Freedomain Radio

I've noticed that some forms of universally preferable behavior are universally preferable because they are the only valid means to an end. For example logic and consistency are UPB because they are the only means to achieve valid knowledge. Using a common language between two people is universally preferable if one desires to communicate effectively.

So logic, consistency, and understandable language are UPB to achieve knowledge and communication, but ¿what is the end that morality achieves? is there any?

Those things are universally preferable because they are the only means to achieve a very specific end: convincing those who hold to UPB that they are wrong.  If the doubters don't prefer those in their actions, they won't be very convincing at all.

People have a natural desire to be virtuous.  Morality satisfies that.

Well, reason = virtue = happiness...

Mr. C:

People have a natural desire to be virtuous.  Morality satisfies that.

Stefan Molyneux:

Well, reason = virtue = happiness...

Duh..., that was simple and intuitive.
Is there any way to prove it, not empirically but logically?

Why yes, you might want to take a glance below my sig...

I already have the book. I'm in the middle. 

I didn't mean UPB, but the idea that is not possible to be happy without UPB.

I believe that but not based on any logical arguments. 

Ah, that is part of the book I am finishing up at the moment.

Right, I'm waiting for that one.

 

Well, I haven't read the book but this is my answer on why morality is necessary for happiness.

To be happy you need to have healthy relationships with others.  This ranges from the simplest retail purchase all the way to marriage. 

For buying a sandwich at Subway, it is required is that you, the cashier, and the owner agree on some basic property rights.  Imagine trying to buy a sandwich from someone who believed they had a right to your money, but you deserved nothing in return.  Would they make you a good sandwich?  Would you ever give them money again?  Similarly, imagine forcing someone to make a sandwich at gunpoint.  Would they make you a good sandwich?  Could you even eat it without fearing that they would spit in it or poison you?

Even for such a simple relationship to work, people have to deal as equals under a common framework.  If it is impossible to even buy a sandwich without subscribing to a small portion of UPB, how much more morality is required to have a friendship or marriage that works.  Not only do you have to agree not to use coercion, you also have to agree to honesty, openness, etc.
 

Stefan Molyneux:

Ah, that is part of the book I am finishing up at the moment.

are you thinking: aarrggghh, can't keep up with them, they snatch it from my hands before it is finished.

I agree, but I don't think that's the whole answer.

For example I could have some relationships where I follow UPB, and some where I don't.
In my more intimate and important relationships I would follow UPB, but then I could have shoplifting as a hobby.
If I could be happy in that scenario, total alliance to UPB wouldn't be necessary for happiness.

dude:

I agree, but I don't think that's the whole answer.

For example I could have some relationships where I follow UPB, and some where I don't.
In my more intimate and important relationships I would follow UPB, but then I could have shoplifting as a hobby.
If I could be happy in that scenario, total alliance to UPB wouldn't be necessary for happiness.

How shoplifting will make you happy?

Another point that answers the shoplifting question is that fundamental conflicts with other human beings aren't healthy.  This refers to conflicts which are not within a larger frame of agreement.  For instance, we can debate philosophy because we all believe rationality is good.  However there is no common standard between a shoplifter and proprietor.

 However, this argument is not as strong as the flip side.  This is because conflicts are bad.  However, I cannot prove they are supremely bad.  The proceeds of crime, such as money, are good to have.  I find myself unable to prove that the downside will always outweigh the upside of crime.  In fact, I suspect it cannot be done.  Suppose you could acquire several million dollars, untraceable, with the same difficulty as stealing a garden gnome from someone's yard?

As I argue in the UPB book, individual criminals are not any sort of real danger, compared to governments, religions and bad families.

The only real risk we face is false moral theories that justify taxation, imprisonment and wars, not shoplifters...