The “Will/Power” Proposal

This is based on Stefan Molyneux ethical theory “Universally Preferable Behavior” (shortened to UPB) which I highly recommend reading, and fully support. Please visit www.freedomainradio.com for more information. If you are not familiar with the theory this blog might not make much sense to you… sorry.

Also this is a response to a youtube user by the user name of luke12000 posted below

Essentially the “will/power” proposal that supposedly debunks UPB goes something like this: “The ethical theory that people should do both what they have the will and power to do can be applied consistently to every person independent of time, geography, etc… For example: A man may want to rape a woman, and he may have both the will and power to do so, the woman does not have the power to resist therefore UPB justifies rape, therefore UPB is not a valid ethical theory.”

The first problem that I notice is that both criteria are not being applied consistently.The man both has the will and power to rape the women, the woman on the other hand only meets the criteria of power. So the question is: Why bother making two criteria (will and power) if you are only going to apply one consistently (power)?

The second problem that I noticed is that “power” in the sense that it is used is meaningless. Perhaps this is more clear if we put the proposal in the form of a null hypothesis: “you should not do what you do not have the power to do.” What does that even mean? What exactly would it look like if you did something you didn’t have the power to do? It is impossible to do something that you do not have the power to do, otherwise you would have to power to do it. I might as well put forward an ethical proposal that “people should both do what they will and be made carbon”. I would get the same result (assuming we reject my first contention, and the will/power proposal is valid).

Adding “power” to the end of this ethical proposal is doing nothing other then making the argument seem universal by tacking on a property of human nature (or nature in general, all things can only do what they have the power to do) and calling it ethical.  However if being made of carbon is “ethical” then ethics are a completely meaningless field. There is no “should” about being made of carbon it is simply a matter of fact. In the same way that I do not say 2+2 should be 4. I simply say 2+2 is 4

In Summery: 1) If you are putting forward an ethical theory with two criteria then both of those criteria need to be applied consistently. Will and power cannot be applied consistently therefore UPB does not validate the will/power proposal 2) Power in the sense that it is being used is saying a whole lot of nothing, considering that it is impossible to do something I don’t have the power to do, it doesn’t make much sense to say that “I should do what I have to the power to do”.

Doubt and Self Respect

I am taking a quotes from an LDS (Mormon) talk.  I can relate to it greatly because I grew up in Utah and used to be LDS, but I have seen the same themes through out all religion and culture. This one is a little long, but I think its worth it.  This topic deserves some observation, and the lies deserve to be uncovered.

These are quotes from an LDS talk given by Elder Kevin W. Pearson entitled: “Faith in the lord Jesus Christ”. Perhaps you can see the parallels between this and all cultures, religions and governments.  You can read the whole talk here.

“Because there is an opposition in all things, there are forces that erode our faith. Some are the result of Satan’s direct influence. But for others, we have no one but ourselves to blame. These stem from personal tendencies, attitudes, and habits we can learn to change.” [underline mine]

Notice: “If you doubt what I say it’s either YOUR fault, or the work of Satan.” Image this in any other context.

Man 1: Hey! Guess what!?  2+2=3!

Man 2: yeah… I don’t think so, it actually equals 4.

Man 1: Well, that’s probably just Satan telling you to doubt me, and if its not it then you have no one to blame but yourself!

Now lets continue

“First is doubt. Doubt is not a principle of the gospel. It does not come from the Light of Christ or the influence of the Holy Ghost. Doubt is a negative emotion related to fear. It comes from a lack of confidence in one’s self or abilities. It is inconsistent with our divine identity as children of God.”

Ah, now if I disagree with you or doubt what you say its because I am scared, not because a lack of evidence, consistency or any failure on your part to provide a compelling argument but simply because of fear (or Satan).

“Doubt leads to discouragement. Discouragement comes from missed expectations. Chronic discouragement leads to lower expectations, decreased effort, weakened desire, and greater difficulty feeling and following the Spirit (see Preach My Gospel [2004], 10). Discouragement and despair are the very antithesis of faith.

Discouragement leads to distraction, a lack of focus. Distraction eliminates the very focus the eye of faith requires. Discouragement and distraction are two of Satan’s most effective tools, but they are also bad habits.”

Notice: “If what I tell you do to makes you unhappy and you feel the urge to change your behavior its only because you don’t believe ENOUGH, and it is Satan causing that, it has nothing to do with your beliefs”

“Distraction leads to a lack of diligence, a reduced commitment to remain true and faithful and to carry on through despite hardship and disappointment. Disappointment is an inevitable part of life, but it need not lead to doubt, discouragement, distraction, or lack of diligence.

If not reversed, this path ultimately leads to disobedience, which undermines the very basis of faith. So often the result is disbelief, the conscious or unconscious refusal to believe.”

I find it pretty amusing that “disobedience” is being treated as an evil in-it’s-self. The entire argument is established on his (or the churches) authority in the first place. While at the same time using that argument from authority to say that you shouldn’t doubt their authority.

Now it is very well possible that I am unhappy because I am not listening to someone or because I don’t know the truth of the matter, I am entirely open to the possibility that I am wrong, but this model could be used to justify ANY belief on the plant (and in fact it is used to defend most of them).

If I join a cult where we hit each other with baseball bats consistently I may very well start to doubt, due to discouragement, which very well might lead to a lack of diligence, which very well might lead to disobedience, and quite rightly lead to disbelief.

No doubt is quite the opposite of what this man has suggested.  Doubt is not a lack of confidence but rather it is the only way around. A man of self respect does not go around believing anything that anyone puts in front of him, But rather he demands rational consistency supported by empirical evidence.

All that this man has done (which is what all systems that are based upon the subjugation of the individual or what I like to call cultures) is turned a healthy doubt of ideas into an unhealthy doubt of the self.

Essentially the message given here is “don’t doubt me, but rather doubt yourself for ever doubting me in the first place”.

Doubt is not a “lack of self confidence” it is a lack of confidence in you and your ideas! Doubt requires self confidence, it requires honesty, it requires self actualization.

A man of self-respect demands evidence because he knows that anyone that tells them that they should believe in what they say because if they don’t an invisible man will punish him is not appealing to his self-interest but rather manipulation and intimidation.

Debunking Animal Rights

Ethical propositions are something I do not take lightly. They require rigorous examination and consistency, and animals rights is one ethical proposition of many that doesn’t pass the test of consistency.

But maybe ethics are subjective? If they are subjective then they should be rejected because they are no longer useful and carry no meaning. If murder is both good and bad at the same time, then what's the point of moral propositions in the first place?

Also if ethics is subjective you face the problem that you cannot rely on any objective standard to tell me it is morally wrong to kill animals.

So if a moral standard of animal rights is to stand it must be consistent, otherwise 1: it is meaningless (something that is both true and false as the same time by definition is meaningless) and 2: it has no possible standard to begin with to condemn.

Now that we have laid out why consistency is necessary in ethical propositions we can examine the arguments for animal rights.

I believe that animal rights is the result of misunderstanding of what exactly morality and ethics are (along with many other things). Ethics are a result of man's nature as a social animal. Because of man's nature a workable (and consistent) morality is essential to our prosperity. Crabs that kill each other in competition for mates function on a very different social principle. Applying morality to things other then humans is absurd considering that animals are not capable of coming to come kind of agreement called morality. Human beings are expected to me moral and animals are not. Thus ethics is not longer consistent and therefore meaningless.

However let us assume that morality for some reason is beyond human nature and not just a useful tool that we have made for our own prosperity. Isn't then the wolf just as evil for eating the sheep as I? If morality is not based on nature of the organism then the claim that a wolf doesn't know better is irrelevant. The natural conclusion of some morality that is beyond human nature is not that human being should quit killing animals, but that all animals should stop killing animals. Is nature relevant? Well then human beings have not obligation towards animal’s rights. Or is nature irrelevant? If so then you cannot claim that the nature of the wolf wanting to kill the keep to survive is suddenly irrelevant.

Surely a wolf doesn't know any better. But neither would a child who found his fathers gun and wants to play with it with a friend. Wouldn't you stop the child?

Another problem is that animal rights reduce to a form of slave morality/altruism. Human beings have a standard called morality because human beings are capable of having interactions based on mutual self-respect. There is no possible way to have a relationships based on mutual self-respect with animals.  The only way to have peaceful interactions with animals in general would be enslavement.  In which case it must be asked, why is it not ok to kill animals but ok to enslave them? In any case enslavement is hardly a relationship based on mutual self-respect. So if a relationship is not based on mutual self respect, and I carry all the moral obligations, and the animal has no moral expectations, it is clear that what we have is a form of altruism, and as always the question to asked in the face of altruism is "By what standard do I owe you anything?'” The simple fact that I exist implies that you are entitled to my time and energy?

We can get into the flaws of altruism some other time, but for now I will simply say that any plea to altruism always requires references to things that don’t exist such as god, or “society” (society is a concept, not something that exists in reality, it is simply another name for a group of individuals, and it a meaningless term if there is no reference to the individual).

There is no way to apply principles of morality to animals. Perhaps once we apply morality consistently to human beings our relationship with animals may become more clear to us, but I can say that relationship has nothing to do with ethics.