Static43 is about to have a revelation that Stef is a hypocrite.

He is pointing to the elephant in the room that Stef has done a 180 on some of his core beliefs in order to "make" people spread the message of FDR. Stef now says that everybody has an obligation to spread the word of FDR in order to live ethically. He uses the same argument to demand that people disassociate with Statists and religious people. Those are now "allowable" unchosen positive obligations.

Somebody might want to get in touch with Static43 to let him know that he's pissing into the wind over there.

Wow, lot of unsolvable problems coming up in his scientific morality. This is proof positive that this is not a final theory and it'll probably collapse soon or Greg and Nathan will independently discover the same new paradigm shift in morality. Wonder how the debate will play out on the board.

can you copy/paste some of the discussion here? Many of us are banned and we can't see the fdr threads

I saw that last night. I was just disgusted...so, someone who seeks understanding, yet knowing little about ethics or morality, unwittingly incurs an obligation once their learning reaches a level of understanding sufficient to teach others, or even just bring them to the "conversation." There should be a warning from Stef: "If you participate in this conversation, you will be required to wear the t-shirt and recruit new members!" It's a total capitulation, it's like Stef had some secret fine print, "no unchosen positive obligations, except those I choose for you!"

Ironically, the argument that I have made for Ron Paul and political action is the one that they're now making for wearing t-shirts and buying stuff and preaching the FDR gospel (except they're saying it's binding, I did not). I said, if you're a libertarian who values freedom and seeks to reduce the size and scope of government, then supporting Ron Paul is consistent with, and follows from your values. I never said it's an obligation, but rather the most rational and consistent choice for libertarians to make.

Choosing to study medicine in order to be a doctor implies the intention of helping others, that is all you can do with such knowledge. Studying philosphy is a choice made for self improvement. SELF improvement and understanding. If you want to live alone in the woods with all your philosophy, go for it. Speaking of which...

As Henry David Thoreau said, "Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes."

Static43

This is something I have seen several times here on the board in quotes so I am assuming it comes directly from Stef though I have not been able to find the original podcast that breaks this down. Regardless, I agree with this sentiment. My question is about other opinions I have heard/read here that seem to contradict this premise. I am hoping you can clarify these two examples for me:


1. FDR 920, The message I get from this podcast is that as a member of this intellectual community you have a responsibility to help spread the message. I am particularly confused by the refrain at the end: "It is not about you." But, if it is my right to choose any positive obligations then it is about me and my reason and my choice. As an aside I am not using this as an excuse to not spread the message, my facebook page (available to anyone, not just my friends) lists me as Atheist and Libertarian, I actively participate in several facebook groups and have invited others to join, everyone in my family knows my beliefs, etc. My question here really is about what seems to me a logical contradiction between the right to choose positive obligations and message that it is your responsibility to spread the message.


2. Blog: "My secret life as a black man..." The message here seems to be that it is everyones responsibility to disassociate from people who refuse to accept this conversation. My confusion again is basically the same as above. Where does this responsibility come from if I did not choose it? What if I think I gain in some other area of my life from associating with these people? What if I even think that these people might inadvertently help me spread the message to others even if they don't accept it themselves? For example, my mother despite many discussions I have had with her is still marginally religious and just cannot comprehend the arguments as to why the even the most benevolent state necessarily does damage. Yet, I think she is pretty harmless as far as spreading statism, and I think my life benefits in other ways from the relationship. Furthermore, even if I wouldn't associate with her otherwise, my relationship with her facilitates communication with other family members who have accepted the message.

If you could clarify this for me I would really appreciate it. I have gone back to the "Intro to Philosophy: Ethics" looking for an explanation, if this is laid out in one of the other podcasts let me know and I will check it out.

______________________________________________

Stefan Molyneux


Well, if you want to be honest, you have to tell the truth, right? No one can force you to be honest, but once you choose to be honest, there is a requirement to tell the truth.

You don't have to sign a contract, but once you do, you're bound by it.

Similarly, if you are a doctor it would be kind of bad to refuse to speak up when someone called for a doctor in an emergency. You cannot be forced to respond (or to become a doctor) but since you have chosen to become a healer, you should speak up.

You do not have to have kids, but once you do, you have to care for them or give them up.

You don't have to dissasociate from corrupt people, but if you do not, you are not living with integrity.

Does that help?

______________________________________________

ash


You don't have to do any of these things. Stef's position was that if you are in possesion of the knowledge and are able to help others but you neglect to, then it will probably have a negative personal impact. Have a listen to the obligations of doctors podcast (926)

______________________________________________

Static43


Stef I am not sure which statements you intend to have moral import. Here is how I am interpreting it, let me know where I am going wrong.

The statement "There are no unchosen positive obligations" has to be a moral statement, otherwise it doesn't make any sense. If it is not a moral statement then it means: unchosen positive obligations don't exist, which clearly is not true. An obligation to pay taxes is enforced against my choice. You could counter that I can refuse to pay taxes (and suffer the enforcement), but then you are just stating a tautology: "there are no positive obligations if you don't accept positive obligations" or more simply "there are no positive obligations if there are no positive obligation."

So I am starting from the premise that this is a moral statement. Moreover, it is a true moral statement as I will get to momently.

As I am interpreting your response, things like integrity don't have moral import. This makes sense as you explain in "Intro to Philosophy: Ethics, part 2 (theft argument): a positive moral obligation is nonsensical. In your example, if we propose theft as a moral imperative then we end up in an untenable situation where we are just constantly stealing back and forth, and if at any time we are not stealing (eating, telling other people to steal, debating morality, etc) then we are immoral. Likewise, telling the truth cannot be a moral imperative otherwise we would be obliged to constantly do nothing but tell the truth. Dissassociating from corrupt people cannot be a moral imperative otherwise we would be obliged to only associate with those who had the full complete truth, which none of us has.

Therefore I come to the conclusion that your message is "there are no positive moral obligations but you are generally better off following this program." This is what derives from my analysis above, but it sure seems like you are making a stronger claim than this. Also, this contradicts the refrain "Its not all about you." If the appeal is to making the reader better off (as Ash also asserts) then it is "all about you (the reader)."

What am I missing? I really appreciate your response.

______________________________________________

Free Radical

Stefan Molyneux wrote:

You don't have to dissasociate from corrupt people, but if you do not, you are not living with integrity.

Which is why you do have to disassociate from them; because morality mandates it. What other authority would you be talking about?

Is my voluntary signature required?
Is my signature considered voluntary if done under "persuasion"?
Bottom line: my signature doesn't signify anything...even when I mean it to!

______________________________________________

bockman


Here is my (beginner's) understanding of it: Ethical behavior is always optional (thus, the 'no unchosen positive obligations' statement).

If you choose to live ethically, then certain actions are therefore binding upon you (as well as many 'non-actions', such as not raping, not stealing, not murdering).

Dave

______________________________________________

Mr. C

Static43 wrote:

Also, this contradicts the refrain "Its not all about you." If the appeal is to making the reader better off (as Ash also asserts) then it is "all about you (the reader)."

If you refuse to help others, you won't feel quite as good. Do you agree with that ?

______________________________________________

Nathan


Would eating and drinking water be an unchosen positive obligation? I could choose not to do either but I would be driven by my biology to eat after a few days and drink water after about 24 hours.

It's interesting to me how little Nathan or Mr. C actually understand the arguments they are parroting. If they did, they'd see the obvious contradictions and ask for clarification. They're not in it for truth, though. They're in it for the validation, for Stef's approval.

Also, it's funny to me how Stef and the FDRbots almost always use the most inflamitory examples, like gang rape, the KKK, Nazi's, etc. in order to generate the strongest emotional reactions, hardlt seems necessary when the argument's logic should speak for itself, right?

the guy makes all the right points and is one of the very few who have made explicit the step that Stef tries to 'smuggle into' his framework (that one has to help spread the word if one wants to live with integrity).

I wonder what Stef, Nathan and the others are feeling or thinking now: I mean, there is no way for them to get around this, yet it is a completely fundamental issue, so what will they do?

i think #4, but in a combination with something else though i have no idea what

you are aware that this is all very Heisenbergian, what with the predicting and the influencing and the perceiving and what not

For pointing out Cultishstew's irrationality my account has been deactivated. In addition my signature and avatar have been wiped.

yeah, but you had been sort of banned before right? it was just that you account hadnt been deactivated yet, but you were asked not to post anymore

Correct.
But hey, at least the High Priest of Irrationality is practicing what he preaches, ie. "living with integrity" by "disassociating from a corrupt person."