good4usoul Says:

Oct 27, 2008 - Ummm, I think he means caulk up these balls... Just... maybe. :)

good4usoul Says:

Oct 28, 2008 - 18:30 UPB is for evaluating logival propositions; theories. "Morality" is a theory of universally preferable behavior. In a moral argument we accept the "value" of universally preferable behavior. Do you mean here, "truth" or "value?" Scientific method cannot determine value; except as a matter of polling and statistics. 23:00 Moral theories are evaluated by UPB. Is UPB, then, a goal (such as truth) or a methodology (such as the scientific method)?

good4usoul Says:

Oct 28, 2008 - 26:00- Essential Questions... Internal consistency, space/time independence, Universal applicability, without unchosen positive obligations, passes coma test Are these the questions UPB methodology uses to evaluate a moral theory?

DaveDoggOwns Says:

Oct 31, 2008 - 1)He probably meant to say "the truth value". 2)UPB, is a methodology....not a set of philosphical beliefs such as Objectivism. 3)That's just a quick summary. Trust me,it's WAY more complicated than that.

DaveDoggOwns Says:

Oct 31, 2008 - "UPB is great. But it is NOT OBJECTIVE! It's like math, and math is subjective." No it is not subjective. Stef doesn't say "Since murder is wrong you ought not to do it". Think of UPB as a scientific method for moral theories. UPB doesn't present any oughts just as the scientific method doesn't present any oughts. All it does is determine which moral theories are true and which are not.

ReIgNoFrAdNeSs Says:

Nov 1, 2008 - This is a test of the W.A.M.C.P. system.

SansAuthoritas Says:

Nov 30, 2008 - You keep saying that God is a self-contradictory concept. I ask you to explain what you mean. Precisely why do you believe the concept of God is self-contradictory?

stefbot Says:

Nov 30, 2008 - You can have a look for my video "Proofs for God"... :)

SansAuthoritas Says:

Nov 30, 2008 - I see. You say that in order for any entity to exist, it must have objective, measurable physical effects. Did the possibility of radio waves capable of transmitting sound exist before anyone had any cause to believe it existed? Did radio waves themselves exist before men were able to measure them? While it is true that we cannot measure something that does not exist, the fact that we cannot measure something does not mean the thing does not exist.

stefbot Says:

Nov 30, 2008 - I don't think you understood the video. There is a difference between radio waves and a "square circle"... self-contradictory entities cannot exist...

SansAuthoritas Says:

Nov 30, 2008 - Stefan, you cannot measure the amount of moral good you are doing by speaking the truth about the evil of the State. Yes, you may be able to hear people say, "The truth of what you said has changed my life." But how can you believe it? They are just conveying their subjective experiences to you, right? Well, you might expect to believe it if their beliefs changed, and as their beliefs changed, their actions correspondingly changed. Because of your words.

SansAuthoritas Says:

Nov 30, 2008 - Stefan, you said that something does not exist if you cannot measure its effects in the physical world. Men could not measure the effects of radio waves. By your logic, radio waves did not exist. The existence of radio waves, following your logic, was dependent on men being able to measure them. So you say that God does not exist because men cannot measure his effects.

SansAuthoritas Says:

Nov 30, 2008 - So I think it entirely rational to say it is possible that billions of people throughout history who seriously believe in God are evidence of some real entity. Yes, yes. Unicorns and gremlins. Nobody has ever changed the course of their life after hearing a story about a unicorn or a gremlin. Those who have changed their lives because of myths did so because they recognized some objective truth in the tales. The unicorn and gremlins are toned-down media for conveying truth. God is total truth.

SansAuthoritas Says:

Nov 30, 2008 - Stephan, lastly, I ask you to look up "The 5 Ways of St. Thomas Aquinas." They are his five proofs of God, arrived at by pure logic.

awwurdead Says:

Nov 30, 2008 - christianty covers about 1/3 of religious beleifs there are countless other religions that can be true by your logic and are more likely tob e true then yuor then, and again you can state the obvious where majority opinion does not decide truth (the whoel flat earth example)

awwurdead Says:

Nov 30, 2008 - you seem to dismiss determenism very quickly, as if it is for some magical rason required for us to have our mind be seperate from the material universe

stefbot Says:

Nov 30, 2008 - as if -- and yet not... :)

awwurdead Says:

Nov 30, 2008 - i'm just using the same reasoning that you used against the existance of god (which i by the way found to be a very well layed out video) that for the concept of free will, having free will requires a person to posses some sort of alternate existance within themselves such as a "soul", but no such existance can be shown to manifest itself in our reality and further more is not made of matter or energy so in turn you cannot be anything more then yor physical existance in the material world.

nofearnolimits Says:

Dec 23, 2008 - You know what also passes UPB's tests? Moral nihilism. I have read UPB, and moral neutrality is dismissed on page 70 with one sentence. And it takes for granted that enforcement of preferences is ALREADY immoral. Some other issues are the dismissal of determinism, and the self-ownership argument that "proves" property rights by switching definitions of "own" halfway through the argument. Clearly Stefan Molyneux is very intelligent, and I respect him, but I hope these things get addressed.

RuddODragonFear Says:

Dec 23, 2008 - > And it takes for granted that enforcement of preferences is ALREADY immoral. You read selectively. It is very clear that he talks about enforcement of aesthetic or personal preferences, not about universally preferable behavior. If anything, this framework is *absolutely against* moral nihilism.

RuddODragonFear Says:

Dec 23, 2008 - > Men could not measure the effects of radio waves. That's a weird statement to make. What do you think the eye is for?

RuddODragonFear Says:

Dec 23, 2008 - UPB would be a framework that co-opts the methodology in the scientific method. The goal is embedded in the agent that uses UPB. Who knows, maybe you want to do UPB for UPB's sake, or maybe your goal is to be informed impartially and without bias about what's good or bad.

nofearnolimits Says:

Dec 23, 2008 - And why would it be wrong to enforce æsthetic or personal preferences, if objectively moral or immoral doesn't exist? I acknowledge Stefan's distinction; I'm simply asking for the justification for it. The framework itself is not *absolutely against* anything. It's an objective standard by which to judge moral theories for their ability to be universally applicable, their consistency, and so forth — and they either pass or fail. Please explain how moral nihilism fails any of those things?

RuddODragonFear Says:

Dec 23, 2008 - It would be wrong to enforce aesthetic/personal preferences because enforcing them would go against the Non Aggression Principle, one of the few valid moral theories in the light of UPB. But don't let me tell you that. Just use UPB to validate the theory that "personal preferences are morally good", and UPB itself will give you the answer.

nofearnolimits Says:

Dec 24, 2008 - I'm not trying to prove that enforcing personal preferences is morally good. I'm saying it's neutral. There is no valid positive/negative moral theory in light of UPB if UPB doesn't eliminate the moral theory of neutrality. Which page in UPB should I refer to for this argument? Moral neutrality is a completely consistent theory. It's universally applicable. It passes the coma test. And it renders all the moral conclusions in UPB false, leaving moral subjectivity — which is where to start.