even in this forum, which as far as I can tell is the only place where people agree with his moral writings, people admit the text is roundly rejected. Short of visiting this forum and his youtube channel, there's hardly a soul that gives a shit about the UPB and Molyneux, much less agrees with his moral arguments.

 

Let's pretend, though, that you're too dense to understand that being "great" doesn't make you infallible. Choose a person like Plato, and then just rewrite your hagiography appropriately; in that comparison, we may as well pile Molyneux's books onto a bonfire and be done with it. Molyneux is an utter nobody in the grand scheme of things.

 

As for providing arguments, I'm not the one asserting that the NAP is an objective rule of morality. I'm not the one who claims to have elucidated the true nature of morality. I'm the one asking for people to present proof.

 

Step one doesn't invalite step two, and vice versa. For something not to be aggression, there must be consent. And there must be consent from both moral agents, or, the two parties. If you can't understand this, it's your problem, not mine, whoever reads this, or who wrote it.

 

The UPB text being widely rejected, doesn't mean it is invalid. Whoever rejects, or who I have seen reject it, present nothing but fallacy in return, or simply nothing, much like you. I never said Stefan can never be wrong. You are making things up, but to no avail. I will not fall into this trap, and mostly anyone in these forums, since your lies and manipulation are easy to spot. He's proven the objectivity of morality. I think that's a pretty big thing.

 

What about you? You haven't proven anything,

[Torero]

 

[...], there's hardly a soul that gives a shit about the UPB and Molyneux, [...]

Molyneux is an utter nobody in the grand scheme of things.

 

Lykourgos - the Spartan "lawmaker" and military man

• 68 posts

Apparently you do.

 

 

 

I'm the one asking for people to present proof.

 

I recall you were the one wanting to debate "a nobody", "a hero of a bunch of fanboys" and "someone hardly a soul [except for me and my 68 troll posts] gives a shit about":

 

I even responded to the author of the UPB and agreed to appear on his call-in show to ask some questions...

 

[Lykourgos]

Step one doesn't invalite step two, and vice versa. For something not to be aggression, there must be consent. And there must be consent from both moral agents, or, the two parties. If you can't understand this, it's your problem, not mine, whoever reads this, or who wrote it.

 

 

That is the most twisted misrepresentation of the steps I've ever seen. Here's a reminder of what step 1 says:

 

"1) An act isn't aggression if there is consent to the action (i.e sex isn't rape if there's consent)"

 

It word-for-word states that an act isn't aggression if there is consent to the action: "A is not B if there is C".

 

So, let's order it and run a test, A with C is not B.

 

A is an action, here we'll use rape.

Does it have C? Yes, the moving party consents.

Therefore, rape is not aggression.

 

Then step two comes along,

 

2) Consent is required by ALL parties affected by the actions, an action cannot be considered consensual if one of the parties doesn't consent.

 

So, an act is aggression if any party doesn't consent. A is B if anyone lacks C.

 

A without everyone feeling C is B

 

Let's take A to be rape

Does everyone have C? No, at least one party lacks C.

Therefore A is B.

 

These are inconsistent.

 

Now let's glance at your bizarre rendering of the steps:

 

"For something not to be aggression, there must be consent. And there must be consent from both moral agents, or, the two parties."

 

You've changed the steps. In your first sentence, you are saying that if there is C, A might not be B. Not that it necessarily is, but that it might be. You have changed the steps, and your second sentence makes the first sentence completely superfluous; there must be C from all parties for A not to be B. Sentence 1, the altered step 1, is a meaningless observation derived from sentence 2.

 

Do you want to rewrite the steps this way? Or did you intend to take the actual steps as they are, and somehow try to show that they are consistent? As it is, you've just quietly changed the steps while refusing to admit that they were problematic.

 

 

What about you? You haven't proven anything,

 

I've proven that people around here are unable or unwilling to explain how Molyneux "proved" the true nature of morality. They're clearly happy to keep repeating the assertion, though.

[DCLugi]

Not necessarily

Kissing people requires 2 parties. If both parties are to act morally then they have to agree to the act of kissing.

[Guest Gee]

Pro tip.

 

Not everyone who donates understand UPB, but everyone who understand UPB donates.

[Will Torbald]

Kissing people requires 2 parties. If both parties are to act morally then they have to agree to the act of kissing.

Not to be a negative Nancy here, but doesn't this beg the question at least a little? You define voluntary actions as moral and then say that to be moral interactions have to be voluntary. The trick should be arriving at the conclusion that only voluntary interactions are moral with another argument.

[DCLugi]

Not to be a negative Nancy here, but doesn't this beg the question at least a little? You define voluntary actions as moral and then say that to be moral interactions have to be voluntary. The trick should be arriving at the conclusion that only voluntary interactions are moral with another argument.

I'm following up on a previous thread so it might be out of context. It was argued that rape can be moral because it doesn't require the one being raped to consent. I'm seeing if kissing has the same result. If I say that rape or kissing is moral then It should be applicable to all people at all times meaning both parties.  

[Will Torbald]

I'm following up on a previous thread so it might be out of context. It was argued that rape can be moral because it doesn't require the one being raped to consent. I'm seeing if kissing has the same result. If I say that rape or kissing is moral then It should be applicable to all people at all times meaning both parties.  

 

In any case, it seems like a gross misunderstanding of the concept of consent to begin with to argue that if the person giving the kiss wants to give the kiss then it's not a transgression. It's either stupendously dense, or willfully ignorant not to understand that concept.

[Jot]

Pro tip.

 

Not everyone who donates understand UPB, but everyone who understand UPB donates.

This means I don't understand UPB?

[Guest Gee]

This means I don't understand UPB?

 

Yes. You do not understand UPB.

[Torero]

Yes. You do not understand UPB.

 

Come on, then the causal relation you set would need to be 100%.

 

It may even be that people who have never heard of Stefan or the great wealth of FDR wisdom, they don't know the abbreviation UPB and still adhere to it, without even knowing they do. They might never donate or find FDR either.

[Lykourgos]

Kissing people requires 2 parties. If both parties are to act morally then they have to agree to the act of kissing.

 

No they don't, but let's stop beating around the bush. If you have an issue with a previous comment about rape, or there's some other context to this, please just explain your point. At the very least, if this is about rape then I should point out that rape and kissing have two different mens rea. But this is pointless until I know what you're actually arguing against or trying to show.

 

Pro tip.

 

Not everyone who donates understand UPB, but everyone who understand UPB donates.

 

Hmm sounds legit.

 

In any case, it seems like a gross misunderstanding of the concept of consent to begin with to argue that if the person giving the kiss wants to give the kiss then it's not a transgression. It's either stupendously dense, or willfully ignorant not to understand that concept.

 

No, that's not the issue, I can understand mutual consent. What I don't understand is how people are using consent to define good in their "objective" moral system.

 

 

 

Just quoting you so you can see my previous response; this forum is strange in that posts will be submitted for review for a few days, whereupon the tread continues on and the posts are old and forgotten by the time they display.

 

 

I recall you were the one wanting to debate "a nobody", "a hero of a bunch of fanboys" and "someone hardly a soul [except for me and my 68 troll posts] gives a shit about":

 

Don't be an ass; I'm responding to RCali's hyperbolic appeal to authority, not trying to denigrate Molyneux. I am happy to be here, and I'm happy to discuss philosophy on or off the FDR show. However, the idea that the UPB text or its author represents some sort of recognised high-point in philosophy is laughable. Appeals to authority are not going to prove anything here.

[Guest Gee]

Come on, then the causal relation you set would need to be 100%.

 

It may even be that people who have never heard of Stefan or the great wealth of FDR wisdom, they don't know the abbreviation UPB and still adhere to it, without even knowing they do. They might never donate or find FDR either.

Your right, unlikely but possible.

 

That said I do assert anyone not donating (time, work, finance) and consuming can not understand UPB as it revolves around reciprocal trades of value and hypocrisy of taking value without recriprication.

The rapist wants the value of sex with providing the value to the sexual partner.

The thief wants the value of work without proving value to the owner.

Etc.

So when a you see a high post count and no donation status you see someone who wants the value of the podcasts without providing the value to support them. Not a violation of UPB, but a similar form, thus an understanding must be lacking.

 

OP excluded.

[RCali]

 

Don't be an ass; I'm responding to RCali's hyperbolic appeal to authority, not trying to denigrate Molyneux. I am happy to be here, and I'm happy to discuss philosophy on or off the FDR show. However, the idea that the UPB text or its author represents some sort of recognised high-point in philosophy is laughable. Appeals to authority are not going to prove anything here.

 

You are as clueless to reality and logic as a nihilist is, and exchanging words with you is as pleasant and rewarding as with one such person.

[Lykourgos]

You are as clueless to reality and logic as a nihilist is, and exchanging words with you is as pleasant and rewarding as with one such person.

Great insult, is that all you've got? It doesn't respond to the logical inconsistency:

 

 

That is the most twisted misrepresentation of the steps I've ever seen. Here's a reminder of what step 1 says:

 

"1) An act isn't aggression if there is consent to the action (i.e sex isn't rape if there's consent)"

 

It word-for-word states that an act isn't aggression if there is consent to the action: "A is not B if there is C".

 

So, let's order it and run a test, A with C is not B.

 

A is an action, here we'll use rape.

Does it have C? Yes, the moving party consents.

Therefore, rape is not aggression.

 

Then step two comes along,

 

2) Consent is required by ALL parties affected by the actions, an action cannot be considered consensual if one of the parties doesn't consent.

 

So, an act is aggression if any party doesn't consent. A is B if anyone lacks C.

 

A without everyone feeling C is B

 

Let's take A to be rape

Does everyone have C? No, at least one party lacks C.

Therefore A is B.

 

These are inconsistent.

 

Now let's glance at your bizarre rendering of the steps:

 

"For something not to be aggression, there must be consent. And there must be consent from both moral agents, or, the two parties."

 

You've changed the steps. In your first sentence, you are saying that if there is C, A might not be B. Not that it necessarily is, but that it might be. You have changed the steps, and your second sentence makes the first sentence completely superfluous; there must be C from all parties for A not to be B. Sentence 1, the altered step 1, is a meaningless observation derived from sentence 2.

 

Do you want to rewrite the steps this way? Or did you intend to take the actual steps as they are, and somehow try to show that they are consistent? As it is, you've just quietly changed the steps while refusing to admit that they were problematic.

[DCLugi]

Our disagreement is in whether accepting a moral claim requires one to agree to the behavior of said claim. If I say that hugging is moral then anyone who resists the hug is immoral to me.

[Lykourgos]

Our disagreement is in whether accepting a moral claim requires one to agree to the behavior of said claim. If I say that hugging is moral then anyone who resists the hug is immoral to me.

 

not necessarily

[Frosty]

Yep, I agree with Will and others, there's almost nothing but contempt for the UPB outside this forum. I myself hold it with contempt, too, but I decided to register and see what people here had to say about moral issues. You can check out the thread if it interests you, and feel free to join in, but nobody was really able to give a coherent account of objective morality or the UPB: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46127-non-aggression-principle/

 

It should be noted that when Lykourgos says that no one was able to give a coherent account of objective morality or UPB, what he really means is that no one gave an account he considers coherent, whether those actual accounts are coherent or not isn't solely arbitrated by him.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

It should be noted that when Lykourgos says that no one was able to give a coherent account of objective morality or UPB, what he really means is that no one gave an account he considers coherent, whether those actual accounts are coherent or not isn't solely arbitrated by him.

 

And there is some deadly irony there, since his first response to me mentioning the possibility that people outside this forum haven't heard of, read, or spent a lot of time studying UPB was "well there is no UPB council to determine who understands it and who doesn't." Which now that I think of it shows he's probably lying deep down about his processing of UPB. He finds solace in the fact that there is no council to charge him with not understanding UPB, since then he can just deny, deny, deny like he's been doing in this forum since he got here and I guess that works when there isn't some bigger troll to put him down (like his parents or the state).

[DCLugi]

not necessarily

If I say that 3+5 = 8 is a correct statement then anyone who says otherwise is incorrect to me.