The following is a review of Stefan Molyneux’s Universally Preferable Behavior – A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics:

The first time I read this book (UPB), I didn’t really “get” it. I mean, I saw the logic and the proof and thought, “Hey, that’s kind of neat.” I was not able to access the implications that the proof of this theory would have in my life and in the greater world.

I have since re-read UPB. While I still struggle with the full range of the implications for my life, I think I get it (certainly more now than I have before).

The null zone concept is brilliant as well as fascinating! I now have the image in my mind of a “null zone” being forcibly inserted between the “little truths” and the “Great Truths”, which disconnect abstraction from practice in the minds of individuals.

This alone ought to be enough to demonstrate to anybody why this is a multi-generational project. Once you’ve had abstractions forcibly disconnected from practice within your mind, it is a trek through the fires of ten thousand hells to reconnect them.

Also of incredible resonance to me is when Molyneux discusses the emergent properties of morality within society as opposed to the imposition of whim-based morality from a centralized authority. This is the fundamental “reversal” of intuition that either Dawkins or Dennett (I can’t remember quite where I read it) has described when it comes to the science of evolution; that life, the universe, and everything do not proceed from the top-down, but from the bottom-up. Complexity and order are emergent properties of matter over time, hence it makes sense that morality and social order are emergent properties of human society over time.

Eradicating that “null zone” within my own mind and becoming ever more aware of my top-down moral standards is the horrible, horrible consequence of UPB. The upside, however, is that if, one day, I have children… I will not inflict a “null zone” upon them and will equip them to be resistant to it!

I haven’t found any flaws. I think that Stefan Molyneux has done it.

I’ve probably got quite the nice set of buttons on display for other people to press. Some of them I am aware of, others I suppose I choose to ignore. One such button that’s been getting pressed is the accusation that I am supporting violence.

Now, life isn’t, like, a court of law or something. One need not back up everything one claims with proof beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if I’m in a philosophy forum, I need to give a little more “oomph” to my claims than mere repetition. In this particular case, I asked a question regarding voluntary government. Basically, if taxation were voluntary, then what would stop a competing agency from setting up shop? Some guy interpreted that as supporting violence.

Now, that bothered me somewhat, because, well, that’s a pretty serious charge. The guy is saying that I want to go around maiming and killing people based on what I said. Instead of hauling off or anything, I asked him to clarify while offering a clarification of my statement and question. He refused to clarify and repeated his question. I wanted to see something very specific: I wanted to see how he got “initiation of force” from my statement about “voluntary” actions. I did not want to guess at it, because I think that, given that we are all (presumably) adults here, he ought to be able to speak for himself. So, I asked him directly what I was looking for. He refused again, taking yet another sophistic pose while reiterating his accusation.

There really wasn’t anywhere else to go in the discussion. I thought I had made reasonable requests for further information, and I did not attack him at all. I expressed displeasure at his words, but that’s not the same thing as comparing me to a murderous thug. Perhaps I should have expressed my offense more, but I’m not sure how that would have made a difference. It would have most probably served as some sort of twisted “confirmation” that because I got offended, he was right in what he was saying. (You know that old canard from the Life of Brian where Brian denies that he’s the messiah, and the people say, “Only the Messiah would say that!” and then he says that he is the messiah wherein the crowd bursts into rejoicing because he’s admitted that he’s the Messiah. Same sort of thing.)

I mean, it’s pretty clear that the guy is, for whatever reason, just trying to push my buttons… it’s just pretty difficult to take such an accusation with absolute equanimity. When I requested his reasoning for said accusation, he refused to let me in on his little secret. I mean, what else is there to do but to say, effectively, that the conversation is over? He’s clearly not interested in actually having a discussion–he just wants to throw accusations around.

I mean… really. I want to have discussions. I want to have conversations. If I can’t have those, I will just find other things to do with my time (which, at the moment, seems to be complaining about how I was unable to have a discussion or a conversation today ).