"Should a moralist ignore consequence and argue for UPB purely on the basis of epistemology and pure philosophical merit, while ignoring the elephant in the room, which is the question we all subconsciously ask. “How does this benefit my survival?”
"UPB isn’t validated or invalidated by its consequences, but at the same time, discussions of UPB inevitably involve consequences. How do we reconcile this? Especially since free will is in the picture and we don’t want predictions about the future to invalidate choice.
"For example, when asked about your thoughts on the success of UPB close to 20 years after publication, you mentioned reductions in violence against children with the expectation that this trend would continue if UPB continues to be spread. Would the theory and observation that UPB leads to reductions in violence against children be a deterministic portrayal of human beings? If we avoid discussing consequences to avoid this issue, then if someone wants to discuss UPB on the merit of usefulness towards themselves and society as a whole, do we stick to purely philosophical merit? Or do we say there are no guarantees, but it will make a desirable outcome more likely.
"If we use terms such as 'more likely' in order to maintain philosophical integrity, how do we out compete those who are certain/dogmatic, benefiting from the momentum of societal norms in order to ‘validate’ their false theories.
"Regarding the first question about the relationship between moral frameworks, their consequences and free will. I was thinking that if your definition is used where free will is defined as our ability to compare proposed actions to ideal standards then UPB provides ideal standards, increasing our capacity for free will. With this increased capacity, it becomes more likely for moral outcomes to occur..."
GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!
https://peacefulparenting.com/
Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!
Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!
You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!
See you soon!
https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2025
"UPB isn’t validated or invalidated by its consequences, but at the same time, discussions of UPB inevitably involve consequences. How do we reconcile this? Especially since free will is in the picture and we don’t want predictions about the future to invalidate choice.
"For example, when asked about your thoughts on the success of UPB close to 20 years after publication, you mentioned reductions in violence against children with the expectation that this trend would continue if UPB continues to be spread. Would the theory and observation that UPB leads to reductions in violence against children be a deterministic portrayal of human beings? If we avoid discussing consequences to avoid this issue, then if someone wants to discuss UPB on the merit of usefulness towards themselves and society as a whole, do we stick to purely philosophical merit? Or do we say there are no guarantees, but it will make a desirable outcome more likely.
"If we use terms such as 'more likely' in order to maintain philosophical integrity, how do we out compete those who are certain/dogmatic, benefiting from the momentum of societal norms in order to ‘validate’ their false theories.
"Regarding the first question about the relationship between moral frameworks, their consequences and free will. I was thinking that if your definition is used where free will is defined as our ability to compare proposed actions to ideal standards then UPB provides ideal standards, increasing our capacity for free will. With this increased capacity, it becomes more likely for moral outcomes to occur..."
GET MY NEW BOOK 'PEACEFUL PARENTING', THE INTERACTIVE PEACEFUL PARENTING AI, AND THE FULL AUDIOBOOK!
https://peacefulparenting.com/
Join the PREMIUM philosophy community on the web for free!
Subscribers get 12 HOURS on the "Truth About the French Revolution," multiple interactive multi-lingual philosophy AIs trained on thousands of hours of my material - as well as AIs for Real-Time Relationships, Bitcoin, Peaceful Parenting, and Call-In Shows!
You also receive private livestreams, HUNDREDS of exclusive premium shows, early release podcasts, the 22 Part History of Philosophers series and much more!
See you soon!
https://freedomain.locals.com/support/promo/UPB2025
Category
📚
LearningTranscript
00:00Alright, hi everybody, Stephen Mullin here from FreeDomain. Sorry a couple of days
00:04without shows but we're back in the saddle and we are talking about UPB.
00:10Thank you for the great questions. Let's dive right in. Now should a moralist,
00:15should a moralist ignore consequence and argue for UPB purely on the basis of
00:20epistemology and pure philosophical merit while ignoring the question we all
00:28subconsciously ask, how does this benefit my survival? UPB isn't validated
00:35or invalidated by its consequences but at the same time discussions of UPB
00:40inevitably involve consequences. How do we reconcile this? Especially since free
00:46will is in the picture and we don't want predictions about the future to
00:49invalidate a choice. For example, when asked about your thoughts on the success
00:55of UPB, close to 20 years after publication you mentioned reductions in
00:59violence against children with the expectation that this trend would
01:02continue if UPB continues to be spread. Would the theory and observation that
01:07UPB leads to reduction in violence against children be a deterministic
01:10portrayal of human beings? If we avoid discussing consequences to avoid this
01:16issue then if somebody wants to discuss UPB on the merit of usefulness towards
01:21themselves and society as a whole, do we stick to purely philosophical merit or
01:25do we say there are no guarantees but it will make a desirable outcome more
01:31likely? If we use terms such as more likely in order to maintain philosophical
01:36integrity how do we out-compete those who are certain slash dogmatic benefiting
01:41from the momentum of societal norms in order to quote validate and quote their
01:46false theories? Regarding the first question about the relationship between
01:51moral frameworks, their consequences and free will, I was thinking that if your
01:56definition is used where free will is defined as our ability to compare
02:01proposed actions to ideal standards then UPB provides ideal standards. Increasing
02:06our capacity for free will with this increased capacity it becomes more
02:11likely for moral outcomes to occur. Each insight that UPB provides could then be
02:16like water added to the clouds making it more likely for a rain to fall
02:21nourishing a drying and cracked earth, our conscience. If human beings are
02:26alienated from their conscience because of invalid moral beliefs then UPB makes
02:30it possible for a greater union between ourselves and our conscience. Since
02:36the conscience isn't the only determinant of our behavior we could
02:40say that this isn't deterministic. Instead this establishes a
02:45non-deterministic cause. Okay so this goes on and on and I appreciate these
02:49questions I don't mean to interrupt but the problem is there's too many
02:55questions to encapsulate we'll lose track. So should a moralist ignore
03:00consequence and argue for UPB purely on the basis of epistemology and pure
03:06philosophical merit while ignoring the elephant in the room which is the
03:11question we all subconsciously ask how does this benefit my survival? So UPB
03:18is not primarily consequentialist but it has consequences and I think the best
03:26way to understand this is to look at the scientific method. The scientific method
03:31does not say that this scientific theory of the shape of the earth is more valid
03:38if it allows you to sail around the world more accurately. However a valid
03:45theory about the shape of the earth does in fact allow you to sail around the
03:51earth more accurately. If that makes sense right? So UPB is not consequentialist
03:58because consequentialism is really a form of mysticism. It is to say well my
04:05beliefs will have positive outcomes and therefore you should accept what I say
04:11to be true. My beliefs have positive outcomes therefore you should accept
04:15what I say to be true. Well all that does is cause immense amounts of escalation
04:23right? Because people say well the consequences of not believing what I say
04:31will be so absolutely disastrous that you have to believe what it is that I
04:35say. You must. If you don't believe what I say the world will end. If you believe
04:41what I say then the world will be saved and will become a paradise. Well we would
04:48not accept that as a valid scientific argument or mathematical argument or
04:54biological argument or anything like that. So the problem with consequentialism
05:00is it leaves entire moral categories and arguments open to immense amounts of
05:05manipulation by sophists and cold-hearted people who just want to
05:09promise you heaven and threaten you with hell in order to get you to fall in line
05:12with their self-serving moral quote theories. Well moral theories but quote
05:16moral theories. So the truth of the shape of the world is independent of the
05:26consequences of that belief. However an accurate statement about the truth of
05:32the shape of the world does in fact lead us to be able to navigate say from Spain
05:37to the new world more accurately. An accurate statement about the shape and
05:45nature of the solar system is not consequentialist but it has consequences.
05:51If you thought that the earth was the center of the solar system you would
05:55have a very hard time sending a probe say past Mars and out beyond Jupiter and
06:03so on. Like you would simply not be able to do that because your entire
06:06conception of the shape of the universe of the solar system would be incorrect.
06:12So while beliefs have consequences the truth or falsehood of those
06:21beliefs is not determined by those consequences. So otherwise you would
06:28simply have to experiment all the time and humanity could not survive. So if
06:32you're a hunter-gatherer back in the day and you're hungry and your family's hungry
06:37you don't just start eating random things around and see what fills you up
06:40and what doesn't poison you and what is edible and you don't just eat tree
06:44bark and bits of earth and a rock. That would be consequentialism.
06:50You have to have a theory about what is tasty and what is healthy and what is
06:54going to give you fuel and energy and so on. So you can't just try things
07:01randomly like you couldn't say well I want to send a spaceship out past Mars
07:06and Jupiter so I'm just going to fire a bazillion spaceships into the sky
07:12and see which one follows a path that is helpful. That would be consequentialism.
07:19So you have a theory and this is you know basic science right I don't mean to
07:23sorry sound that sounds kind of insulting but taking the scientific
07:26analogy over to morality has for me at least with UPB always been very helpful.
07:32So yeah it's a basic science that you have a hypothesis that say the world is
07:38a sphere and you then could test that hypothesis by attempting to navigate
07:45across the world as if it were a sphere. So of course you could say that it's a
07:51heliocentric solar system it goes Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars and with that
07:58order in your thoughts you could then try to predict where and when and how
08:05the retrograde motion of Mars is observed. So for instance you could say
08:09well Mars starts swinging back in the in the night sky because Earth is
08:14accelerating it because it's a shorter 93 million mile orbit Earth is
08:18accelerating around the Sun. So you would have a prediction. So the fact that there
08:24are consequences to moral belief systems is important but they are not validated
08:29by those belief systems. The morals are not validated by those belief systems
08:34because validation when you say how does this benefit my survival? Well
08:41validation is subjective according to that standard. Human beings are an
08:47ecosystem of predator and prey for the most part at least throughout most of
08:52our evolution. So if you're Genghis Khan how well does you know raping and
08:59pillaging and all these kinds of terrible things how well does that all
09:02serve the survival of your genes? Well isn't it like one out of every 17
09:08people in that part of Asia is descended from Genghis Khan or something like that?
09:11So you know that does pretty well for him but it doesn't do very well for all
09:16of the men he displaced in his you know raping and pillaging and so on right?
09:21Would you rather be Aristotle in ancient Greece or would you rather be a slave?
09:27Well it serves at least in the short run it serves Aristotle's survival or
09:33interests to have slaves but it does not serve the slaves survival and interest.
09:38So I think in general though you do have to have I think moralists do have to
09:46accept this you know fairly big and robust challenge which you know would be
09:51to say something like when moral rules UPP when UPP when moral rules are
10:00violated things should get worse and I'll get into sort of the things and the
10:06worse in a sec but just in general and when moral rules are more consistent
10:13then society does better. So of course one of the big challenges is how is it
10:22that we get the modern world after the end of slavery? I mean that certainly was
10:27a consequence of the end of slavery to a large degree and you know we can haggle
10:32and go into details here and there but in general serfdom and slavery were the
10:37foundation of most of Western wealth and then it turned to a much more free market
10:42in labor and that changed everything to the point where we now have the modern
10:47world. So you kind of do have to answer that question as a whole. So if somebody
10:55is trying to sail around the world thinking the world is banana-shaped
10:58they're probably not going to end up in the right place. If on the other hand
11:02somebody is sailing around the world on the assumption that the earth is a sphere
11:07then they're much more likely to end up in the right place. Now the absolute
11:14truth of a moral statement cannot be mired in consequentialism for
11:18individuals for sure. You know for the simple reason that it's entirely
11:23possible that the guy who thinks the earth is banana-shaped, I just realized
11:28it's a Monty Python reference, anyway it is, the guy who thinks that the
11:31earth is banana-shaped might just be blown wildly off course and end up
11:37sailing to the right place. So that's no good because then you have a
11:43supposed proof that well this guy wanted to sail to the new world he thought the
11:48world was banana-shaped and he ended up in the right place. So it can't be
11:52universalized right because randomness does not reproduce right I mean a blind
11:55a blind guy who whacks at a golf ball might get a hole in one but he can't get
11:59it can't get it twice right or very unlikely. So when you write here UPP
12:06isn't validated or invalidated by its consequences but at the same time
12:09discussions of UPP inevitably involve consequences how do we reconcile this?
12:13Well I hope that this helps as a whole. If you look at a place where UPP
12:20violations occur in some very egregious ways then you would be looking at say
12:28the draft right, the forcible conscription of young men for the sake
12:34of war. Of course that is a massive violation of UPP right. I mean
12:41kidnapping, assault, the initiation of the use of force, the enslavement of people
12:46for the sake of murder and death is about as big a UPP violation as can be
12:50conceived of. So we would generally say that given that conscription is a very
12:59anti-UPP position that conscription would have negative results. So for
13:07instance we can we can look at something like the First World War and we could
13:11say even if we accept that the government should be responsible for the
13:14currency or hold all the gold or have its taxation powers and so on then we
13:19would say okay so with regards to the First World War if the government's did
13:26not have the power of conscription but instead had to pay for their soldiers
13:31right, had to pay for their soldiers what would have happened to the length and
13:37spread and depth of the war in the First World War? Would it have resulted in 10
13:43million people being killed? Well no. So that would be an example of a war that
13:52is paid for is less totalitarian than a war in which the soldiers are forcibly
13:59conscripted. Also of course censorship would be a bad. Censorship is negative
14:05in UPP because it's asymmetrical. One person is suppressing the voice of
14:10another and if everybody has that power there's no such thing as censorship. Just
14:14everyone would censor each other and nobody would actually get to say
14:16anything. So censorship has to be asymmetrical and that which is
14:19asymmetrical cannot be UPP compliant. So it certainly is the case of
14:23course that the censorship in the First World War so that the soldiers were
14:27prohibited from writing back about the actual conditions of the war certainly
14:32helped it last longer. So when we're looking at consequences there are a
14:38large number of general trends within the world, within history, within society
14:44that do need to be explained. The forcible or debt-based transfer of
14:50wealth from men to women in which characterizes most late-stage
14:54democracies is a UPP violation in that it is the non-voluntary transfer of
15:01wealth and so we would expect that given that the forcible transfer of wealth
15:09from either the unborn or man or whatever to women but even the unborn
15:14is based upon usually the collateral value of the goods and services the men
15:17will produce in the future that the society will do more poorly in terms of
15:27family formation and birth rates as UPP violations escalate as more and
15:33more money goes to the women from the men and of course we see this
15:41right we see this happening quite clearly. We would also I think
15:46generally assume that as government gains more and more power and control
15:51over education the educational standards will decline because it's not a
15:55voluntary free market environment and so on right. We could you know sort of do
16:00this all day but we would want to have some sort of explanation as to why
16:06increases in UPP violations generally have more negative outcomes in the same
16:11way that we would sort of have to explain that increases in the number of
16:14navigators who believe that the world was banana shape would result in fewer
16:18ships reaching their targets across long voyages particularly across oceans. So I
16:25hope that helps. Great questions. We can go into more details if you like and I
16:31really do appreciate these these great questions really really enjoyable stuff
16:35to work through and I massively appreciate these questions coming in. So
16:40please keep me posted I will get to more questions later and I'm gonna get ready
16:44for the show tonight. Lots of love from up here freedomain.com
16:46slash donate to help out the show. Take care my friends. I'll talk to you soon. Bye.