A Brief History of Ethics (Part 1) - Freedomain Radio

RevolutionaryJam Says:

Nov 6, 2009 - Hobbes argument for a state based on a nasty human nature is self-contradicting because why on earth are u going to put one of these nasty bastards in a position where their action is law? how will it fix human nature as well? His counter is "A ruler is only as rich as his country" it'snot really a counter as thats not a motivation to take care of the ruled. he was traumatised by the civil war though which shaped his opinion, he was still a great philosopher, lovely use of language as well

RevolutionaryJam Says:

Nov 6, 2009 - Stefan, to what extent (if at all) do you agre with Socrates/Plato's opinion that one has no choice but to act morally as they understand it, and therefore to know the good is to act the good? Also what is your opinion on amoralism? Is it possible for someone to accept that morality exists but choose not to follow it or if they behave in that way do they "not really believe it's wrong" or have some kind of addiction/pathology?

Individualism101 Says:

Nov 6, 2009 - 1) QED spawned 'virtual photons' and the like, correct? QED already assumes wave-particle duality. This has nothing to do with proving that waves and particles are the same thing. It is just a model built on another model which works some of the time -- like the rest of physics. 2) Another fallacy. A leads to B, B seems to be correct therefore A is correct? That's a fallacy. 3) Again, didn't answer my question. Eluded to spacetime, see #2. 4 5) You suck, don't waste my time.

KevinSolway Says:

Nov 7, 2009 - The only person who can know UPB is the perfectly wise person - who probably doesn't exist. Do you concede this point?

DreadLaw2 Says:

Nov 8, 2009 - @KevinSolway No.. that's an arbitary axiom to try to place on the topic. UPB is understood, not known, it's a simple logically rational. I advice you read the book before saying anything else on the matter. Needless to say, understanding doesn't require wisdom, especially as most methedologies are taught not formed.

PsyogiBottoms Says:

Nov 8, 2009 - '...a simply logical rationale.' rational is the adv. rationale the Noun. 'I advise you' - not advice Methodologies - not methedologies are taught not formed. Exactly. I concur. lol

DreadLaw2 Says:

Nov 8, 2009 - @PsyogiBottoms You're ability to correct the splling show you understand the original meaning, so there was no point correcting it. Perhaps if you corrected the content instead I'd have more faith in your opinion on the general consensus on spelling in the english language.

PsyogiBottoms Says:

Nov 8, 2009 - My point exactly. lol

Kingery4President Says:

Nov 8, 2009 - Interesting thoughts.

KevinSolway Says:

Nov 10, 2009 - @DreadLaw2. UPB is known once it is understood. Who else but the most wise can be the most logical? "Understanding doesn't require wisdom". That's a laugh. Your system is doomed.

DreadLaw2 Says:

Nov 10, 2009 - @KevinSolway My System? I'm confused.. I'm not Stefan Molyneux, and infact disagree with him about UPB in many major areas. It takes wisdom to understand WHY we need UPB (or a superior theory), but not to implement it in society. The current system in understood by many, and implemented fairly well, without the realisation of 99% of people. If people were aware then they wouldn't support it as it's a violent system of morality. You seem to think you don't murder because you read a book.

KevinSolway Says:

Nov 10, 2009 - @DreadLaw2, it takes wisdom to know or understand what is UPB - ie, to actually know what is universally preferable behaviour. And you can't implement it properly without actually knowing what it is.

DreadLaw2 Says:

Nov 10, 2009 - @KevinSolway Not exactly. UPB can be passed on without "knowing what it is" because that's human nature and social evolution. As I said with the imposible to deny example of the current system, it doesn't take insight to follow and pass on morality. No, people do not have to be wise, or even know of UPB for it to to be implemened acorss humanity, that's just a silly made-up claim that ignores everything we do know about ethics and psychology.

KevinSolway Says:

Nov 10, 2009 - @DreadLaw2. I strongly disagree with you on this point. You say that it doesn't take insight to follow and pass on morality. But all of our religions prove otherwise. Religious people are extremely immoral precisely because they lack insight - despite having countless books containing their morality. In the first case a supremely wise person is required to understand or know what is UPB, and in the second case supremely wise people are required to implement it.

DreadLaw2 Says:

Nov 11, 2009 - @KevinSolway I think religion is a bad example. Firstly, it is an insight, taught explicity, in spite of reason and definetly not as the source of ethics. No religious child doesn't murder because of religious reasons, and crime statistics show they are more likely to. Secondly, religion is no longer precise. It's a vague and relatavistic topic, with few believers daring to pass on the core beliefs any more. Sorry if I am blunt btw, it's hard to be friendly or verbose in a video comment.

KevinSolway Says:

Nov 11, 2009 - @DreadLaw2 If religion even began with a genuine insight, then the insight never made it as far as the followers of religion. That's because insights die when transferred to barren soil. Likewise with UPB. Even if there is a supremely wise person able to realize UPB, the realization won't find any purchase in the mind of fools, and will fall to earth.

DreadLaw2 Says:

Nov 11, 2009 - @KevinSolway That's an unfair movement of the context of "insight". We were discussing followers insight of the ideology, not the ideologies insight of ethics. Religious people all "know" of religion, whereas the general population has no insight of the ethical principles which actually prevent them from murdering, attacking and stealing.

KevinSolway Says:

Nov 11, 2009 - @DreadLaw2 The "insight" I'm talking about is the insight into truth, and into UPB. An insight into religious dogma ("insight of the ideology") would be a contradiction in terms. The only people who have insight into truth (and universal preferable behaviour) are the supremely wise. Everyone else is in the dark.

DreadLaw2 Says:

Nov 11, 2009 - @KevinSolway I understood exactly what you changed the context to, no need to repeat it. An insight into an ideology is not a contradiction, however, i did use the term "know" intentionally so you wouldn't waste time making that point, I thought I was debating with someone who wanted to move forward, not argue. You don't need insight, or even knowledge of the term UPB to have been brought up in it's system (which doesn't require wisdom) or to pass on your values. Same as religion actually...

KevinSolway Says:

Nov 11, 2009 - @DreadLaw2, you can't "know" something just by reading it in a book. Things need to be realized. That's what I mean by "insight". A system without such insight will be just as evil as religion.

DreadLaw2 Says:

Nov 12, 2009 - Again, no reading neccessary! It's taught, it's a social persepective. I'm afraid I can hardly debate this anymore, we are starting towards areas where I disagree with UPB, so I concede that it can't be "known"

BTownsend89 Says:

Nov 14, 2009 - Individuals are free to pursue what they please, as long as any action does not deprive others from pursuing what they please.

lnd3005 Says:

Nov 15, 2009 - You read that in the instruction manual?

BTownsend89 Says:

Nov 16, 2009 - Yes.

heikophilo Says:

Nov 19, 2009 - I know you are just gathering speed. So I am looking forward to part 2.