• last year
https://freedomain.locals.com/post/5249933/upb-vs-consequentialism-a-rebuttal

"The Nature of Principles

After debating Stefan and some from this community about what consequentialism actually is, I got the impression that there's a big misconception about what principles actually are. So let's go through the logic:

1. Definition of Consequentialism:

"Consequentialism is an ethical theory that asserts the moral rightness or wrongness of actions is determined solely by their outcomes or consequences."

That definition is correct. But there's a misconception attached to that, namely that consequentialism contradicts principle based morals. That assumption is incorrect, because principles already are defined by consequences.

2. Definition of Principle:

"A principle is a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of beliefs or behavior or a chain of reasoning."

For example, the moral principle of UPB is that the violation of property rights is bad. That's a judgement, based on the consequence that any acceptance of the violation of property rights will result in the loss of logical consistency, which then will result in the loss of certainty of the law. In other words: The principle is made because we want to prevent any logical inconsistency to justify injustice.

So here's a request: If you disagree with what I've just explained, please provide an example of a moral principle that's not defined by its consequences.

Just one."
Transcript
00:00 Well, alrighty. Yeah. Good morning, everybody. Hope you're doing well
00:03 Having an interesting back and forth free domain dot locals are karma. Hope you would join the community
00:09 Having an interesting back and forth regarding the nature of principles. Oh the good stuff
00:15 Oh the good juicy moral stuff and
00:19 He writes Manuel writes the nature of principles after debating Stefan and some from this community about what?
00:25 Consequentialism actually is I got the impression that there's a big misconception
00:29 About what principles actually are so let's go through the logic
00:34 So I gotta say the beginning is I'm annoyed at the beginning. That doesn't mean anything
00:39 I'm just telling you what my emotional experience. This doesn't mean you're objectively annoying or anything like that
00:43 But I'm annoyed at this beginning
00:45 because if you want to debate consequentialism, this is sort of my
00:49 Feeling around it if you want to debate consequentialism fantastic
00:55 But if you want to debate consequentialism and you haven't got agreement on what?
01:00 Consequentialism is that's kind of on you
01:03 Right. So if you know anything about debate
01:05 What you need to do is it get agreement that everyone's using the same terms to mean the same thing
01:11 otherwise
01:13 You're debating
01:15 Which is the best?
01:16 Citrus fruit and some people think you're referring to grapefruit and some people think you're referring to oranges
01:22 You have to be specific in your definitions. If you can't get agreement on definitions, you can't get agreement on outcomes. I
01:30 mean if somebody said to you
01:32 How much will you pay for this for my car? How much will you pay for my car?
01:38 Well who can answer that question? Maybe a car is a brand new Maserati
01:43 Maybe it's a 30 year old Lada that's currently up on cinder blocks and rusting in an Arkansas back ditch
01:51 Right how so you can't figure out the price of something if people don't know what it is
01:56 And you can't figure out the agreement on anything if people don't know what you're talking about
02:00 Now if other people have a mistaken impression, right? Let's let me give you some an example, right?
02:06 So imagine this scenario you put a sign out front of your house
02:10 car for sale and
02:13 Underneath it. You have a picture of a Maserati
02:17 Lamborghini some Maserati expensive car and then people come and say gosh, I really want this Maserati and you say hey
02:25 You know, it's a hundred thousand dollars and they're like, holy crap. That's a quarter million dollar car hundred thousand dollars
02:30 There's a steal they give you the hundred thousand dollars and
02:32 Then they say great. Can I have the keys to the Maserati and you say Maserati? No. No the car you just bought is this
02:40 30 year old
02:43 Chevy Nova with no wheels
02:46 Well people would be like no no, no, hang on
02:48 You had a sign that said car for sale. You had a picture of a Maserati and you say well, yeah
02:53 I mean, that's that's the car I want to buy
02:56 So I'm selling my old junker so I can buy a Maserati because that's way cooler than an old junker
03:00 Right, so you understand you if you haven't defined what is the car for sale?
03:05 You can't agree on a price and the people are gonna I don't know take your they go on to take the hundred thousand dollars
03:11 back and if you don't give it to them, they're gonna I
03:15 Don't know beat you up go to the police try and get you throw to jail for fraud try and get their money back
03:19 Like they're not gonna take the old
03:21 Chevy Nova up on cinder blocks
03:24 So you can't agree on a price if you haven't defined or if there's disagreement about what the car is
03:30 Or another example if you put a picture online and you say diamond
03:35 Ring for sale. It's a picture of a diamond ring and you say it's a thousand dollars
03:40 Maybe it's a five thousand dollar ring and people are like wow, that's great
03:43 they come and give you a thousand dollars and then you give them a picture of the ring and
03:48 They're like no, I want the ring you say no
03:51 What was for sale is a picture of a ring?
03:53 like if you look closely at the at the online listing you can see the little outlines of the piece of paper that
04:00 I took a picture and
04:02 The picture is for sale and people would say well, no, I don't want I don't want the picture
04:07 I want the diamond ring you say no. No, no, that's not for sale. That's an heirloom
04:11 My grandmother gave that to me, right? So you you understand you're just heading for conflict if
04:16 People don't have the same definitions of what they're talking about
04:20 so you
04:23 Start a debate which is great. You know, this is this is not a big criticism. I'm just sort of pointing out how to have
04:30 Productive debates and how not to waste time
04:33 So you say after debating Stefan and some of this community about what consequentialism actually is I got the impression that there's this
04:40 Big misconception about what principles actually are. So let's go through the logic, right? So you start the debate, which is great
04:46 It's always welcome, but in order not to annoy people and waste their time
04:50 right, can you imagine like
04:53 with
04:55 regarding the diamond ring or the picture of the diamond ring
04:59 Well after selling this trying to sell this this picture of the diamond ring. I
05:03 Get the impression. There's a big misconception
05:08 About what is actually for sale. It's not the diamond ring. It's the picture. It's not the Maserati. It's the
05:13 Chevy Nova up on cinder blocks
05:15 It's your job to define the terms
05:18 As you start a debate, it's your job
05:21 To define the term. So if I'm talking about property rights, I talk about owning yourself and owning the effects of your actions
05:28 Being responsible for yourself being responsible for the effects of your actions
05:34 When I talk about free will I talk about our capacity to compare proposed actions to ideal standards when I talk about
05:41 Morality, I talk about universally preferable behavior. I mean I put a lot of work into defining the terms
05:50 so if you are engaged in
05:52 how long ago is this this is a
05:56 Message from four days ago, and I think the debates been going on for a week or two
06:00 so if you're having a debate about consequentialism and
06:04 You say well I get the impression. There's a big misconception about
06:08 What principles actually are so you have to define consequentialism and you have to define?
06:14 principles and
06:16 If you're in the debate for a week or two and you haven't defined core terms and got agreements not enough to define them
06:23 You have to get agreement
06:25 like honestly
06:27 95% of debate is
06:30 Getting people to agree on definitions
06:32 right
06:35 95% and this is like this is in life as a whole
06:38 95% of disagreement is about definitions
06:43 not logic
06:45 right, so if free will is our ability and you'll see after I
06:50 Defined my terms and have good arguments for them then the amount of conflicts go down
06:57 So one of the reasons I did my series on free will many years ago a three-part series on free
07:01 Well, you can find that at FDR podcast calm. One of the reasons I did that was because
07:05 We had a whole bunch of determinists and compatibilists
07:09 Compatible come they were compatibles compatibilism. Sorry. I really feel like she should know the word but I can't remember it's been like 15 years
07:17 Compatibilism which is where there's kind of like a mix of free will and determinism
07:23 You know like a mix of up and down north and south thing and its opposite. I
07:27 Get the impression that there's a big misconception about what principles actually are
07:32 Okay, so you need to define your terms if you define your terms
07:38 then
07:40 there is no disagreement or there's less disagreement so for instance when you go into a
07:46 Job with any complexity generally you have a contract sign a contract that's defining your terms defining your terms is
07:53 Avoiding conflict that doesn't mean they'll never be any conflict people can cheat or whatever you get into a game you define the rules
08:01 Right you define I mean the card game war which is not really a game
08:06 But you just put down a card the highest card wins
08:09 Rock paper scissors. It's all about defining the rules defining the terms what wins in rock paper scissors
08:15 I
08:16 Mean heads or tails right so in life as a whole you define terms
08:21 In a marriage you have marriage vows
08:25 Which is the debt and so of course all the legal stuff, but the core of it is the marriage vows and so you define terms
08:32 when you
08:34 Work for a place you get a contract that says I'll pay you
08:38 75 grand a year
08:41 Here are your responsibilities you get two weeks vacation
08:45 You get this sick leave allocation you get this
08:49 Healthcare in the States
08:52 Maybe we'll pay for your health care
08:53 And you get the social security or some sort of a retirement plan even outside of Social Security which is I guess a legal thing
09:00 So you have all of these
09:02 Define your terms your salary your responsibilities this that and the other right then some will even say you will be required to travel
09:09 So you can't say whoa I had no idea so you just define your terms I?
09:12 Mean you wouldn't just start working for a place work there for a month and then say well
09:18 You know there seems to be some disagreement about what I'm here for what my responsibilities are and what my salary is
09:24 Right you would like define all of that you just look at what works in your life. What works in your life is
09:30 Where you define?
09:32 the terms upfront and you get agreement I
09:35 Mean there's a standard called value in the marketplace
09:40 There's a standard called value in the marketplace
09:44 Which is salary and you go through a an interview process and you negotiate?
09:50 Salary right and then you agree on the salary. It's put in writing you sign it and that's what you get paid I
09:57 Mean it's funny
10:00 my my first car I
10:02 Didn't have a CD player which was very expensive back of the day. I had a tape deck which actually turned out to be great
10:10 Because I could get a little portable player
10:12 Loaded up this is before portable players had internet access at a Rio 500
10:17 way back in the day with the princely sum of
10:20 64 megs of memory I
10:23 Remember later upgrading to a player that did WMA files which were half the size I could get quite the songs
10:29 I mean literally I would so sad I mean I would spend 15 minutes sometimes loading up the right songs to go for a workout
10:37 I had a gym outside. Anyway, so I was it was good that I had a tape deck because I could
10:42 Plug in my portable player. I could listen to music and audiobooks and so on
10:46 Had a tape deck now
10:48 one of my favorite albums when I was younger was an album by a solo album by John Anderson called animation and
10:54 Some of the songs are a bit shanty and dull, but some of the songs are just absolutely fantastic. I mean just beyond
11:02 Amazing the musicianship and the vocals and the songwriting was just I mean to me top tier and I think it should be a better
11:09 Known album, but I can understand why it's not he's a bit of an acquired vocal taste
11:12 You have to like Mickey Mouse on helium
11:15 But I mean the song animation about the birth of his child is just absolutely beautiful
11:20 But anyway, so long story short now, it's too late for that now long story long
11:25 I was at a garage sale now
11:29 I've always been a little curious about the whole garage sale thing
11:33 I find it hard to go buy a garage sale without even poking my head in just because there are real gems in there
11:39 now I
11:41 Did not have a record player at this time and I was never a big one for buying cassette tapes
11:47 so I did not have a
11:51 cassette tape of
11:53 John Anderson's solo album animation from 1982 or something like that
11:59 Boundaries is a great song. So anyway, I go to this
12:03 Garage sale and in the garage sale I see right up front
12:09 John Anderson animation 50 cents. I guess they'd got tired of it and
12:14 So obviously I grabbed my 50 cents and I paid and I enjoyed the album for quite some time afterwards
12:22 It's one of these albums. You have to sing along with two octaves lower if you're lucky
12:27 so
12:29 Now, of course the price was agreed now
12:31 I would have paid a lot more than 50 cents like not much more because I could always I guess find some place to buy the
12:37 And of course I'd actually forgotten about the album
12:40 I'd forgotten about the album which I bought secondhand at a record store down on Queen Street. I
12:46 Would have paid more
12:48 Because I was hit with a sudden stab of oh I and you ever have this way you hear a song on the radio
12:53 And you're like, oh my god, I love this song like I was listening the other day to some random songs on the Internet and the song
12:59 By Harlequin called innocence came up. Well, it's all you ever pleaded and I was just like man. That's a great song
13:06 I could honestly have not thought about that song probably in
13:09 35 years and
13:12 Put it on repeat a little bit great song
13:14 so we so
13:17 the definition of the value of that
13:21 tape of John Anderson's animation was 50 cents and we agreed on that and
13:26 You've seen this before right?
13:29 Where people get in there haggling and they're haggling is they're trying to agree on the definition called value if they can't agree on the definition
13:37 called value
13:39 Then the transaction does not occur. So if this guy had said, oh that's mislabeled. It's actually
13:44 $500 I'd have been like, okay. Well, I'm not paying that
13:48 Right. I'm not paying a thousand times
13:51 What I you know, I mean and if he'd said oh that's mislabeled it's actually two dollars. I mean, okay. Well, whatever right?
13:56 but it was labeled 50 cents and
13:58 I
14:00 Paid my 50 cents and was very happy. So of course we were both happier. He unloaded some tape
14:05 he never listened to I got a nice slice of nostalgia to enjoy and
14:08 Like a lot of things in your life, I have no idea where that tape is now
14:14 I have no idea. I don't have a cassette player anymore
14:17 Of course who does but it's one of these things that I enjoyed for quite some time and I could not tell you for the
14:23 Life of me where it is now. So there's this definition to look at the things in your life that work
14:28 it's where you agree on definitions and
14:31 The things in your life that don't work where there's a whole bunch of conflict is
14:35 Where you don't agree on definitions. I mean one of the most fundamental definitions is
14:41 What does equality mean? Right people can't agree on that
14:45 So one side generally on the right argues that
14:50 Equality is equality of opportunity
14:52 other people on the left in general say that equality actually means equality of outcome and
14:59 People on the right say we accept that
15:03 Equality of opportunity leads to inequality in outcomes and
15:08 The people on the left say we don't accept that
15:14 So equality of opportunity leads to inequality of outcomes because all inequality of outcomes are
15:20 Unjust immoral bigoted racist whatever right sexist you name it and
15:26 That's in general in general
15:28 the
15:31 People on the right who tend to be more religious more conservative and more free market say God gives people different gifts
15:37 I mean you've heard this before I've certainly heard this
15:40 from from people
15:43 God gave me these gifts or I'm fortunate to have these gifts. I've been given these gifts or
15:47 When I wired up somebody's house with a network when I was in my teens
15:53 And I said what a beautiful house and you'd huge giant mansion. He said yes God has been good to me
15:58 So God gives people different gifts
16:01 therefore equality of opportunity leads to
16:04 disparity of outcome and
16:06 Of course, I mean Christianity in particular is founded upon the most significant disparity of gifts
16:13 That's conceivable, which is the gift of being the Son of God
16:16 able to perform miracles rise from the dead so that's kind of an inequality of
16:22 gifts that are given and
16:25 because
16:27 Jesus was obviously brilliant and innovative and
16:30 staggeringly charismatic and
16:33 Performed miracles right according to the Bible performed miracles
16:38 We accept that there's disparities in the gifts that people are given. So God
16:43 scatters his gifts widely
16:46 across the world and therefore there's going to be disparities in outcome and of course the foundational moral journey of
16:54 The Christian is the opportunity of salvation without the guarantee of salvation
16:59 so you exercise your free will in the pursuit of virtue and
17:04 If you achieve virtue you go to heaven and if you
17:08 Become evil you go to hell. I mean it really is the ultimate
17:11 Inequality of outcome. I guess if
17:15 The leftists were in charge of a universal religion
17:18 Everyone would kind of end up in a vaguely pleasant
17:21 Brain fog limbo wouldn't be heaven. It wouldn't be hell. Everyone ends up in the same place and
17:26 so because conservatives and people on the right recognize a
17:30 choice and
17:32 Value and the entire religious moral journey is founded on inequality of outcome heaven versus hell
17:38 They accept in the free market that it's going to be inequality of outcomes based upon equality of opportunity
17:45 however people on the left who tend to be more material tend to be more secular and
17:52 They view they're willing to accept some inequalities of outcome but not that much
18:00 So because they're more physical, I mean you look at people you say, okay, there's going to be some variation of
18:06 height
18:08 Among people right? There's going to be some variation of height and at the wildest extremes
18:13 You know people might be half as tall as other people, right?
18:18 Got some seven-foot guy. You've got some guy who's maybe got some
18:23 Growth problem in three and a half feet or something. So at the very extremes
18:29 people will be twice as tall and
18:32 So they'll say okay. Well, so in the in the material world
18:36 The disparities are not that great
18:39 now because in Christianity the soul is the foundation of the personality and the soul is capable of just about anything and
18:46 You exercise your gifts and and the gifts are widely distributed and with different levels of intensity and so on
18:53 The disparities in outcome are acceptable no matter how great because the disparities in outcome
18:59 between
19:01 Heaven forever and hell forever is the greatest possible disparity that can be imagined
19:07 it's
19:08 infinite extremes for infinite time and
19:11 Christianity of course the people who study Christianity who learn about Christianity there are
19:19 significant differences in quality
19:22 Among the church fathers st. Augustine and other theologians. They just have incredible abilities to explain and
19:30 Encourage and inspire and preach and so on and of course the preacher is up there doing his thing. He's better at it
19:37 Hopefully then the congregation
19:39 Whereas if you're kind of drudging along in a pretty sort of sad low-rent world and you don't really know anyone
19:46 Who's got any real quality because anybody with any quality gets out, right?
19:49 I mean one of the things that's happened is in the past when you had a small town
19:55 people would stick around that small town for reasons of you know familiarity and for reasons of
20:02 access to
20:04 grandparents and in-laws and childhood friends and
20:06 Community and church there so smart some super smart guy in a small town would become maybe the town doctor or the town lawyer
20:13 Maybe the town mayor or some town artist or something that the but he wouldn't be gone
20:17 So people would be intimately familiar within that small town of differences in ability
20:22 But of course what's happening now this process would be going on
20:25 since
20:27 since the late
20:28 1950s really I mean you can I so the GI Bill had a big problem and that it brought a lot of people into the
20:34 educational system who wouldn't have the intellectual chops to succeed there in the past, but you know, one of the one of the
20:42 Benefits thrown at returning troops in America was a GI Bill to go higher education kind of guaranteed which amount of flooded people came in
20:48 Who weren't high quality therefore the standards had to be lowered and get all of this kind of stuff, right?
20:51 More people doesn't raise the standards more people just lowers the standards. I
20:57 mean if you want them to win, right so
21:00 since the 1950s in
21:04 particular what's been happening is
21:06 the
21:08 universities have been
21:11 scouring for smart people and
21:13 So they would go through all the small town. They'd identify the top
21:17 one or three or five percent of smart people based upon high school transcripts and interviews and
21:23 Essays and all that kind of stuff and then they might offer them scholarships or the government would offer them
21:28 Scholarships or the government might offer them free tuition or subsidized tuition or loans or something like that
21:34 So what happens then is all of the smart people get scoured out of?
21:40 the small towns and then the small towns kind of collapsed right to be this is one of the since where some of the fentanyl
21:46 stuff is coming from and
21:47 Because you're taking all
21:49 The stars in a sense out of the sky at night
21:55 nobody knows
21:57 the dimensions of the heavens
21:59 But you ever done this thing where you lie on your back. It's a beautiful clear night
22:03 Maybe you're in the country or something like that
22:05 And you look at the stars and then you get a sense of 3d depth and just how enormous the universe is
22:10 It's really quite a bone and soul chilling experience
22:14 But if there are no stars in the sky, then there's nothing to measure the depth of the heavens. It's just a blank
22:21 so
22:23 because of
22:25 government programs
22:26 The smart people are taken out of communities and therefore everybody in the community who remains
22:33 Doesn't have access or doesn't have direct access to
22:36 Quality people and I don't mean morally quality just like gifts intellectual abilities right now all the staggering stuff
22:44 Where you look at the very top tier performers and it's it's just mental, right?
22:48 I mean if you look at if you ever been to a like a little bar or something like that go in an Irish pub
22:53 and there's usually some guy in the corner strumming away and
22:55 singing some
22:58 songs and
22:59 You know
22:59 maybe he's paid a hundred bucks for the night or something like that and then you compare that to like
23:03 Taylor Swift or when the Eagles were in their peak or Queen or something like it's just it's insane, right the difference in in
23:10 Quality that or the difference in value for sure is is just mental. But if you grew up without knowing like I remember
23:16 reading some comment somebody did a video of
23:20 The old Billy Joel song scenes from an Italian restaurant someone did a video for it and somebody underneath it wrote
23:28 Yeah, you know we all grew up together. I actually knew Billy Joel when he was younger
23:31 We also sit in the street corner
23:33 singing away and Billy Joel was always just like hey
23:35 I'm gonna be a musician and like he just sang the best and it was you know
23:38 That was his that was his thing like nobody else could even come close and he does have a wonderful voice
23:43 So people can't see much quality in their lives
23:48 Because the smart people are scooped out and go
23:51 to another area they go through a portal into somewhere else and
23:56 Everyone who's left behind is kind of dredging along and and therefore the inequality of outcomes seems kind of strange because you don't know anyone
24:03 Really who's that different and this process happens over and over again, right?
24:06 Because we know that IQ is significantly genetic. So when the smart people get scooped out
24:11 You're hollowing out the whole intelligence base of the community
24:15 I mean, obviously there's you know, lots of variation and the dice gets rolled but in general right 80% genetic by late teens
24:22 That's sort of the latest research or at least it was a couple years ago when I last checked on these things probably even higher
24:26 now and
24:27 So you scoop out the smart people and within a generation or two?
24:31 it's really hard to find smart people in these communities and
24:35 I know this to some degree personally
24:39 Having grown up in a pretty terrible
24:42 community
24:44 where they just really weren't that many smart people around if any and
24:48 everybody
24:50 You could sort of see where everybody was gonna end up and and then it's like another dimension where the smart people are and it
24:58 Just feels weird
24:59 so
25:01 Definitions are everything
25:03 Definitions are everything
25:05 So if you've been engaged in debate for a couple of weeks and you say well, we don't even we haven't even agreed
25:10 What principles are then you are signaling that you don't know how to debate?
25:15 you don't know how to debate and
25:19 That's fine. I mean look I mean, it's a learning curve. It's a learning process
25:22 Children are born learning how to argue but debating takes a little more time
25:27 So you say I got the impression. There's a big misconception about what principles actually are
25:32 So now you've stuck a couple of weeks into the debate you defining your terms and that's what I mean
25:38 That's kind of annoying and look this just a learning thing
25:40 Which you have to do this up front
25:42 So you say one definition of consequentialism consequentialism is an ethical theory that asserts the moral rightness or wrongness of actions
25:48 Is determined solely by their outcomes or consequences?
25:52 Right, and he says that definition is correct, but there's a misconception attached to that namely that consequentialism contradicts
25:59 Principle-based morals that assumption is incorrect because principles already are defined by consequences
26:06 Okay, so that's interesting. So you're saying that
26:10 consequentialism says judge an action by its outcomes and
26:13 Now you're saying that principles also judge
26:18 The right or wrongness of a proposition by its outcomes. So you're saying that consequentialism and
26:25 principle
26:27 Is the same thing? So then you say definition of principle
26:30 Here's a quote a principle is a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of beliefs or behavior or a
26:36 chain of reasoning
26:38 so you say that
26:40 Consequentialism cut you say it's it's incorrect to think that consequentialism contradicts principle-based morals
26:45 That assumption is incorrect because principles already are defined by consequences
26:50 now
26:52 Again, this is you know, and I say this, you know when I was learning to play the guitar
26:57 I put my fingers in the wrong place all the time. This is rank amateur hour
27:01 And and it's funny when it comes to debate everyone thinks that they're an expert right? You haven't studied debating you haven't studied
27:07 Philosophy you haven't studied rhetoric. You haven't studied principles. I mean so
27:13 When you say well, this assumption is incorrect because principles already are defined by consequences
27:19 Well, that's just a statement. I mean you're taking a radical position here
27:24 Which is that people think that you use principles and you stick by principles regardless of the consequences
27:30 Right. I mean again foundation of Christianity is Jesus sticking by his principles
27:35 Even though he is
27:37 tortured to death right beatings whippings crown of thorns
27:43 Crucifixion I mean he sticks by his principles that the
27:46 the consequences of Jesus sticking by his principles as is the case for Socrates and Plato and
27:51 Aristotle and
27:53 Galileo and all the other people who suffered for their principles the consequence of sticking by their principles was absolutely horrible for them
28:00 right
28:02 Absolutely horrible for them. Of course in my own minor way. I
28:06 Have suffered for sticking by my principles or by objective principles. I really don't have much of a choice
28:13 That's kind of the gig right but you know people who stick by their principles
28:16 It's it's pretty tough
28:19 so
28:21 the war between judge something by its outcome
28:24 versus
28:26 Judge something by its principles is kind of strange
28:31 Right. So the principle would be that say don't steal
28:35 but
28:36 consequentialism would say or the for the individual consequentialism would say well, wait a minute if I
28:42 Steal something I get that thing for way less time effort and energy
28:47 Than if I had to work to earn it
28:50 right, so if I if I make
28:53 Simplify the effort if I make $25 an hour and I want to get a thousand dollar cell phone
29:00 I have to work for 40 hours, right? That's a whole week of work
29:03 Plus-plus rights have to work for 40 hours to get that phone
29:07 but if I just case some store wait until it's crowded and
29:13 Somebody's between me and the camera and I just pocket that phone. I get it in an hour as
29:18 opposed to 40 hours
29:21 Right, so it's it's 2.5 percent of the effort
29:24 That's 2.5 percent of the effort
29:28 It's 97.5 percent easier to steal the phone than it is to work to buy the phone
29:35 So if people say I won't steal the phone, I won't steal anything because stealing is wrong. That's principles
29:42 consequentialism for an individual could be
29:46 That it's way easier for me
29:49 To steal the phone than it is to buy it now
29:52 Of course the consequentialists would have an answer to this as they such an obvious objection
29:57 And of course the consequentialist would say
30:00 That it's a bad for society because if you steal the phone, nobody will make phones
30:06 Nobody will have stores and it's generally bad for society as a whole
30:12 But that's not how
30:15 Morals work right because no such thing as society as a whole
30:17 There's no such thing as society as a whole there are individuals who act and make choices
30:25 Right, no animal in the rainforest acts for the benefit of the rainforest as a whole
30:30 now you can say of course that individuals will sacrifice themselves for the benefit of their local group as a whole like
30:38 Lions will like the female lions who hunt and kill zebras will share their food with the males who guard the
30:45 Outskirts and their offspring who can't hunt for themselves yet and so on. So yeah for sure that that can happen
30:53 but in an active predator-prey relationship
30:55 the
30:57 The predator does not defer
31:00 his predations for the sake of the benefit of
31:04 the ecosystem as a whole
31:07 individuals act
31:10 to their own benefit now, of course if people are
31:12 Principled and they say well, I get to heaven or my conscience is at ease or I'm a good person or I'm following my
31:19 Values if I don't steal if I have a value called don't steal and I follow that I feel good
31:25 And and yes, there is that benefit that it's good for society as a whole. But again people don't
31:29 There is no such thing as society as a whole individuals act
31:33 Right. It's like this. This is old and it's stuck in my head for like 40 years right or more
31:38 There's an old Monty Python skit where a guy gets arrested and he says well
31:44 It's a fair cop, but society is too blind and the cop says agreed
31:48 We'll be charging them to right that's funny
31:50 Society is to blame we'll be charging them to will be charging society with your crimes like that doesn't mean anything
31:57 So if your solution to the problem of principle based morals versus consequentialist based
32:04 Morals is to say that they're the same thing without going through a pretty intense
32:10 Argumentation, but if you're just saying well, no, I'm telling you that they are the same thing with no arguments with no evidence
32:18 And with no sense of the complexity and also with no sense of the history of the complexity of these kinds of arguments
32:23 judged by principles versus judged by effects is
32:26 huge in society so people who are pro-welfare state at least at the beginning say well the effect of
32:33 The welfare state is to lower the poverty rate because we're taking for the rich and we're giving to the poor. So the effect is good
32:39 whereas the principle people say well, no because the welfare state is
32:46 Initiating the use of force to transfer property. It's unjust. It's immoral and so on right?
32:50 now, of course the poor people want free money as most of us do and
32:53 rich people want to keep their money, but those who want money and
32:58 poor vastly outnumber those who have money and are very wealthy and
33:03 So in a democracy the poor just vote to take away the property of the rich and eventually everybody ends up broke
33:08 So, of course some people who argue for principles will also talk about consequentialism
33:15 so people say thou shall not steal this moral and
33:18 It gets you to heaven and it makes your conscience at ease and you you don't live
33:22 Hypocritically because you don't want people taking your stuff. So you don't take other people stuff you affirm your common humanity and
33:27 All this sort of stuff. That's great
33:30 But they also say and the consequences of people stealing is bad for the economy as a whole
33:36 you know, we can see all of this happening in various places in America now where the stores are
33:42 Closing down because the level of theft is so high which of course is just heartbreaking
33:47 for
33:50 the poor people in these communities who now have to take like I
33:53 Don't know three buses to to go and get some groceries. It's just it's just it absolutely terrible
33:59 So saying no, no, no, you don't understand people. I'm debating with you. You don't understand it
34:05 consequences or consequentialism and
34:08 Principles are the same thing
34:12 you're just making an assertion that literally is a
34:15 Thing and its opposite are the same which is logically impossible
34:21 Unless you just redefine everything. Yeah, north and south are the same direction
34:25 Well, I just got to redefine south to equal north like you you haven't done anything other than baffle gab and annoy people
34:32 Who get drawn into this kind of stuff and I've sort of been floating around the edge of this debate
34:35 you know just for this sort of very
34:38 very sort of reason right
34:40 I'm just trying to sorry lost the
34:42 Text you know, it's trying to find it again
34:44 so principles are
34:47 universal and to be followed regardless of
34:49 consequences
34:52 now you could argue that
34:54 Christianity or other religions with a heaven and a hell and I know that there's various flavors of Christianity
35:00 Some of which have different emphases or on heaven and hell but just to take the general the general trend
35:05 So, of course you could argue that Christianity is a mix of principles and consequentialism the consequentialism being of course heaven and hell
35:12 but if you if you steal you go to hell and that's that's a big consequence and
35:18 I would argue of course that
35:21 There are negative consequences to immorality
35:25 But we cannot view consequences as the definition
35:31 definition of morality and immorality good and evil can't use consequences
35:35 Because that's like using pleasure as the standard of action
35:40 now
35:42 pleasure as the standard of action is
35:44 a subjective and relativistic measure
35:47 So for instance if somebody takes a drug that knocks him out
35:52 we would consider that a bad bad habit, right? However, if someone takes a drug that knocks him out because he's
36:00 Getting surgery right anesthesia. We would say that's a good thing if somebody takes opioids
36:06 to feel good
36:08 We consider that a bad habit
36:10 But if somebody takes opioids because they're recovering from some incredibly painful surgery and it's a pain management strategy
36:17 Then we would consider that a good thing
36:19 Even the costs and benefits over the course of life
36:22 change considerably it was important for me to
36:29 Find a partner in life until I found my partner in life now
36:34 I'm not looking and perfectly content with with what I have
36:37 It was important me when we when when I was younger, it was important for me to get formal education now
36:44 It's not
36:46 It was important in life when I was younger for me to cast about and find the right fit for my various talents
36:51 Now I wake up and I do this because it's great fun. And I hope it's I think I know it's a value to the world
36:57 So now I don't do that anymore
36:59 It's important to save your money
37:02 When you are 20, it's not important to save your money on your deathbed
37:07 It doesn't mean like waste it like crazy, but you obviously you don't have the same right when you're when you're 90
37:12 It's not as important to save your money
37:15 deferring gratification
37:18 Some people really like to run a lot when they're younger and some people regret that later because it gives them bad knees
37:24 There's a Tiger Woods thing. I wish I hadn't run so much feel my knees are out
37:28 so costs and benefits in the pleasure principle changes a lot over the course of
37:32 your life
37:34 So it's a relativistic and subjectivist measure. And of course different people are
37:39 Wired to do to get different degrees of happiness from different things, right?
37:44 Everybody knows the story of one person who's like, oh, yeah, you know, I remember when I was five
37:49 I was taken to see the Rockettes in New York by my mother and I just fell in love with these beautiful women on stage and
37:56 I I just want to become a dancer and that's all I wanted to do and and then they become a dancer right now other
38:01 people other kids
38:03 Go to see the Rockettes and they're bored. I
38:05 Mean, I remember when I was a kid we had an album of a guy talking about
38:11 Various principles and ideas and arguments and I was like, yeah, I could do that. Like it was turned very excited by that
38:17 All at the same time so different people are turned on and excited by different things. Where's the universality in that?
38:25 You can't have a pleasure principle
38:27 Subjective it's relativistic. It changes over the course of your life. It's not objective true universal. There's no proof beyond reasonable doubt about what is
38:35 What is good for you? I mean we would say that somebody who kills himself is
38:40 Probably not acting in a very positive or good way particularly to his family unless unless
38:47 Let's say we can always create a scenario, right? Unless
38:52 He's he's captured and they're gonna kill his family unless he kills himself. He cares more for his family than his own life
38:57 So that's what he does
38:58 we would say that's a tragic and heroic story rather than this guy was just
39:02 Bad and wrong and this is not the way to do it not the way to live all this kind of stuff, right?
39:07 so now the principles on the other hand are universal and
39:10 not based upon
39:13 consequences in fact, in fact
39:15 universals are there because
39:19 Principles will give you negative consequences, right?
39:22 So and in a sense we have principles because being principled gives you negative consequences like on a on a regular basis
39:28 Right. I mean we have diet and exercise because it generally is more pleasurable to sit on the couch and eat cheesecake
39:34 Right. So because diet and exercise cause us discomfort
39:39 We know that we need principles
39:43 principles are there because
39:45 Certainly the short-term consequences are highly negative
39:48 For pursuing principles and again, that's sort of personal. So so if in personal experience with this, so we have principles we follow
39:55 objective and universal standards of value and morality we do all of that because
40:00 It's going to be the consequences of following those principles are often going to be quite negative
40:07 so principles and
40:10 consequentialism
40:12 There's some overlap, but they're very distinct things. So I mean, this is sort of my arguments for it
40:18 We can debate this back and forth, but you see I don't just say they're not the same thing
40:22 I say they're not the same thing and here's why and here's why if
40:26 You break a contract you can win, right? I mean cell phone companies will give you a cell phone for virtually no money
40:35 but you have to
40:37 Stay with them for two years or whatever it is, right?
40:39 So if you take the cell phone cancel the contract don't get back to cell phone
40:43 You just got a virtually free cell phone the consequences of that are plus for you, but they're negative
40:48 For the cell phone company negative for everyone else. It's got a subsidizer cover-up that cost and that kind of stuff, right?
40:52 so and you know the sort of famous story from from India about
40:56 The Cobras right? So the Cobras so when the Raj was in full swing
41:03 Back of the day and when the British ran India, there was an excess of Cobras around. It's too many Cobras
41:10 So of course what the British did was they said the British government in its usual governmental way
41:16 status gonna state and
41:18 They said oh, well, we'll pay a bounty for every Cobra you bring in right every dead Cobra you bring in will pay a bounty
41:24 right, so
41:27 Then of course what happened?
41:28 well inevitably people began breeding Cobras and killing them and bringing them to the British and
41:34 then the British realized this and then discontinued the program and
41:38 Then what happened was of course all the people who were breeding
41:41 The Cobras and selling them to the British or getting the bounty then said well
41:46 There's no point having these Cobras because I'm not gonna make any money from them
41:48 So they're just gonna they release the Cobras and you ended up with more Cobras in the neighborhood than there were before
41:54 Consequentialism
41:58 consequentialism is a form of mysticism because
42:00 nobody
42:03 nobody can
42:04 Determine the outcome of the future because of free will nobody can determine the app
42:09 I mean if consequentialism was a thing then central planning would be possible, but it never is because nobody knows
42:14 anything to do with the
42:16 Outcomes of the future nobody knows supply and like without price signals. There is no supply and demand there is no
42:22 negotiation and all of the
42:25 potential value in the economy can't be followed because
42:28 Central planners don't know like, you know, if the price of gold goes up sometimes people take old jewelry
42:35 They don't use and has been around forever. They take their old jewelry
42:38 They sell it because the price of gold has gone up
42:41 Of course central planners don't know how much old jewelry people have and right so they just they can't possibly do it
42:46 So you can't you can't know future?
42:49 I mean if you say well, I know the good or bad based upon what's in the future
42:54 Then you shouldn't be
42:56 posting on my
42:59 Channel right? You shouldn't be doing any of that, right?
43:02 what you should be doing is
43:05 you should
43:08 Use your knowledge of the future because as a consequentialist
43:10 You know
43:11 the outcome of things in the future and you should use your knowledge of the future to play the stock market to
43:17 buy and sell crypto to amass a
43:19 Multi-trillion dollar fortune and then you can do massive amounts of good with that, right? I mean, that's a test, right?
43:24 Consequentialism says I know the future but if you know the future
43:28 Then you should invest and make money on the future, right?
43:33 If you if you know if you can judge the morality of something by its consequences, then you know what's going to happen in the future
43:38 You reject all public choice theory you
43:41 Reject the argument that people change their behavior based upon different incentives and you fit this one of the reasons you can't predict the future
43:47 So you say no, no, no, I can predict the future
43:51 Because morality has to be absolute which means you absolutely know what the future is
43:55 But if you absolutely know what the future is
43:57 Then you know what the price of Apple stock is going to be tomorrow
44:00 You know what the price of bitcoins going to be next week
44:01 But if you don't know that and of course you don't anybody who says that they do is lying
44:06 so if you don't know that then you are
44:10 You lying about consequentialism. I mean just being perfectly frank about this, right?
44:17 Consequentialism is total lie. It's a fake. It's nonsense
44:22 It's embarrassing because people are claiming that they can judge
44:25 Based upon a certain knowledge of the future
44:29 But if they have certain knowledge of the future they should take they could be all ties looking at it's like they could basically own
44:34 The world economy, but they never do that right there. I know I know complex moral blah blah blah the future this that and the other
44:40 Oh, what's the price of Apple stock gonna be tomorrow? Well, I don't know that it's like, okay
44:44 Well, then I don't know like it's just it's just a an annoying wasted time
44:48 Completely bizarre to me. All right. So just to end up here
44:51 He says he does definition of a principle the principle of the fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system
44:57 of beliefs or behavior or a chain of reasoning and then he says
45:01 Manuel says for example, the moral principle of UPB is that the violation of property rights is bad
45:06 Right. I mean most people are just arguing with goats or making things up or right because that's not the moral principle
45:14 The violation of property rights is bad. But with it, that's just a statement
45:18 Right UPB is a method of evaluating
45:22 universal principles
45:25 Evaluating the accuracy of universal principles morality is universal. So if you make a moral proposition
45:30 Can it be universalized?
45:33 So if you say stealing is good, can it be universalized?
45:36 And of course UPB put that through that UPB machine and it says nope can't be universalized
45:40 Everything which is asymmetric can't be universal
45:43 I can't like I literally can't do these arguments again because I've done them about 10 zillion times over the course and you could just
45:48 Go look up UPB at FDR podcast.com
45:51 So he says for example, the moral principle of UPB is that the violation of property rights is bad
45:56 That's a judgment based on the consequence that any acceptance of the violation of property rights will result in the loss of logical consistency
46:03 which
46:05 Then will result in the loss of certainty of the law
46:08 In other words, the principle is made because we want to prevent any logical inconsistency to justify injustice
46:14 so I
46:16 Don't I don't know really what any of this means and when people just put a bunch of bafflegab syllables together
46:21 With the attempt to sounding smart, but without really communicating
46:24 anything at all
46:26 So violation of property rights is bad. I mean, I literally have a whole section on property rights in UPB doesn't quote it
46:33 It doesn't follow the argument does they just well UPB says that property rights are good
46:37 Therefore I know what UPB is and I understand like you don't you don't I mean I
46:41 Came up with UPB like 15 years ago and I still hiccup and trip over it from time to time
46:46 Not because it's so complex
46:48 I mean I explained it to my daughter when she was a couple years old and she got it perfectly fine and has never wavered
46:53 But just because we all have this programming about
46:55 Morals and ethics and so on right in other words
47:00 The principle is made because we want to prevent any logical inconsistency to justify injustice. I don't know what any of that means
47:06 It's just if you claim something is universal
47:09 But it can't be universal then you're wrong. That's all
47:13 I don't know what any of this is like this baffle gap, right?
47:17 if you claim that something is universal and
47:20 It can't be universal then your claim is false
47:25 Right. I mean for instance if I say that two and two make four is a universal
47:32 Proposal it's a universal truth two and two make four is a universally
47:36 Accurate equation two and two make four is universal and then I say except in Indiana
47:43 in Indiana two and two
47:45 make a forearm
47:47 Well, if I say two and two is universal and then I say except in Indiana
47:51 Then I have made a false statement because things can't be universal except in Indiana
47:57 Universal means everywhere if you create a geographical exclusion then right it's impossible if I say that
48:05 Stealing is UPB
48:08 Well, it can't be universalized. It's asymmetrical, right?
48:13 Somebody has to want you to not take their property for it to be stealing
48:17 But if stealing is UPB then everybody wants to steal and be stolen from at the same time
48:21 But if you want to be stolen from it's not theft
48:23 So the debt by definition you don't even need to put the star Indiana in right asterisk, Indiana by definition
48:30 It's a false statement. It's a self contradictory statement
48:35 It is exactly the same as the proposition of a square circle
48:38 and
48:41 You know, all of this has been explained a thousand times before in the show
48:44 But I guess this guy is too lofty in his intellect to read or learn anything
48:48 So yeah, the principle is made because we want to prevent any logical inconsistency to justify and you know
48:54 You just if you say something's universal, but it can't be universalized then you you're wrong
48:59 If you say if you say stealing is UPB, but stealing can't be universalized by its definition
49:05 It's asymmetrical one person wants the opposite of what somebody else wants
49:09 So therefore like if one person wants the opposite of what someone else wants, they can't both want it at the same time
49:15 Did you see what I mean?
49:17 That's just basic logic
49:19 Right. It is the same as saying
49:23 One person must head north one person must head south. They both must go north
49:30 Right if somebody says to you one person must according to my moral theory one person must go north
49:37 The other person must go south
49:39 Which is the definition of them both going north, right? You would say that's wrong
49:43 That's like that's a logical problem because you've got two people doing opposite things, but then they're supposed to do the same thing
49:49 So if you say stealing is UPB
49:51 Everybody must want to steal and be stolen from at the same time, but that can't happen. I
49:55 mean it is a
49:58 Logical contradiction the contradiction in logic and a contradiction in logic cannot be allowed to stand
50:04 Right that which is anti logical
50:07 Cannot be valid. I mean this is I mean math science
50:12 Engineering you name it, right?
50:15 it doesn't right if you go to NASA and you say I have a rocket that goes up into the sky and
50:23 Down into the earth at exactly the same time
50:26 They will say that you're crazy
50:29 Because it can't do that. It can't go up and down at the same time
50:32 Like can't go up into the sky and down it like you understand
50:35 So I don't know what it means
50:37 The principle is made because we want to prevent any logical inconsistency to justify and just I don't even know what any of that's just
50:43 the word sound
50:44 Doesn't make any sense
50:45 So he says so here's a request if you disagree with what I've just explained
50:48 Please provide an example of a moral principle that's not defined by its consequences. Just one. Yeah, well
50:54 Stealing can never be universally preferable behavior. Okay. There you go
50:58 There's no consequences in there
51:01 Stealing can never be universally preferable behavior in
51:04 The same way that a guy going north and a guy going south cannot both be going north at the same time a rocket going
51:10 Up cannot also be going down at the same time
51:13 two and two can't equal four and
51:15 Door handle simultaneously. I mean honestly just study basic laws of logic, right?
51:21 This is just this is just Aristotle's three laws of logic
51:24 This is just basic laws of logic and you just need to you need to provide your definitions
51:28 And this arrogance of like provide me this it's like if you haven't thought things through and I do this because it's you know
51:34 Generally interesting and and a good training on critical thinking, right?
51:39 Rape theft assault and murder can never be UPB. There you go. Well, what are the consequences of that?
51:44 I I don't know it doesn't doesn't matter
51:47 It doesn't matter
51:49 Two and two cannot equal five. Well, what are the consequences of that?
51:53 I don't know and it doesn't matter two and two do not equal five. There's no such thing as a square circle
51:58 Well, what are the consequences of that? You can't say there's no such thing as a square circle without thinking about consequences
52:05 It's like no, it's a statement of fact. There is no such thing as a square circle
52:10 Well, but but but the consequences that as you want people to stop believing in us. No
52:16 No, I mean would I prefer it? Yeah, but I don't base my argument on the consequences
52:21 I hope that the consequences are that people stop believing in
52:24 square circles and that two and two make five and I hope that people stop believing that
52:29 stealing can ever be UPB or
52:32 The two and two make four except in Indiana the initiation of the use of force is wrong except for government, right?
52:37 It's the same thing. I hope that people will
52:40 Believe things that are true and logical and consistent. Yeah, that'd be great
52:44 But whether people do or don't accept logic
52:48 has no effect on
52:51 the truth of falsehood of a proposition if
52:54 A guy is running off a cliff flapping his arms saying I believe I can fly
52:59 I will tell him to stop because he can't I
53:02 Hope he stops
53:05 But whether he stops or not has no effect on gravity
53:09 whether people believe or reject
53:12 True or false propositions has no effect on the truth or falsehood of those propositions
53:18 That would be to say that truth is democratic which would be a violation of UPB truth is universal and therefore
53:24 It's not subject to opinions
53:27 You can't disbelieve in gravity. You can't disbelieve in logic. You can't disbelieve. I mean, sorry you can't
53:32 Gravity doesn't change whether you believe in it or not. Truth doesn't change whether you believe it or not
53:37 So there you go. I hope this makes some sense and listen
53:40 I mean look I appreciate the effort that you're putting into this I do
53:44 I think it's very interesting and it gives me something to to bounce off
53:47 But you don't you really don't know what you're doing. Okay. I'm sorry philosophy
53:51 It's just tricky and you got a blank slate this stuff and say well
53:55 what if I knew nothing and you got a built thing I'll be doing this for 40 years, right and
53:57 You you don't know what you're doing. And I say this, you know, because you're a smart guy good language skills
54:03 And I hope that you will learn something from this but right now you're just making assertions
54:09 you're equating things that are opposites and
54:11 you're getting definitions completely wrong about what UPB is and
54:15 you're just I
54:17 mean
54:18 The image that comes to my mind. I'm sorry. This is unfair
54:21 It's like a toddler flinging a bunch of food around saying that
54:24 He's a an expert chef, right? I'm Gordon Ramsay. It's like no, but you you just throwing food around you having a food fight
54:32 You're not a chef and you're just throwing words around you're not yet at the process of thinking
54:35 But I hope that you will think about thinking in the future. All right
54:39 Thanks everyone so much free to man comm session eight to help out the show really appreciate that have yourself a delightful wonderful beautiful day
54:44 Appreciate everyone's comments free to man locals calm to join the community free to man comm session eight to help out
54:50 Thanks so much everyone.
54:52 Lots of love.
54:53 Take care.