As far as I understand Stefan Molyneux's theory of UPB (Universally Preferable Behaviour), behaviours / actions are always either good or bad, right or wrong, regardless of the context.

I may be wrong - please correct me someone if that is not the case. I have listened to very few of Molyneux's podcasts but gave one a go today having been referred to it by another website. It is podcast number 1394 'Self Attack through Fog'

In this podcast, Molyneux says something along the lines of 'why would parents leave a child crying?' he waits for a response from the emotional youngster, and when none is forthcoming he answers it himself saying 'for power, control, sadistic pleasure and humiliation'

A couple of sentences later Molyneux says 'Christina and I are sleep training isobel and we're having to leave her crying'

Can anyone with a better knowledge of UPB (i.e anything resembling understanding) tell me how these two utterances fit into the theory without either a) disproving it or b) saying that Molyneux leaves his daughter crying becasue he enjoys power, control, sadistic pleasure and humiliation?

UPB says that you can't posit a moral rule that applies to some people but not others. The UPB methodology that FDR uses focuses specifically on these moral rules, with morality being defined as the subset of ethics that deals specifically with the infliction of violence. It is debatable whether leaving a child crying qualifies as inflicting violence. So I don't think they'd consider such an action in terms of good/evil. Not that I'd put it past Stefan to frame it as such if it suited his purposes. I'd also say it's true that they use UPB in a broader context when it suits their purposes.

There was actually a thread a while ago about the sleep training. I believe it was in the donator section, and I can't remember the details, but if I recall correctly, a concerned listener made a long post with a lot of information about the potential effects of such a technique, which Stefan dismissed without much discussion.

Whether of not they chose the right technique for Isabella, I don't know. This certainly does demonstrate the need for Stefan to be a lot less hasty to draw conclusions about the intentions of people he doesn't know, however.

You've picked up on one of my fundamental frustrations with FDR. They are not rigorous in their application of judgements/etc. Stefan and anyone on "his side" (as determined by him and those in his good books) are not judged by the same incredibly critical standards they apply to everyone else.

I caught this contradiction too and am quite puzzled. But I was further puzzled when Molyneux said that Izzy would be going to preschool next year. That started my head spinning. Seriously spinning.

I was enthusiastic about him saying that he (and Christina) could be with the child(ren) so that their good values could be transferred to them. So I had to do a double take when he said Izzy was going to preschool.

This is so contradictory to what he has been preaching that I am having a hard time making sense of this. Is it ok for the Molyneuxs to send their child to preschool but it's not ok for all the defoo'd parents to have sent their children to preschool?

I would welcome any and all responses to these question because I am really having trouble with this.

The Molyneux family is sending the child to the right preschool for the right reason, so it's OK.

Ok, that's great. How did they determine that the preschool is 'right'? Just asking so the rest of us have a guideline.

I'm glad to hear it. As far as I'm aware, the current consensus is that children do much of their learning from their peers. I don't think it is possible to develop optimally without a huge amount of interaction with peers. In my mind, depriving Isabella of that opportunity on philosophical principle would be negligent bordering on abusive.

Of course, as positive as this interaction can be, it can also be negative if a child ends up in a "bad" peer group. I hope for Isabella's sake that they found her a supportive preschool, and that she is lucky enough to get a great teacher and group of classmates. If there are issues with her peer group, having a strong relationship with her parents, so that she feels comfortable telling them about negative experiences she has, will be a huge mitigating factor.

As for the philosophical principle I mentioned above, there are two lines of argument that I can think of, and I'm not familiar enough with Stefan's position to know which one he uses.

The first is that state schools are bad because they are prone to underfunding, overcrowding, curricula and testing issues, teachers of questionable ability, etc, etc. A private school in a free market would solve these issues.

The second is that children shouldn't attend school at all -- at least not schools as we know them today. That children should learn through their own natural curiosity, rather than receiving curriculum-based instruction in a classroom setting.

In any case, I don't think either argument applies for a child of Isabella's age. Being non-mandatory, preschool is less structured than high school or even elementary school. There's such a wide variety of preschools, as well. We really can't make any assumptions about the preschool Isabella will attend. To me it's all about learning how to interact with peers, and being exposed to a wide range of people, cultures, etc. I don't think Stefan would claim that he could do a better job of this than a preschool. There's only so much you can learn from wandering around a mall, and they can do that outside of school hours, in any case. I think there are also benefits to spending time apart from one's parents.

Hopefully, when Isabella reaches a more rational age and the arguments against state schools start to come into play, they will discuss the options with her, allowing her to experiment and make the ultimate decision, rather than forcing her down some path on principle.

Anyway, if this is indeed a break from Stefan's previously-stated philosophical principles, I think it's a very good sign that he's putting his daughter's well-being ahead of his own pride.

I put up a couple of posts on this general subject matter in response to a Moly rant on the Tiger Mom, his generalized insult to musicians, and his psycho drama on how an adult child might treat an elderly parent.

Also discussed his never ending confusion of cognitive deveopment with the teaching of self-discipline.

www.molyneuxrevealed.com