PHILOSOPHY REVIEW! The Anti-Subjectivist Manifesto

Stefan Molyneux
Stefan Molyneux
  • 2 months ago
In this session, we discussed the anti-subjectivist manifesto, focusing on clarity in philosophical writing and the relationship between anti-subjectivism and moral realism. We highlighted the significance of logical consistency in arguments and accessibility of ethical theories. The podcast emphasized objective reality, the state of nature, and rational justification in ethical reasoning, advocating for clear and engaging communication in philosophical discussions.

Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!

NOW AVAILABLE FOR SUBSCRIBERS: MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING' - AND THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI AND AUDIOBOOK!

Also get the Truth About the French Revolution, the interactive multi-lingual philosophy AI trained on thousands of hours of my material, private livestreams, premium call in shows, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!

See you soon!

https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2022
Transcript
00:00Good morning, hope you're doing well. It's bright and early in the a.m. and we are going to do a
00:08little bit of work of dry analytical philosophy. Now this may lack some of the fire and brimstone
00:15of my other kinds of philosophical teachings and live streams, but sometimes I think there's a
00:20certain amount of detail and precision that's just very helpful to go through, and so let's do
00:24something maybe just a tiny bit dry, but for me kind of the heart and essence of philosophy. So
00:31this is something someone sent to me called the Anti-Subjectivist Manifesto, the case for consent,
00:37and here is how I go about analyzing a document. I've given it a quick skim. I haven't finished it,
00:46but let's do it live. It's a nice quote from Socrates. It is not difficult to avoid death,
00:53gentlemen. It is much more difficult to avoid wickedness, for it runs faster than death.
00:57You know, it's interesting and fun. Doesn't help you much in life, but it's kind of fun. All right,
01:02so we start with this is going to be a moral treatise. So this is similar to UPB or
01:10the Nicomachean Ethics from Aristotle, or I guess the case for normative ethics from Kant,
01:21and so on. So we're going to have a look at this and see how it does.
01:26So he says, the nature of the manifesto is to inform others,
01:30to profess some great insight, motivation, or cause in a manner that is both poignant and
01:34powerful. Our goal with this piece is to do just that for an ethical theory known as anti-subjectivism,
01:40a theory that not only offers a normative framework for determining the rightness or
01:45wrongness of a given set of actions, but also a meta-ethical logic used to evaluate all ethical
01:50theories and a growing breadth of creators and philosophers developing applied instances of the
01:54theory. Right, so that's interesting to me. I look at the form and the content of an opening paragraph
02:04with great detail, because that's your hook, right? That's what you're trying to get people
02:08to be interested in. I generally find that humility is one of the things I'm looking for,
02:16and humility is to recognize the skepticism of the person who is reading the piece.
02:24So if, as I did with UPB, you claim to have solved the eternal problem of secular ethics,
02:31of ethics without God's commandments, references to evolutionary adaptation,
02:36the benefit of the organism, or the arbitrary fists of the laws, if you have solved the
02:43problem of ethics for all time, people are going to be skeptical. Of course, absolutely, completely,
02:48and totally. And, you know, when I was out in the software field, I wrote the best software
02:54around for the field that I was in, but of course I would understand that people had doubt about
02:58that. So I would approach with all humility, say, I'm going to make some pretty wild claims here,
03:03but I'm going to try and back them up. So, of course, I opened UPB with, I understand why you'd
03:10be skeptical that I've solved this problem. Now that's not a fact, but if you're going to
03:15make a claim that you've solved the eternal problem of ethics, don't just assume you have,
03:23and that it's kind of no big thing in a way, because it is the very biggest. It's the
03:26holy grail and the final prize of philosophy. So what do we say here? The nature of the manifesto
03:33is to inform others. Well, here's the thing. If you don't know what a manifesto is,
03:39I'm not sure you'd be reading a manifesto. And so if I say that the purpose of my writing is
03:44to communicate, I'm not sure that that's really necessary in a way, you know, that, of course,
03:51to inform others. And that's not specific or detailed enough, right? The nature of the manifesto
03:58is to inform others. Well, we have a category error at the very opening sentence, right? Because
04:03the nature of all communication is to inform others. I mean, it could be to misinform others,
04:07but certainly to pass information across. So the nature of the manifesto is to inform others.
04:14And is it to inform others? Because that's not precise either.
04:20Because if you have an announcement that your flight has moved from gate 57 to gate 59,
04:28you're being informed. But that's not an argument. It's got nothing to do with ethics.
04:32It's not a manifesto. So if you're going to say to inform others,
04:39then you'd have to say why a manifesto is different from all other forms of information
04:44transfer. So it's a little imprecise. It says to profess some great insight, motivation,
04:49or cause in a manner that is both poignant and powerful. Okay, so this is going to be like that
04:55the sort of rousing workers of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains.
05:00Insight, motivation, or cause in a manner poignant and powerful. Okay, so this
05:04has a big claim. So they say we've got this manifesto, and then they say it's going to be
05:11powerful. This is going to be a call to arms. This is going to be rousing, passionate. Okay,
05:16so it's not really informing. It's inspiring, you could say. This is our goal with this piece,
05:23right? Why is it being called a piece now? So we say this is a manifesto. You say the nature
05:29of the manifesto, the goal with this piece. Okay, so we've got... now it's being called a piece.
05:36Why would you define it as a manifesto and then call it something else in the third sentence?
05:41For an ethical theory known as anti-subjectivism, a theory that not only offers a normative
05:45framework for determining the rightness and wrongness of a given set of actions,
05:48but also a meta-ethical logic used to evaluate all ethical theories in a growing breadth of
05:53Okay, so now we have, to me, some significant problems. We've got great insight, we've got
06:03motivation, we've got cause, and now it's a theory and also normative framework for determining the
06:11quote rightness and wrongness of a given set of actions. Not a given action, given set of actions.
06:17Now, he says, so they say here, first of all, don't use the word normative. For most people,
06:23they don't know normative means in accordance with particular norms or objective standards.
06:28So I don't use that because you want ethics to be available to the general population. So you
06:35have to write at the level that the general population understands. So don't use technical
06:38terms like normative. So here, what I think is interesting is they say a normative framework
06:46for determining, now why are quote rightness and quote wrongness? Why would they be in quotes?
06:52I don't quite understand that. I mean, if you were to say in engineering, you know,
07:00this is a methodology for figuring out whether a building will, quote,
07:04stand. It's like, well, no, I want the building to stand. I don't want the building to, quote,
07:09stand. You know, if you're a salesman and you come back to your boss, he says, how was your
07:15day? And you say, oh, I made a, quote, sale. It's like, what? That's confusing. Why are you
07:21putting quotes around things? Now, the other thing I find confusing, it's not the rightness
07:26and wrongness of an action, a given set of actions. Now, the rightness and wrongness of a
07:33given set of actions is a moral theory, right? So, is it right to violate the non-aggression
07:40principle? That's a given set of actions, you know, rape, theft, assault, murder all violate
07:44the non-aggression principle. So it says here, it's a normative framework for determining the
07:48rightness and wrongness of a given set of actions, but also a meta-ethical logic. Yeah, what does
07:55meta-ethical logic mean? I don't know. I couldn't tell you for the life of me. Used to evaluate all
08:01ethical theories. So it says it's not only, like an ethical theory is that which determines the
08:07rightness and wrongness of a given set of actions, right? So it's precision. An ethical theory is
08:11that which determines the rightness and wrongness of a given set of actions. So we say it's not
08:15only, it's given that these are synonyms evaluate, like ethical theories and the rightness and
08:21wrongness of a given set of actions, these are synonyms. So it not only offers a normative
08:26framework for determining the rightness and wrongness of a given set of actions, but also
08:29meta-ethical logic used to evaluate all ethical theories. All right, so these are these are the
08:36same things, right? So if it said the rightness and wrongness of a particular action, okay, that's one.
08:43So it's like a biologist saying, I have a way of not only defining mammals, but also defining
08:51mammals, right? So this is not particularly precise. All right, so he says the term anti-subjectivism
08:57in modern philosophy holds deep connotations to the moral realist positions on the nature of
09:01ethical truths. This is not a position of the anti-subjectivism we here shall propose.
09:09Rather, this theory was constructed under the notion that ethical realism is an unfounded
09:13position, and as a result, none of our arguments will rely on a conception of any ethical quote
09:18truths woven into reality, nor power beyond our comprehension, which has created any such truths.
09:24Okay, so here we go back. So the purpose of the manifesto is to profess some great insight,
09:29motivation, or cause in a matter that is both poignant and powerful.
09:32So we've got some poetry, we've got some passion, we've got some exhortation, some enthusiasm,
09:37some inspiration, except we don't. We don't. It's like saying a manifesto is there to poetically
09:48inspire people to greatness and then you publish your laundry list or your shopping list or
09:57whatever, right? It doesn't match, right? So the promise is this is going to be both poignant and
10:02powerful, right? And you better start delivering, right? So now we're into a paragraph and a half,
10:08and there's nothing poignant or powerful. All right. The term anti-subjectivism in modern
10:12philosophy holds deep connotations to the moral realist positions on the nature of ethical truth.
10:17Okay, what does this mean? Remember, you're talking to people about the nature of goodness.
10:25And if you're talking to people about the nature of goodness, please, please, please talk in a
10:30language that they can understand. Please, I'm begging you, talk in a language that they can
10:37understand. If people cannot understand the language, then they're going to tune out. Define
10:44your terms, build from the ground up, start with kindergarten ethics, show how it's going to matter
10:48in people's lives. All right. So here, the term anti-subjectivism in modern philosophy, this is
10:57not a position of the anti-subjectivism we here shall propose. So what they're saying is there's
11:02a term called anti-subjectivism, and we're going to completely redefine it.
11:11So I guess then my question is,
11:14why would you hijack a well-known term and redefine it for your own purposes, right? I mean,
11:21if I were to say, I'm going to redefine subjective as objective. So I'm going to say that subjectivism
11:29now means a belief and acceptance of objective reality. It's like, well, why would you use the
11:33term subjectivism and then redefine it to the opposite, right? So again, this is kind of murky,
11:39and how does this help the average person understand morals? And how is it poignant and
11:43powerful? All right. Okay. So I understand none of our arguments will rely on a conception of
11:48any ethical truths woven into reality, right? So this is the Humean is-ought distinction, right?
11:54You can't get an ought from an is. Nor power beyond a comprehension which has created any
11:58such, quote, truth. So this is religious ethics. Okay, got it. So it's not the nature of reality
12:04that we're getting our morals from, and it is not a divine commandment that we're getting our
12:08morals from. Okay, that's fine. Our goal is not to dupe, swindle, trick, or manipulate our way
12:13into a popular adoption of these ideas. Instead, we would like to present to you the arguments
12:20which have compelled us by the force of reason alone to construct this manifesto for you today.
12:24All right. So for a moralist to say his goal is to be moral, or for a moralist to say, I'm just
12:31going to, I know this more than one person, but I'm not going to keep doing the they-them.
12:36Who wrote this? So when a moralist says, my goal is to not dupe, swindle, trick, or manipulate you,
12:44I always get a little suspicious with that. Because if you're not going to swindle me,
12:50just don't swindle me. Right? But if you say, our goal is to not dupe, swindle, trick, or manipulate
12:58our way, I don't know, it's sort of odd. Like if someone comes up to you in a business meeting,
13:03shakes your hand, and says, my goal in this business meeting is not to dupe, swindle,
13:09trick, or manipulate you, it'd be like, well, isn't that kind of a given? Like, why would you
13:13say that? All right. But before we dive into the discussion of anti-subjectivism directly,
13:19we feel it important to lay out some basic statements about reality that may be useful
13:22to help contextualize this philosophy. Okay, I'm still not seeing this point into powerful stuff.
13:26All right. Establishing requirements. We believe there to be three key aspects of the universe and
13:32our existence in it that must be directly addressed and agreed on before any ethical
13:36theory can be built. Okay. Rights. Okay. Honestly, I appreciate the effort. I really do. And I don't
13:46want to sound condescending. A lot of effort goes into that kind of things. But if you're going to
13:50make a case for ethics, right? If you're going to make a case for ethics, you cannot start with,
13:58we believe. You cannot start with, we believe. You know, if you say to a little kid, do you believe
14:05in Santa Claus? And they say, I believe in Santa Claus. Does that have anything to do with objective
14:10reality? It is a statement of subjective acceptance of a truth that is unproven. Like,
14:16I don't believe that two and two is four. Two and two is four. So, we believe there to be three
14:21key aspects that must. Okay, but why? Is it your belief or is it a fact? Right? And this is a
14:31problem, right? Okay. Reality exists subjectively. The three laws of logic are a necessary foundation
14:40for any ethical theory. The default ethical environment of all living creatures is amoral.
14:46Okay. So, that's fine. This is saying here the things that need to be established, right? So,
14:52I would say, rather, there need to be three key aspects of the universe and our existence in it
14:58that must be directly addressed and agreed on. Okay, but why? But if you already agree on stuff,
15:03you don't need ethics. Ethics is for people who completely disagree with you, right? The ethical
15:07theory would be for people who disagree with you. So, if you say, well, we need to agree on
15:12these things and then we can move forward. I mean, honestly, this is like in a court system,
15:18if the prosecution says to the defense or the prosecution says to the accused,
15:24well, all we have to do, okay, let's agree that you're guilty and we'll move on from there. And
15:28it's like, whoa, whoa, whoa, what are we in the Stalin show trial here? So, you can't just say,
15:36we need to agree on these things and then we can move forward.
15:41No. If you're at a yard sale and there's an old lawnmower there and
15:48somebody comes up to you from the yard sale and says, okay, so we agree that this is a million
15:54dollars and you'll pay it. So, just if you could give me the money, right? Be like, what? How do
16:00we agree already, right? All right. So, one, reality exists objectively. For the first claim,
16:07it is necessary for any system of normative ethics to accept, even if done so arbitrarily,
16:12that reality exists in an objective manner. Why? So, we've gone from we believe to it is necessary.
16:23So, for the prosecution to say, to put you in prison, the prosecution, it is necessary for them
16:31to prove to the jury that you're guilty and for the jury to vote that you're guilty, right? So,
16:37for you to go to prison, it is necessary for the jury to vote you guilty. So, but that still doesn't
16:43mean that you're guilty. It just meant that is necessary. But how is that true, right? For you
16:47to accept what I'm saying, it is necessary that you believe my argument, you accept my argument
16:51and so on. But that doesn't mean that my argument is true. So, for the first claim, it is necessary
16:56for any system of normative ethics to accept, even if done so arbitrarily, that reality exists in an
17:01objective manner. What the heck does this mean? Even if done so arbitrarily. So, again, this is
17:08diet books for thin people. This is people saying, hey, man, I don't believe that you're guilty.
17:16I want you to accept reason and objectivity. So, the way that we do that, as I say,
17:23it is necessary for you to accept reason and objectivity. Well, that's not, why would I? I
17:31mean, the whole point is, what if you don't? How do you get people to accept it if you don't, right?
17:36There exist large swaths of claims in support of the contrary. To the contrary of this position,
17:41however, none of these claims bridge the inability for solipsistic or ideologically
17:44similar worldviews to facilitate any ethical theories. What the hell? I'm going right back
17:50up here to, is this, I told me to laugh. Come on, guys. You say this is going to be poignant
17:57and powerful. And you get into this, what is a technical word salad that's undefined?
18:03There exist large swaths of claims in support to the contrary of this position.
18:08However, none of these claims bridge the inability for solipsistic or ideologically
18:12similar worldviews to facilitate any ethical theories. What the hell? Okay.
18:19Our response to any individual who would reject this assertion of objective reality is a simple
18:24one. There is no amount of argumentation, logic reasoning, or civil conversation that
18:28could bridge the gap between the claims presented in this essay and a rejection of reality wholesale.
18:37Our response to any individual who would reject this assertion of objective reality is a simple
18:42one. There's no amount of argumentation, logic, and reasoning. Okay. If any reader exists as a
18:48solipsist and would like to participate in a consistent ethical theory with their imaginary
18:53companions, we encourage them to continue reading and perhaps live this theory out in their own
18:57world. However, this manifesto will prove highly lacking in cogency and explanatory power for
19:01any with a pre-existing perspective as such. Okay, so they're saying,
19:09the solipsistic is, you know, the world is me. It's to some degree the
19:15Cartesian brain of the tank stuff. It's a narcissistic worldview.
19:22Well, but you have to find a way to push back on people who don't believe what you're saying,
19:26right? You can't say, well, okay, we just have to accept that reality exists objectively. You
19:31have to find a way to get people to accept that reality exists subjectively. Now, of course,
19:39they'll say, well, if you reject the reality exists subjectively, then you can't be convinced.
19:43That's what they're saying. Like, we have to agree that reality exists subjectively. Otherwise,
19:46we can't have a conversation. But if you say, my theory is true if you accept all of my premises,
19:54right? So they've got three premises, right? The reality exists subjectively, three laws of logic,
19:59and living creatures are amoral. And so you have to establish these things. Because if they have an
20:05ethical theory that relies on these things, and we say, okay, if you assume that all of my premises
20:10are true, but the whole point of the debate of philosophy is you have to assume that nobody
20:15believes in what you're saying. And you have to establish it from first principles, right? Okay.
20:22So, yeah, saying this in this manifesto is not going to make any sense if you're narcissistic
20:27and don't believe in objective reality. It's like, okay, reality. So, Philip K Dick,
20:32reality is that which when you stop believing in it doesn't go away. All right.
20:38So, this is how they deal with reality exists subjectively. They say, well, this is required
20:43for our theory. Which, again, these are people that have just never been in any kind of objective
20:50business situation, right? So, what I mean by that is they have not, let me just make sure the
20:59recording is still going. Yeah. So, when you go to get investment into your business, and you have,
21:07you say, here's my income, here's my expenses projected over five years, right? Then if they're
21:15interested in your business, then they're going to wrangle with the numbers, right? So, if you say,
21:18well, I'm going to spend 3 million, we're going to make 5 million. I spend 3 million, but I'm
21:23going to make 5 million, right? And if you go into them and they say, okay, so you have to,
21:29in order to invest in my company, you have to accept these numbers. And they'd say, well,
21:32why do I have to accept these numbers? Right? We have to wrangle about these numbers. I need to
21:37see the proof. I need to see the research. I need to see your experience. I need to see
21:41market conditions. I need to see competition. I need to see earnings before taxes, EBITDA,
21:48taxes, interest, EBITDA, earnings before interest, taxes, deductions, I can't remember, EBITDA,
21:53right? So, you need to see, I need to see all of these things. So, you can't just say, well,
22:00you need to accept my business projections in order to find my company valuable. It's like,
22:05I actually don't have to accept these things. You have to prove them to me. You have to,
22:09right? If you go up to a woman and say, well, you have to accept that I'm the perfect man for
22:15you and you can't do any better in order to go on a date with me. And she'd say, well, why do I have
22:19to accept that? Like, don't you have to kind of establish that? So, all right. The three laws
22:25of logic are a necessary foundation for any ethical theory. Now, that is a radical statement.
22:34Because getting from the three laws of logic to morals prior to UPB was an insurmountable task.
22:41So, that is a very, very radical argument, right? To say that you can get to an ought from an is,
22:48that you can get from logic to ethics is a massive, massive, massively, Aristotle didn't
22:58do it. Plato didn't do it. Kant didn't do it. And Ayn Rand didn't do it. I mean, so,
23:05this is a big thing, right? So, all right. Regarding so, this is a radical claim and
23:10radical claims require radical proof, right? Regarding the second, oh, sorry. So, just go
23:15back up here. So, reality exists objectively. How do you prove that to people who don't believe it?
23:22Well, you point out that them denying your claim requires that they use objective reality.
23:28Right? So, that's how you do it, right? So, if somebody says to you, I don't believe in objective
23:33reality. Well, you've just said I, you've made an argument using sound waves, relying on my hearing,
23:39using the medium of air in objective reality, using language that is defined objectively.
23:44And so, you can't deny the existence of objective reality to someone without utilizing and accepting
23:50the existence of objective reality. And that's how you prove it to people, right? Now, people
23:54can say no to that as well, but then they're obviously wrong to everyone, right? It doesn't
24:00matter so much if people are wrong, if they accept that they're wrong, what matters is
24:04other people accept that they're wrong, right? So, if somebody says, if somebody on a street
24:13corner says, I have three invisible space aliens standing on my head, you can't probably convince
24:19them otherwise, but everybody else understands that they're crazy. And right. So, that's enough
24:23for the ethical theory to spread. All right. All right. Regarding the second claim, so it's a claim,
24:29it's not proven, right? So, they're saying it's a claim, which means that they've got to prove it,
24:32right? Regarding the second claim, without the ability to apply logic and rationalization,
24:38in a consistent manner, there is no way to construct any ethical theory. Why?
24:45There absolutely are ways to construct ethical theories, right? You can say the greatest good
24:50of the greatest number, pragmatism, utilitarianism, there's the Kant's categorical imperative,
25:03there is Ayn Rand's, that which is good for man, there is the highest pursuit of morals,
25:11eudaimonia from Aristotle, there's of course, the commandments of God for many religious
25:19theologians and ethical theories. So, just saying, it's crazy. It's crazy. So, maybe you say
25:26these houses are built badly. But if you say, without bricks, there's no way to build a house,
25:32you're ignoring all of the houses out of clay and sticks, and I don't know, whatever, right? You can,
25:39wood, beams, right? So, if you can say that a brick house is superior to a house made out of
25:47wood, I guess this is, again, into Three Little Pigs territory. But you can't say, without bricks,
25:54there's simply no way to build a house, because there are houses all over the place that are not
26:01built with bricks. So, I don't know. And also, we've got logic and rationalization. Now,
26:10rationalization is a word that is quite technical and usually meant in a psychological way. So,
26:16people who rationalize their beliefs are people who apply ex post facto reasoning to what they
26:21already believe, right? So, if you're told that, oh, Donald Trump is the worst guy ever,
26:27then everything that you see is curated to and inhabits that filter, right?
26:35If you hit your kids when you're angry, and then later you say, well, I had to hit you because
26:40it kept you safe or whatever, you're rationalizing, you're applying ex post facto reasoning to
26:45something that isn't rational, or wasn't reasoned at the time. So, you can't just say logic and then
26:51use the word rationalization, which is a psychological term for false reasoning.
26:55I mean, maybe they're using it in some other context, but if you're aiming this at the
26:59general audience, and you can't just, which, you know, if you've got a Philip K Dick
27:04quote, you probably are. You can't just use a term that means the opposite of reasoning,
27:08rationalization is not reasoning. So, without the ability to apply logic and anti-logic in
27:16a consistent manner, it's like, what does this mean? Okay, without the laws of identity,
27:20non-contradiction, and excluded middle, reigning supreme, arguments, claims, and truth have no meaning.
27:25Again, this is a statement, right? As these laws are necessarily axiomatic, they must be
27:33adopted without a logical proof justifying them in themselves. So, necessarily axiomatic
27:40is not true. So, there are people who live who are crazy, right? And necessarily axiomatic,
27:50they must be adopted without a logical proof justifying them in themselves. But you can
27:54absolutely provide a logical proof for logic and objective reality. Everybody who is alive to debate
28:00has followed the dictates of objective reality in order to survive, right? They have eaten food,
28:06not gravel. They have breathed air, not water. They have drunk water, not poison or air. And so,
28:14in order to survive, you have to follow the dictates of objective reality. And you have to
28:19be logical in how you solve the basic problems of survival and existence, that you need food, water,
28:26rest, a shelter, and all that, right? So, all who are alive are alive to the degree that they have
28:37followed objective requirements and rational actions. I mean, it doesn't mean that they're
28:42perfectly rational, of course, right? But it just means that in order to get to be a 25-year-old
28:47who's debating, you have to have followed reason and evidence and objectivity. And so,
28:54and in order to gain sustenance from reality. So, you can prove these things.
28:58The law of identity, A equals A, for example, does not exist because some other aspect of
29:04reality has allowed us to derive this concept and to verify its authenticity outside itself.
29:09The law can only be verified by its lack of a counter-example. Again, I'm going back up here
29:14we wanted to be what? Poignant and powerful, right? So, no, the law of identity exists
29:26because another aspect of reality has allowed us to derive this concept. So, the law of identity
29:30exists because of the nature of reality. A carbon atom is a carbon atom and not a carbon atom and a
29:40hydrogen atom at the same time, right? So, all the way down, right? An orange is an orange,
29:45not an orange and a banana and an elephant tusk and a concept at the same time. So, the law of
29:50identity is concepts match the predictable behavior of matter and energy. So, the law of identity,
29:59laws of logic, are derived from what is in the world, what is in the universe, what is in
30:05objectivity that is not only transmitted through the evidence of our senses but also defined
30:11at a scientific and cellular level and an atomic level. So, yeah, the law of identity
30:20is because of the nature of atoms and the laws of physics, right? From the laws of logic, what
30:25truths there are of reality can be derived because they are necessary products of these laws.
30:31Any theory of any sort which either does not consider these laws or either intentionally or
30:35unintentionally violates one of the laws of logic cannot be seriously stated to have any
30:38substantive explanatory power or founded basis requiring its existence. Yeah, it's all kind of
30:45special pleading, right? This is all Thomas Paine quote and so on, right? So, you're just saying,
30:53like, you have to accept these as necessarily axiomatic, right? So, but if the laws of logic
31:00are necessarily axiomatic, then you're trying to make people more rational by saying, well,
31:08you have to totally accept the laws of logic. But, of course, if they're not rational, then
31:15they have to have rejected the laws of logic to some degree, at least conceptually,
31:19and so you have to cross that gap, right? I mean, if you're a nutritionist, you have to
31:24accept that the reason you are a nutritionist is some people eat badly and need to eat better,
31:28right? So, saying, well, it's axiomatic that everybody eats perfectly would mean that there's
31:32no need for a nutritionist, and if you're going to say that these laws are necessarily axiomatic,
31:40then you're saying, well, everybody's already perfectly logical,
31:44and therefore, we're right. But, of course, you're trying to reason people into something,
31:49and therefore, you have to accept that they've rejected reason to some degree,
31:52so you have to find a way to bridge that gap and get them to accept reason.
31:55Okay. Three, the default ethical environment of all living creatures is amoral. And finally,
32:00for the third, claim. See, they say a claim. You can't just go from a claim to it's necessarily
32:05axiomatic, right? Because these two things are not. A claim is something you say is true and
32:09needs to be established. The claim is Bob is guilty of assault, right? So, you can't say
32:16the charge against Bob, the claim against Bob is that he beat up Sally. Now, it's necessarily
32:22axiomatic that Bob beat up Sally, and it's like, well, no, you can't be both a claim and
32:25necessarily axiomatic. All right. The term state of nature exists as this amoral environment with
32:30large historical context, grounding it firmly in the minds of many philosophers.
32:35We will be dedicating a large section of this manifesto to properly outlining the state of
32:39nature as viewed by anti-subjectivists. However, for those with prior knowledge on this topic,
32:44it can be tacitly conflated with the Hobbesian conception. Still, it is important to note that
32:49they are not identical. Okay. I'm still looking for the inspiring poetic point and stuff. All
32:54right. Several key points of differentiation between the Hobbesian and anti-subjective
32:58is interpretation of the state of nature include the expansion of the state of nature to all living
33:02creatures in nature. The term nature being synonymous with existing in reality. No.
33:09Unless you mean the natural world, which includes rocks, mountains, and so on. So,
33:14if you're going to say there's a state of nature that applies to animals and nature is now
33:20applicable to all atoms and energy across the universe, that's a problem, right?
33:28That's a problem. So, the Hobbesian state of nature is about animals. There's no such thing
33:34as a rock that exists in a state of nature or a cloud or anything like that. It has to do with
33:39living creatures that can impose will on others. So, let's see here. State of nature, the expansion
33:46of the state of nature to all living creatures in nature, the term nature being synonymous with
33:51existing in reality. So, it's true that living creatures exist in reality, but so do rocks and
33:56asteroids and suns and moons, right? Anyway, be it anti or human and the affirmation that no living
34:03being is born with any objective moral authority over any other living being, thereby evolving
34:08Hobbes's claim that there being no natural tyrants in a physical sense to a moral sense.
34:14Okay, not quite sure I follow. They're kind of gish galloping here in that each one of
34:22these sentences could be a whole book, right? Any ethical theory without a proper conception
34:27of the state of nature which is appropriately addressed is omitting by their own volition the
34:31most basal state of existence for any living creature which we can directly observe and evince.
34:36Oh yeah, these kinds of evince and so on, that is, it's a $10 word designed to slightly
34:41intimidate. As the state of nature is the broader context from which any ethical theory ought to be
34:46in direct consideration when developing both its justification and claims, anti-subjectivism
34:51naturally places a large focus on the topic. There is no accurate description of existence
34:57where the state of nature is omitted, and as such we believe it to be highly telling of both
35:03the credibility and explanatory power of any ethical theory when it fails to address this
35:07massive elephant in the room akin to designing a submarine with no mention of water. Okay,
35:11analogies are not proof, but they can certainly help explain, but they're not proof.
35:18So, there is no accurate description of existence wherein the state of nature is omitted.
35:24So, I don't know man. I mean, I think the state of nature stuff is interesting,
35:29but is science justified by saying that, say, before modern Baconian science like 16th century,
35:36is science valid or invalid without addressing the lack of science in the past, right?
35:46Are antibiotics validated when they were invented or created? Are antibiotics validated by pointing
35:52out that there were not antibiotics in the past? Is quantum physics true because quantum physics is
36:00new and quantum physics has to refer to the prior to quantum physics state of science?
36:09Last one, right? So, there was Newtonian physics, then there was Einsteinian physics.
36:14Can Einsteinian physics be judged on a standalone basis or does Einsteinian physics
36:22need to prove itself relative to all that was pre-Einsteinian physics, right? So,
36:28does an ethical theory have to deal with the fact that prior to philosophy, reason,
36:34conceptual abilities, language, and usually the written word, and a capacity to argue and debate
36:39and so on, does an ethical theory have to explain everything that occurred prior to the development
36:46of our capacity for ethical theories? It's a concept validated by referring to all of the
36:54creatures that don't have man's conceptual ability. I don't think that, I mean, UPB
37:00does not need to show that prior to UPB there was a state of nature or all moral theories
37:08at some point in our 150,000 or 200,000 year evolution there were no particular moral theories
37:14and it was a state of nature. Is an ethical theory proven or disproven if it references
37:23the state of nature or not? Now, they're saying, well, yeah, and I'm like, yeah, if the theory is
37:28valid and true, it doesn't matter that in the past people didn't believe the theory
37:33or didn't know the theory or didn't accept the theory. The theory is true
37:37based upon its relationship to reason and evidence. If it's rational and if the evidence
37:43fully supports it, that's true as you can get. And so I don't think that modern scientists say,
37:50well, in the past there was no modern science. So all of my scientific theories have to make
37:58reference to that fact and show how science evolved out of non-science. And so I don't think
38:05ethical theories need to say, here's how we developed out of non-ethical theories.
38:09So, all right, let's see here. So, ethical philosophies all begin with, whether they
38:16realize it or not, the hypothetical imperative that people's goal is to live above the state
38:20of nature, the reality in which they are subjected to the force of might makes right.
38:27Yeah, the people's goal is to live above the state of nature.
38:32Well, of course, the state of nature is when animals use their best abilities to coercively
38:38extract resources from others. And false ethical theories are the weapon by which people extract
38:47resources and labor and money from others. So, ethical theories are used in general to
38:55are used in general to take people, take from people without risk, right? So some guy tries
39:02to rob you in an alley, you can fight back, you can beat him up or something like that.
39:06But if there's a false law, like an immoral law that transfers property and everyone believes
39:11in it, then you can make a huge amount of money out of that. So ethical theories are generally
39:16weapons used by people who exist in an actual state of nature while claiming the opposite.
39:21And that's, I mean, that's empirically verifiable all over the place, right? He says,
39:25on the other hand, science begins with the laws of logic derived from the consistency of the
39:28universe. Ah, interesting. Laws of logic derived from the consistency of the universe. But if we
39:35go back up here to laws of logic, all these laws are necessarily axiomatic. They must be adopted
39:46without a logical proof justifying them in themselves. Whereas down here we say laws of
39:53logic are derived from the consistency of the universe. It disallows irrational or arbitrary
39:57selections in any given theory, all right? Non-arbitrariness ensures that the... I think
40:04non-arbitrariness is just consistency, isn't it? Anyway, non-arbitrariness ensures that the results
40:08of such theories will not produce unforeseen conflict when applied in reality. If the logic
40:13of the theory is sound, it stands to reason it will produce the expected outcomes. For ethical
40:17theories that wish to accomplish their fundamental goal, the same is true. In order to ensure that
40:22any given ethical theory will continually facilitate an individual's existence above the
40:26state of nature, we must subject philosophy to the same primacy of logic and absence of
40:30arbitrariness utilized by the sciences, thus preventing ourselves from developing theories
40:35about that when applied in reality prescribe mutually exclusive or conflict-generating
40:39behaviors, might-based. This is not particularly clear. I think I understand what they're talking
40:45about. It's not particularly clear language, okay? Now, of course, when people say science,
40:54I mean, obviously there's theoretical science and there's ideal science and Baconian science,
41:01but there is, of course, the pseudoscience of the modern mystery cult religion known as
41:06government quote science, which is really just about lying and exploiting people, right?
41:11So we've got tons of examples of all this kind of stuff. I'm not sure exactly what they're
41:18saying here because it's very much, again, this is kind of a Gish Gallop where they're just kind
41:22of dragging you behind a truck saying we're going for a walk, but let's just see here.
41:30In order to ensure that any given ethical theory will continually facilitate an individual's
41:34existence above the state of nature. No, it's not existence above the state of nature, it's their
41:41goal. Existence and goal are two different things, right? Existence is a state, goal is a purpose,
41:47all right? We must subject philosophy to the same primacy of logic, okay, whatever. All right, so
41:52arbitrary selections are by definition selections made with no rational basis.
41:56Our ability to rationalize is our sole valid tool for making sense of the universe.
42:01Now, rationalize, again, this is a term used in psychology to mean false moral reasoning,
42:06false reasoning. And a key product of this ability is our capacity to contrast sense
42:10data with the proposed concepts to identify contradictions. Okay, so empirical evidence
42:17trumps what you believe, okay? So when you can sense data with proposed concepts, so
42:24the laws of logic that we evolve from sense data, we compare that to proposed concepts.
42:30But you can't compare, you can't contrast immediate sense data with proposed concepts, can we?
42:35Because proposed concepts are ideas, they don't come in through the senses other than as the
42:39transmission of ideas, right? So if I say, if I let go of this egg, it will float in the air.
42:47You can't contrast sense data with my proposed concept, because I haven't let go of the egg yet.
42:54Right, so if I'm holding an egg up and I say, well, if I let go of this egg, it's going to float in the air.
42:58Now, you can't contrast your sense data with the proposed concept, because I haven't let go
43:03of the egg, right? So sense data is about what is happening or what has just happened. Proposed
43:08concepts about what will happen. Sense data cannot perceive the future. And proposed concepts are
43:12about the future behavior of matter and energy. The ability to notice when what is being presented
43:19does not match with reality. Oh, it's a bit of a sentence fragment, but all right. It is from the
43:23rules of logic that we know contradictions cannot exist in reality, and with the rules
43:28that we are able to identify them. Okay, A cannot equal both A and non-A. Consequently, any
43:34contradiction with reality must be a problem with the concept and not with reality. That's certainly
43:39true. To give an example, if Fred were to believe that the earth is flat, and presented with the
43:44wealth of evidence that exists today demonstrating that the earth is spherical, it is neither the
43:48evidence nor the fact that the earth is spherical that is the contradiction with Fred's conception
43:52of the flat earth itself. Yep, in any contradiction between ideas and facts, facts rule. All right.
43:57The relationship between arbitra and the reason for that is that we only have theories and reason
44:02and facts and life because it's because reality is not contradictory. So we kind of say that we
44:09only exist because of non-contradiction and our purpose is to accept non-contradiction. If we
44:14accepted non-contradiction, we wouldn't be here. All right. An arbitrary selection is by definition
44:18unfounded and thereby it does not require adherence to the laws of logic. As we've demonstrated,
44:24if a concept is in line with the laws of logic, it cannot be the source of any contradiction.
44:29Okay, so now we're talking about concept formation, which is fine,
44:33but we're trying to figure out the ethical philosophies. Okay, so this is all
44:38metaphysics and epistemology, nature of reality, nature of knowledge. Fine. With it, arbitrariness
44:43is asserted. The risk for contradictions is undefinable because there is no metric by which
44:48to ensure a claim made without rational justification. Okay, sorry. I don't want to
44:53read this too fast. As we've demonstrated, if a concept is in line with the laws of logic,
44:58it cannot be the source of any contradiction. But when arbitrariness is asserted, the risk
45:03for contradictions is undefinable because there is no metric by which to measure a claim made
45:08without rational justification. Don't follow that too well. If we arbitrarily assert that two plus
45:14two equals five, we are obviously wrong. But only if you were to scrutinize my claim utilizing the
45:18rules of mathematics, logical symbology, to do so. You don't need mathematics to know that two and
45:30two do not equal five. You don't need logical symbology. You know, toddlers know. If you say
45:38to a toddler, I'm going to, let's say, if you say, I'm going to give you two candies and then
45:45two candies, and then you give a toddler only two candy and one candy, they'd say, hey, where's the
45:49other candy? Right? So they don't have logical symbology. They don't have mathematics. But
45:54toddlers absolutely know these things, right? On the other hand, I mean, when you give chimpanzees
46:03money, the first thing that male chimpanzees do is start trading money for sex,
46:08and they start bidding for this, right? And so they don't have logical symbology, but they're
46:13still doing mathematics. All right. On the other hand, if we were to arbitrarily claim that the
46:18highest of all goods is the reduction of harm, the claim becomes much more difficult to casually
46:23dismiss. Okay? The claim is no less arbitrary than my poor mathematical assertion, but when couched
46:30in a sea of pseudo-rationalizations, oh, ah, rationalizations is now being used in the
46:36psychological sense, whereas before it was being used as a synonym for pure rationality. So again,
46:41you got to watch this language. Don't flip meanings. That ultimately defined by subjective
46:46preference, the obviousness of the break with rationality is better hidden from those not
46:50looking closely. Yeah. Yeah. So when you say, I want to do the general good, you're just as
46:55irrational as saying two and two make five. I want to make everyone happy, but people get
46:59sucked in by the emotional language too. Yeah, I get that. It is this link between arbitrariness
47:05and subjective preference that facilitates the adoption of the name anti-subjectivism.
47:09If an act is deemed good or evil merely because one asserts that it is ipso-dixit,
47:15ipso-dixit, sorry, then you have made good and evil ethically meaningless terms, and in so doing
47:21robbed for important concept of any onus to be regarded seriously by those striving towards
47:25rationality. Okay. I'll be honest with you. I don't know what ipso-dixit means.
47:32And when people go into not common use Latin, not ideal. All right. Let's do another minute or two.
47:38An arbitrary selection is subjective. The reason any person would make any given arbitrary choice
47:43is definitely absent any sort of objective justification. These claims are made because
47:48they feel right, seem like the correct course of action, or might be close to the truth,
47:52but none of them are founded in any sense that a person striving to be rational,
47:56to be a rational individual, would be able to logically validate or to test for soundness.
48:02Not all arbitrary selections are something that ought to be avoided. Your favorite tie,
48:06Metallica album, flavor of ice cream, and sports team are for most people arbitrary selections.
48:11But it is not the objective of anti-subjectivists to rob you of these personal pleasures.
48:18When the discussion turns to ethics, however, it is another matter entirely. Now that's interesting.
48:24So arbitrary selections, your favorite tie? Maybe. Maybe. Metallica album? I suppose so.
48:32But flavor of ice cream? No. People would say that is not arbitrary. Your favorite flavor
48:36of ice cream is that which your tongue causes you to please the most. Your tongue creates the
48:42most pleasure in touching. So that's not subjective. It's like saying that whether you
48:48choose to enjoy stubbing your toe or having sex, that's subjective. No, it's not, because one gives
48:55you pain and the other gives you pleasure, right? A sports team, people do not say that is an
48:59arbitrary selection. This is, I'm sorry, this is like complete non-sports nerd talk. Sports teams
49:07are not arbitrary selections for just about everyone. Sports teams are based upon your
49:11geographical location. Not arbitrary. All right, let's do one more paragraph. Maybe we'll do more
49:17later. Arbitrary selection in the context of ethics, either normative or applied, the process
49:22for determining what is good and evil and how to live these determinations in reality,
49:26have ramifications that extend past your preference of Tom Brady or Dak Prescott jersey.
49:33If an ethical theory makes an arbitrary selection to demand all able-bodied men fight a wild grizzly
49:38bear bare-handed upon turning 18, or is to be considered bad, there are legitimate ramifications
49:43to such a prescription. Suddenly, without any approval from the individuals in question,
49:49in order to be considered good, they are required to partake in the mass mauling of the youth or else
49:53or else. Who would ever enforce that, we hear you ask? Anyone who arbitrarily chooses to do so,
49:59throughout history, arbitrary ethical theories, in the form of various superstitions, religious,
50:04scientific conclusions, have been indoctrinated into the masses. Everything from Hitler's
50:08Ãœbermensch to purify the human race, to the child sacrifices of the Aztecs to bring the rains,
50:14exist in this category and were adopted and enforced en masse to terrible effect.
50:19The existence of an arbitrary element in an ethical theory necessarily introduces the
50:23opportunity for further arbitrariness, and this can result in detrimental consequences for those
50:28who are expected to live under such circumstances. Right, so this is a standard atheist position,
50:33which, you know, doesn't mean that it's, you know, axiomatically incorrect, but it certainly
50:36is incomplete. So to say that arbitrary ethical theories have all just been indoctrinated into
50:43the masses, is to say that there has been no trial and error in ethical theories throughout mankind.
50:53So there have, I mean, the whole conservative position is to say, well, a bunch of ethical
50:59theories have been tried, and we have worked out the ones that work the best, right, which tend to
51:04be monogamy, investment in children, property rights, limited government, and so on, right?
51:12So there have been, there has been evolution in ethical theories, right? So, I mean, I talked
51:20about this in Australia in 2016 with regards to the Aborigines and saying, okay, so if you kill
51:27everyone who disagrees with you in society, then you don't progress as a society, and then you will
51:32be conquered by people who allow disagreements, right? So the more brutal and violent and
51:38censorious cultures were conquered by those who had more human liberty. And so there tends to be
51:46a movement across the world as cultures which have evolved better methodologies
51:54tend to do better, right? So all of the cultures that have become, you know,
51:59feminist-obsessed, patriarchy-obsessed, a hatred of men, suspicion of women, and welfare state,
52:05and so on, then you have a collapse of birth rates. And those cultures that have healthier
52:10relations between men and women in many ways, or at least can have more children, tend to do
52:15better, right? So there is a race, there is an arms race, so to speak, of ethical theories and so on,
52:22right? Sorry, where are we at in this? So we are about halfway through. So I think I'll stop here.
52:35And so, okay, well, let's just, okay, we do one more paragraph, finish this, right?
52:40The chain of pseudo-rationalizations must start with an arbitrary selection.
52:44If there is no arbitrary rule demanding bouts with bears, there can be no false
52:47rationalization that someone ought to enforce the rule. We do not believe it to be hyperbolic
52:54in stating that unmitigated use of arbitrariness is the ultimate downfall of the overwhelming
52:59majority of modern ethical theories, if not all of them. When arbitrariness is allowed to fester
53:06in places that have no, and can never have, rational justifications for their insertion,
53:09it is a catalyst for any number of adverse reactions, interpretations, and results.
53:14So yeah, anti-rationality in ethical theories is absolutely the downfall of civilizations,
53:20for sure. The state can counterfeit, you cannot. The state can initiate force, you cannot. The
53:25state can take, you cannot. The state can start wars, you cannot. The state can use political
53:30violence, you cannot. So yeah, absolutely, I get all of that. So, but the problem is,
53:36if you're going to say, well, there's arbitrary stuff, but then you're going to say, when it
53:41comes to, all these laws are necessarily axiomatic, they must be adopted without a
53:48logical proof. Okay. So if you're going to say there's just stuff that you have to,
53:54it's necessarily axiomatic, you have to be adopted, and they have to be adopted
53:58without a logical proof, then that's going to be the case for everyone. They're going to say,
54:03well, my beliefs are necessarily axiomatic, and they have to be adopted. And my ethical theory
54:07absolutely demands and requires that you accept this premise, and this premise, and this premise,
54:12right? Right? So we believe there to be three key aspects of the universe and our existence that
54:18must be directly addressed and agreed on before any ethical theory can be built. Well, no,
54:22the whole point of a debate is to convince people who don't agree with you. So if you're going to
54:28say, well, you got to agree with us on this stuff before we can go any further, it's like, well,
54:32you've already lost me. Because if you go into a job interview, and you say, well, you're applying
54:39for some programming position, and you say, okay, there are three aspects of this job that you have
54:43to agree on, and then I'll work for you. You have to pay me a million dollars a year, I have to get
54:48foot rubs from a masseuse every morning, and I want to work on the space station. So we'll talk
54:55now, and now that you've accepted those, let's get me hired. And they'll be, whoa, whoa, whoa,
55:00we haven't accepted any of those, right? So that's the problem. So I really, I enjoy this kind of
55:05stuff. I hope it's interesting to you. I really do appreciate the work that these guys have done
55:09on this. And there's some interesting ideas in this, for sure. I think this is an interesting
55:13first draft, but it needs to be made much more accessible. And you need to keep your promises,
55:18right? Right? You need to keep your promises, right? Right at the beginning, you say,
55:23and a manifesto informs in a poignant and powerful way, okay, that's your sales pitch, right?
55:29That that's your sales pitch. And if you're going to say, this is a poignant and powerful story,
55:36and it turns out to be a bunch of syllogisms, then you have not kept your promises. It's not
55:43exactly fraud, but you're massively overselling what you're about to do. And if you're going to
55:47make a promise, which I take very seriously, that this is a great insight, motivational cause,
55:52poignant and powerful, okay, then saying that it's like Tom Brady's jersey is not poignant and
55:58powerful. And you just need to work on that, in my opinion. And let me know if you want me to do
56:02more. I certainly appreciate this work. And thank you for the person saying to review this. I think
56:06it was interesting. If you've got other stuff you'd like me to check out, please let me know.
56:10freedomain.com slash donate to help out the show.