I have the distinct feeling that I’m going to aggravate a few Molyneux fans with this
video, but despite the fact that I enjoy a lot of Molyneux’s work, a flawed argument
is a flawed argument, and hence, this is Universally Preferable Behaviour – Debunked.
Throughout history there have been many attempts to prove that objective moral values exist, and of
course, most of these attempts have been via the Divine Command Theory of countless religions,
but there have also been some attempts by those who don’t subscribe to the supernatural,
and Molyneux’s Universally Preferable Behaviour, otherwise known as UPB, is one of them. So,
for those of you who’re unaware or in need of a recap, UPB is, to those who accept it,
the definitive answer to all moral questions, and it alone can tell us what is really right
and really wrong… it can tell us what we ought to value. Hence, if true, it’s a very
big deal – it’s the answer that has avoided humanity’s greatest minds for thousands
of years, and yet Molyneux has found it - the cure to ethical cancer. Now the syllogistic
form of Molyneux’s UPB is fairly lengthy, containing many premises that are, in my opinion,
not necessarily needed, but I do appreciate that they are indeed very useful for refreshing
language and clarifying definitions, and so if you’d like to see the whole argument
then here it is on screen, and I’ve also linked to it in the description. However,
for the purpose of this video, I’m going to focus on the sixth, seventh and eighth
premises, because that’s where the crux of the argument lays… and it goes as follows:
“Preferences” are required for life, thought, language and debating. Debating requires that
both parties hold “truth” to be both objective and universally preferable. Thus the very
act of debating contains an acceptance of universally preferable behaviour (UPB). From
here, Molyneux goes on to assert that because the very act of debating requires acceptance
of UPB – that is, because premise seven is valid, the only question to be asked is
how theories regarding UPB can be declared as true… which, to be fair, is a legitimate
question if only the seventh premise is valid… but it’s not – and I’ll explain why
shortly. Before that, I want point out that to his credit, Molyneux both recognises and
appreciates that premise seven is both the most important and contentious of his argument,
and so he graciously offers us “Five Proofs of UPB” in the attempt to substantiate it
– and it’s these proofs that I’m going to debunk in this video, because, it is these
proofs that the proponents of UPB predominantly refer to when attempting to justify this premise.
So, to get straight to it, the first proof that Molyneux offers is the assertion that,
“if I argue against the proposition that universally preferable behaviour is valid,
I have already shown my preference for truth over falsehood – as well as a preference
for correcting those who speak falsely. Saying that there is no such thing as universally
preferable behaviour is like shouting in someone’s ear that sound does not exist – it is innately
self-contradictory.” And the syllogistic rendition that he provides us with goes as
follows: The proposition is: the concept “universally preferable behaviour” must be valid. Arguing
against the validity of universally preferable behaviour demonstrates universally preferable
behaviour. Therefore no argument against the validity of universally preferable behaviour
can be valid. So what exactly is wrong with Molyneux’s first proof? Well, to but it
bluntly, premise two is simply incorrect. It’s a False Premise. If I state a preference
for truth over falsehood when debating UPB, this does not mean that I have a preference
for truth over falsehood in all things. For example, if there was a scenario in which
I had to choose between knowing the truth but permanently diminishing the wellbeing
of organisms, or not knowing the truth but permanently improving the wellbeing of organisms,
I would choose the latter every time – I would choose falsehood over truth because
I value wellbeing over truth. Furthermore, and to quote Common Sense Atheism’s review
of UPB, of which I have linked to in the description and highly recommend, “even if I did have
a preference for truth over falsehood, it would not be a universal preference, because
many other people do not share my preference for truth over falsehood.” To illustrate
this through another example, while I might value truth over falsehood when it comes to
the question of if we will be reunited with our deceased loved ones when we die, another
person may value falsehood over truth as a result of them valuing comfort over truth.
The point being is that we all value concepts such as truth, wellbeing and comfort differently
to one another, and it’s only when we have a conflict of preferences – that is, a choice
between one preference or another – that the subjectivity of our preferences and values
is explicitly exposed… For me, wellbeing trumps all other values, for you, it might
be truth, comfort, or something else entirely, but what is for sure, is that what we value
personally is not universal. What’s more, and to again quote Common Sense Atheism’s
review, “Molyneux seems to be saying that objective moral values exist because we have
the opinion that moral values exist, which is not the same as demonstrating that moral
values really exist”… Even if everybody in all circumstances, in all places and at
all times asserted that the moon was made of cheese, this wouldn’t make it so… Hence,
Molyneux’s first proof is invalid because its second premise is simply incorrect; it’s
a crocked foundation; a False Premise. The second proof that Molyneux offers is the following:
All organisms require universally preferred behaviour to live. Man is a living organism.
Therefore all living men are alive due to the practice of universally preferred behaviour.
Therefore any argument against universally preferable behaviour requires an acceptance
and practice of universally preferred behaviour. Therefore no argument against the existence
of universally preferable behaviour can be valid. So, where to start? Well, premise one
is Begging the Question, because the conclusion of the argument is implicitly included within
the premise, making the entire argument circular. Absent the fluff, the premise is implicitly
asserting that because all living organisms require UPB to live, all living organisms
can’t argue against UPB because they are alive… which, again, is profoundly circular.
To illustrate this further, here’s a comparison with another Begging the Question fallacy:
Steve asks: "How do you know that the bible is divinely inspired?" William responds: "Because
it says so in the third chapter of II Timothy that 'all scripture is given by divine inspiration
of God.'" Steve asks: “How do you know that all organisms require UPB to live?” Stefan
responds: “Because organisms are alive because they practice UPB”… Hence, premise one
is Begging the Question, and consequently, premise three, four and five are unsubstantiated…
Furthermore, notice that premise three states “practice of UPB”, but premise four states
“acceptance and practice of UPB”… again, I don’t dislike Molyneux, but really? Really?
Moving on, let’s take on proof number three: For a scientific theory to be valid, it must
be supported by empirical observation. If the concept of “universally preferable behaviour”
is valid, then mankind should believe in universally preferable behaviour. All men believe in universally
preferable behaviour. Therefore empirical evidence exists to support the validity of
universally preferable behaviour – and the existence of such evidence opposes the proposition
that universally preferable behaviour is not valid. Starting with premise two, we have
another Begging the Question fallacy, as it literally includes the conclusion of the argument
within it... in fact, it’s as circular as saying “if the bible is valid then mankind
should believe in the bible”… it’s a ridiculous premise. And while we're on the
topic of ridiculous premises, what on earth is going with premise three? Even if all men
practiced UPB (which they don't), the claim that all men believe in UPB is just wrong...
it’s that simple; it's just factually and demonstrably wrong – a False Premise. I
don't believe in UPB, therefore not all men believe in UPB. And as for premise four, if
stated simply, it is asserting that because there is some evidence that suggests that
UPB valid, UPB is therefore valid... which is just bizarre… and it’s another False
Premise! It holds as much validity as stating that because there is some evidence for Hinduism,
Hinduism must be true... And what's more, and to once again quote Common Sense Atheism,
"none of these statements follow from any of the others! It's like reading a book that
says: For Tyler Cowen to be right about the economy, he must have evidence. If theism
is true, it is immoral to be unaware that gods exist. Every culture has believed in
gods. Therefore, all milk is nervous. What about proof four? How does it fair? Well,
it goes as follows: Choices are almost infinite. Most human beings make very similar choices.
Therefore not all choices can be equal. Therefore universally preferable choices must be valid.
You know, it’s strange, because Molyneux is a very articulate and educated person,
but when it comes to syllogistic arguments he’s just… awful. For starters, premise
one – the claim that choices are almost infinite, can only be considered true if every
micro-variation of every choice is defined as its own choice. For example, if someone
offered you either an apple or an orange, you would have several choices available to
you; to name but a few, you could take the apple, take the orange, take neither, impolitely
take both, etc. You would have many choices, but you would not have an almost infinite
amount of choices. Unless, and here is where the pedantic variations come in, you define
every variation of every choice as its own choice – such as waiting two seconds to
take the orange, or waiting two-point-one seconds to take the orange, or waiting two-point-two
seconds to the orange, and so on and so forth. Furthermore, the very idea that we have “choice”
requires the implicit acceptance of libertarian free will (and with that, the rejection of
hard determinism), which, sorry folks, the evidence doesn’t support… but let’s
not get into that here – it’s not necessary. Moving on, in premise three, the word “equal”
is critically ambiguous – causing the argument to commit an Ambiguity Fallacy. What does
Molyneux mean by “equal”? Does he mean popular? If so, why would that mater? Throughout
history misogyny and racism has been incredibly popular, but that doesn’t mean they’re
somehow right or valid. And as for premise four, stated simply, it doesn’t follow from
the other three premises. The fact that humans make similar choices doesn’t prove that
certain choices are universally objective… And finally, we get to Molyneux’s fifth
proof, and it goes as follows: Organisms succeed by acting upon universally preferable behaviour.
Man is the most successful organism. Therefore man must have acted most successfully on the
basis of universally preferable behaviour. Man’s mind is his most distinctive organ.
Therefore man’s mind must have acted most successfully on the basis of universally preferable
behaviour. Therefore universally preferable behaviour must be valid. Where to start? Premise
one is again Begging the Question… in fact, it’s almost identical to the Second Proof’s
first premise – that “all organisms require universally preferred behaviour to live”,
and it carries all of the same problems. As for premise two - the assertion that man is
the most successful species, this is just childishly absurd... because it's Arbitrarily
Assigning Significance. What exactly are humans the most successful at? It's not neck length,
because the giraffe is more successful than us in this area, it's not population, because
ants are more successful than us in this area, it's not age, because arctic whales are more
successful than us in this area, and it's not reproduction, because rabbits are more
successful than us in this area… So what is it? Brainpower? How arbitrary… why should
we accept that success is defined by how much brainpower an organism has? This isn’t just
taking the biscuit; it’s taken the whole damn jar! Now of course, to state a caveat
that I add to a lot of my videos – the flaws and fallacies that I’ve risen throughout
this video are not exhaustive – there are many more. But, the one’s that I’ve risen
are more enough to completely invalidate Molyneux’s Five Proofs of UPB, and, by extension, UPB
entirely. So, to recap: The First Proof is flawed because: Premise two is a False Premise.
The Second Proof is flawed because: Premise one is Begging the Question, and; Premise
four unjustifiably smuggles in the word “acceptance”. The Third Proof is flawed because: Premise
two is Begging the Question; Premise three is a False Premise, and; Premise four is a
False Premise. The Fourth Proof is flawed because: Premise one is either pedantic or
a False Premise; Premise three commits an Ambiguity Fallacy, and; Premise four is a
Non Sequitur. And finally (thanks for sticking around people!), the Fifth Proof is flawed
because: Premise one is Begging the Question, and; Premise two is Arbitrarily Assigning
Significance. Anyhow, as always, thank you kindly for the view, and here’s an overwhelmingly
powerful argument to consider: Organisms require a subscription to Rationality Rules to live.
You are alive. Therefore you are alive because you are subscribed to Rationality Rules.