Comments on Back to the Drawing Board: Universally Preferable Behavior and the Maxim Desc...

Thanks for the interest, Steve. I think that Stef...

2008-08-06T20:59:00.000-04:00

Thanks for the interest, Steve. I think that Stefan is relying on a logical distinction between a thing and its negation, rather than between a thing and its opposite. Often, the negation of a thing can be its opposite (dark, for example, is both the opposite and the negation of light). But as you point out, this is not always the case. Some things don't have clear "opposites;" I'm not sure that even actively preventing rape is the opposite of rape (perhaps being raped is the opposite of raping?).

Stefan's position on the flat tire example is that it is simply not within the realm of morality, as he defines it. Helping the guy change his tire is not inflicting something upon him, and neither is not helping him. So the question would be an "aesthetic" issue. Stefan would need to deny, then, that helping the guy is morally good. And in doing so, he could respond to your objection that not helping him would need to be morally bad. The same applies to charity.

Danny,I heard about your blog on the LiberatingMin...

2008-08-06T18:23:00.000-04:00

Danny,

I heard about your blog on the LiberatingMinds forum, but I am not familiar with Stefan Molyneux apart from his articles on LRC and a few other sites.

The passage I quoted simply struck me as a false dichotomy.

Consider the same reasoning, but with a different activity:

"If stopping to help a motorist to change a flat tire is a moral good, then not stopping must be a moral evil. . . ."

Yet driving past a stranded motorist isn't exactly evil. It may be selfish, but not evil. It's closer to moral neutrality.

Another example: charity? Charity can be considered good, but what about those who do not contribute or who contribute but do not have enough wealth to justify helping every worthy charity case (this would include everybody with surplus wealth)?

Molyneux's example would be stronger if he cited true opposites (as you acknowledge in your response to me in your use of the adjective "inflicted"). Thus, the opposite of rape is not non-rape but the active prevention of rape (e.g., through intervention). And the opposite of helping a stranded motorist would be to actively strand him. The opposite of giving a few dollars to a starving child in Africa would be to actively harm him. I think Molyneux should have compared opposite actions; not actions vs. non-actions.

According to Stefan's view, as I understand it, an...

2008-08-02T03:19:00.000-04:00

According to Stefan's view, as I understand it, any inflicted behavior must be either morally good (in which case it is always obligatory) or morally bad (in which case it is always forbidden). By that standard, we'd either need to say that rape is obligatory or forbidden.

But we wouldn't need to say that "non-rape" is morally good, since non-rape is not an inflicted behavior. That is, rape could be forbidden without making any specific claim about the moral status of the non-rapist.

Not having reread the original post before writing this response, I wonder, was there anything specific that I said which led you to make this point?

You quote Molyneux as follows:"If 'rape' is a mora...

2008-08-01T19:29:00.000-04:00

You quote Molyneux as follows:

"If 'rape' is a moral good, then 'not raping' must be a moral evil. . . ."

It is incorrect to say that an action is necessarily morally opposite to its non-action counterpart. For instance, I am not automatically a good person because I do not rape. Rather, not being a rapist is morally neutral.

Ah okay, that makes much more sense.

2008-05-07T15:31:00.000-04:00

Ah okay, that makes much more sense.

hey Danny, it's Conrad btw. The last post was a fr...

2008-05-07T14:55:00.000-04:00

hey Danny, it's Conrad btw. The last post was a fragment from Stef's book, where he talks about people in academia, not my own opinion. hell, I'm working on a career in academia myself

Liberating Minds, I agree that Stefan's influence ...

2008-05-07T11:27:00.000-04:00

Liberating Minds, I agree that Stefan's influence is limited with regard to libertarian academia, research and policy analysis. But his podcast is among the most popular in the world, and quite a few people who are considering libertarianism go through him at one point or another. You suggest that his influence may be limited circles where individuals have less background in libertarian thought, and that may well be true. Nevertheless, I think that in terms of sheer numbers of people influenced, Stefan still qualifies as an important figure.

I'm not quite clear on what part of your latter points were quotations of Stefan or your own opinions, but I would consider myself to be within academia, and intend to pursue a career teaching philosophy at the college level. I hope I haven't been irredeemably hostile. I would point out that Stefan would be in an odd place to criticize the incentives of professors, given the way he funds his work.

Thanks, Danny. That makes more sense to me now. I ...

2008-05-07T07:40:00.000-04:00

Thanks, Danny. That makes more sense to me now. I think I share LM's uncertainly about just how influential Molyneux really is, but it's fair to say that he's grabbed some attention for himself.

... And I knew exactly what XKCD comic that was going to be before I even clicked the link :)

'If you have gotten this far in this book, I can t...

2008-05-07T05:12:00.000-04:00

'If you have gotten this far in this book, I can tell at least a few things about you. Obviously,
you are curious and open-minded, and largely un-offended by original arguments, as long
as they at least strive for rationality. I strongly doubt that you are in academia – or if you
are, I fully expect lengthy, obtuse and condescending attacks on my arguments to appear in
my inbox, or on your blog, within a few hours.
Potential academics have in my experience been irredeemably hostile to what I do because
it puts them in an exquisitely tortuous position (this is particularly the case with my book
“Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics”).
Wannabe academics have to believe that they are motivated by the pursuit of truth, not of
tenure. Given that they have to ingratiate themselves with their academic masters, they
must also believe that their professors are motivated by the pursuit of truth as well, not of
power, salary and tenure. We can honorably submit ourselves to a moral teacher; we
cannot honorably submit ourselves to an amoral teacher.'

all this of course far from exclude the simple possiblity that Stef's book is not well received because it simply makes no sense

oh, this is what Stef writes in his new book (p.59...

2008-05-07T05:10:00.000-04:00

oh, this is what Stef writes in his new book (p.59) 'Potential academics have in my experience been irredeemably hostile to what I do because it puts them in an exquisitely tortuous position (this is particularly the case with my book “Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics”).'

i reckon he is here talking about both Danny, Stewart and me.

also, Stefan is no longer taken seriously at this ...

2008-05-07T04:47:00.000-04:00

also, Stefan is no longer taken seriously at this libertarian e-mail group that includes quite a few prominent libertarians. So if the name 'Stefan Molyneux' ever comes up among prominent libertarians and one of the people posting in that e-mail group is in the room then he will likely dismiss Stef as a wacko who is full of himself but who can't rationally discuss things.

this fucntions as a great barrier for Stef to be taken seriously by the libertarian scholarly community

as an illustration, a former FDR'er after he had t...

2008-05-07T04:30:00.000-04:00

as an illustration, a former FDR'er after he had turned his back on FDR or was banned once asked Jeff Tucker of the Mises Institute what he thought of Stefan Molyneux, and Tucker replied 'Stefan who?'

that's a great cartoon that you link to there Dann...

2008-05-07T04:28:00.000-04:00

that's a great cartoon that you link to there Danny.

thanks for writing down some things I wasn't able ...

2008-05-07T04:26:00.000-04:00

thanks for writing down some things I wasn't able to write down or even think clearly Stewart. I had wondered about similar stuff, although in a more primitive and confused and blurry kind of way.

I'm not sure btw how important Molyneux is in the libertarian movement. I mean, compare him to Ron Paul's influence, to the Mises Institute's influence, to Reason's, Independent Institute's etc. etc.

Now that he has been either implicitly or explicitly banned from LewRockwell.com (I believe for insulting Mises and Rothbard and Long) it will also be way harder for him to draw people to his site. To be sure, the # of visitors to FDR will continue to grow for quite some time, even if only because since there are more and more podcasts and articles and posts search engines will find him more often, but this does not mean a corresponding growth of influence.

his primary target group will remain vulnerable young people who are somewhat intelligent and independently thinking individuals but not *too* intelligent or independently thinking.

I don't know, Rand's books were noted and praised by giants like Mises and Rothbard. But not a single contemporary giant has praised Stefan's books.

Well here's the thing. I'm a libertarian, and I h...

2008-05-06T23:45:00.000-04:00

Well here's the thing. I'm a libertarian, and I have a serious interest in the progress and integrity of the libertarian movement. And the fact of the matter is that Stefan Molyneux is a very important part of the libertarian movement, whether or not he deserves to be. Unfortunately, because Stefan is so far outside the mainstream of academia, he can pretty much say whatever he wants and not be taken to task for it. So you have this odd situation where one of the people that influences a huge proportion of the libertarian movement's members is not a part of the conversation that the rest of the libertarian movement is having.

Now, if Stefan's ideas are good, then ultimately I don't care. But if Stefan's ideas are flawed, and I think they very well may be, then someone should point it out. It needn't be done angrily, and Stefan's character and intelligence need not be called into question. But if Stefan is wrong, it would be a good thing if someone would sit down and hammer out an explanation of why. Just so it's out there.

Because no one has done that, I think it would be a useful way to spend some of my free time, which I likely would otherwise spend having arguments about other things anyway. I'd like to think I'm doing something that's a little valuable and important, in a time in my career when I don't have very many ways to do valuable and important things with as little effort as this requires.

The other component of this is that I'm having fun with the whole process. I admit that it's exciting for people to know who I am and to read what I write, even if they're paying far more attention to the stuff that I do for fun than the stuff I'm really serious about. It's cool to be an important player in a debate that clearly inspires so much interest, and to feel like I'm giving form to ideas that haven't been expressed publicly in a coherent, unified manner before. Is that arrogant and narcissistic? Perhaps. But hopefully not in a bad way!

Of course, I would be lying if I denied that there's also the component expressed so eloquently in this comic: http://xkcd.com/386/

You're a curious one, Danny. You have put a pretty...

2008-05-06T22:52:00.000-04:00

You're a curious one, Danny. You have put a pretty hefty amount of effort into writing and conversing with others about Stefan's little book. And throughout the process you've repeated that you aren't trying to argue with him, or disprove him, but rather to simply understand what he's written.

I'm having a little trouble believing that, though. What I mean is not that you are lying, but that your motive is totally unclear to me. If someone referred me to a self-published philosophy book which was difficult to understand, and whose author was so plainly evasive, I don't think I would spend a lot of time on it as a subject of serious investigation. Admittedly, I have invested some of my own time on doing exactly that, but I will freely admit to having something of an emotional involvement in that.

Did you have high expectations going into this? That would explain your continuous effort, for sure, but your earliest writings on the subject just don't evoke in me a sense of optimism when I read them. What am I missing?